Department of informatics Magister thesis, 15 hp
Human Computer Interaction & Social Media SPM 2020.06
Living your life through
technology
A qualitative study about technology
usage during a global pandemic
1
Abstract
Social isolation is one of the main challenges for distance students. In the situation of covid-19, on-campus university students in Sweden are faced with the same challenge, since they have been required to study elsewhere as Universities are closed for students. We asked in what way students use technology during covid-19, and which role technology has for university students. The answers to these questions are important to be able to design and implement better technology for communication and collaboration across distances. To study this, we conducted qualitative interviews and a questionnaire with university students normally studying at campus. Our findings show that university students use a variety of technologies during covid-19 to socialize, work and study, and entertain themselves. We contribute with information about which online services, functions, and hardware are seen
as most important. F a , d a ab c
students during covid-19, such as something used to maintain your social life, studies, for entertainment and to combat boredom.
Keywords: Covid-19, Technology, Social isolation, Social distance, Students, Informal
meetings, CSCW
1. Introduction
Do you believe that technology helps or prevents people to connect in their social relationships? Answers to this question might differ between a lot of people and could cause ongoing discussions. What has been shown by previous research though, is that even the presence of a mobile phone can interfere with relationships and distract people from connecting with each other (Biswas-Diener, 2020). However, many other studies have shown that technologies allow for people to build and maintain their relationships, as they become able to exchange social information with others, no matter the distance (Matook, Cummings & Bala, 2015; Park, Kim, Lee, Yoo, Jeong & Cha, 2015; Khosravi, Rezvani & Wiewiora, 2016; Baecker, Sellen, Crosskey, Boscart & Barbosa Neves, 2014).
In the end of the year 2019, a new coronavirus was discovered in China causing an extreme pandemic all over the world, with the official name covid-19 (Folkhälsomyndigheten, 2020b). According to the World Health Organization (2020), as of April 17, 2020, the number of reported confirmed cases of covid-19, globally, exceeded 2 million. To prevent the spread of the virus, Folkhälsomyndigheten (The Public Health Agency of Sweden) advice all to take responsibility and distance themselves from others, for example by staying at home, keeping your distance to others, both inside and outside, and at public places. It is advised to avoid events where gatherings of many people might occur and avoid traveling if it is not necessary (Folkhälsomyndigheten 2020a).
2
vulnerability to depression or other physical health problems (Biswas-Diener, 2020). With this in mind, we found it important to explore how individuals use technology during covid-19 and which role the technology has in this situation.
To combat social isolation, technologies can act as a helpful tool, for example social media and other online platforms (Park et al. 2015; Pittman & Reich, 2016). Different technologies further allow for communication and collaborations in working contexts (Computer Supported Cooperative Work, CSCW) (Grudin, 1991), helps to reduce feelings of social isolation among unemployed individuals, and makes distance students feel more connected to one another (Croft, Dalton & Grant, 2010). Several studies have focused on seniors and how technology might contribute and act as a helpful tool among them (Sidner, Bickmore, Nooraie, Rich, Ring, Shayganfar & Vardoulakis, 2018; Chen & Schulz, 2016; Khosravi et al., 2016; Baecker et al., 2014).
In the situation of covid-19, more people are affected by social isolation. For example, campuses closed down, so that teaching and examination is performed on distance (Umeå Universitet, 2020; Lunds Universitet, 2020; Linköping Universitet, 2020). These measure that have been taken, creates a unique opportunity to study technology and social isolation from the perspective of university students who normally study at campus. To study technology and social isolation, we have formulated two research questions. Answering these questions is important for understanding how technology is used during the pandemic by university students, which role it has, and how it could be used in other types of social isolation in society.
1.1 Purpose
The purpose of this study is to provide insights into how technology is used and which role it has during a global pandemic.
1.2 Research Question
How does university students use technology during covid-19?
Which role does technology have for university students during covid-19?
3
2. Related Research
The structure of related research will be presented as followed: research on 1) social isolation, 2) how work, studies and socializing have been managed across distances through technology, 3) what challenges might occur in these contexts, and 4) which technological solutions have been used to meet these challenges.
2.1 Social Distancing & Social Isolation
To handle pandemics, researchers describe social distancing as an effective way to halt the spread of disease. Social distancing as a concept is explained as minimizing social contact with other humans to stop the spread of a disease, and is often talked about in terms of closing schools, working from home etc. (Glass, Glass, Beyeler, Min, 2006; Andradóttir, Chiu, Goldsman, Lee, Tsui, Fisman & Nizam, 2010). One of the main side effects from social distancing is social isolation. Social isolation and loneliness are concepts that strongly relate to one another, and they are described as global problems (Yanguas, 2018).
2.1.1 Objective & Subjective Social Isolation
Social isolation can be divided in two different types - objective social isolation and subjective social isolation. Objective social isolation refers when a person has infrequent contact or interactions with others. Subjective social isolation instead relates to the absence feelings of closeness that one has with others. In this type of social isolation, a person feels as if they are socially isolated, for example by perceiving that they do not have anyone to confide or share personal feelings with (Taylor, Taylor, Nguyen & Chatters, 2018).
Other researchers (Cacioppo, Hawkley, Norman & Berntson, 2011) follow the argument that subjective social isolation have a stronger correlation with damaging outcomes for one s well-being, than objective social isolation. Further, the quality of our social interactions also seems to have greater influence than the quantity of those interactions, when it comes to subjective social isolation. In everyday speech, subjective social isolation is often referred to as loneliness. The social pain connected with loneliness or social isolation is meant to signal to ourselves that our social connections to others are weakening and that we need to repair or get new social connections to replace these (Cacioppo et al. 2011).
As this study focuses on the usage and role of technology during social isolation, when social isolation is mentioned in the thesis, it will refer to subjective social isolation as it is a better fit for this study.
Social isolation is a circumstance that can be important to keep in mind, since we today work, collaborate and communicate across distances with technology more than ever.
2.2 Communication, Collaboration & Socializing Across
Distances
Ever since the internet became something that companies and organizations use, there has been an aspiration to use digital technology to communicate and cooperative (Grudin, 1991).
2.2.1 Computer Supported Cooperative Work
4
One example of research within one area of CSCW has focused on whether people collaborate less efficiently if they are working with someone on a distance, such as in another city (Bradner & Mark, 2002). One other subject that CSCW has looked at is video conferencing and how to create collaborative workspaces with technology etc. Research has been focused on allowing us to collaborate more effectively and often across distances (Grudin, 1991; Corporaal, Ferguson, de Gilder & Groenewegen, 2014; Markham & Belkasim 2011).
The potential that internet and technology brought to cooperation and collaboration in workplaces, have later been applied to various educations, leading to distance education.
2.2.2 Distance education
Distance learning and distance education has become very popular in recent years (SazmandAsfaranjan, Shirzad, Baradari, Salimi & Salehi, 2013). Distance learning is a process, in which the tutor and student are separated, both in space and time. Moreover, the term infers that students are studying off-campus (Croft et al., 2010). With technologies such as smartphones, tablets and laptops, face-to-face learning can be replaced by online learning methods (SazmandAsfaranjan et al., 2013), where course materials are placed online, available to the student from home. In distance education, the technology therefore is of great importance for the students experiences. Distance education allows for flexibility, accessibility (Stürmer, Ihme, Fisseler, Sonnenberg, & Barbarino, 2018), and opens up for the possibilities of people taking a course or enrolling a program, who might not have had the opportunity before, perhaps due to geographic location, family caring needs or certain time aspects (Croft et al., 2010). Distance and online learning can take the form of Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs), available for anyone with access to the internet and differs somewhat to other online educations (Collazos, González & García, 2014). For example, MOOCs often have a social network component so that students can engage in social activities such as friending, liking and making posts on the platform. Also, MOOCs balances real-time learning activities with learning activities that can be done at any time (Collazos et al., 2014).
Distance students might be separated geographically, and similarly, friends and families can live in different locations around the world, where social networks, such as Facebook, Instagram and Snapchat can be used to keep in contact with these people.
2.2.3 Social Networks Across Distances
Park et al. (2015) argued that online social networks of different kinds can help to maintain one s offline relationships better. This is relevant especially for individuals with low self-esteem or if you live far away, geographically from your friends and family. Being active and posting updates in the online world is thought able to decrease loneliness among depressed users in the offline world (Park et al., 2015).
5
2.3 Challenges with Technology Across Distance
Although technology has provided ways for communication, collaboration and socializing over the internet, some challenges have arisen in relation to these ways of using technology.
2.3.1 Informal Meetings in Work Environments
Spontaneous meetings and informal conversations are very common within offices. These activities have characteristics such as being unscheduled, between random participants at the workplace and with a random agenda. One challenge with collaborating across distances is to get these types of conversations and therefore, also the same quality of work environment that we get in the shared office (Scholl, Mccarthy & Harr, 2006; Fish, Kraut & Chalfonte, 1990; Fish, Kraut, Root & Rice 1992; Bly, Harrison & Harrison, 1993; Ackerman, Starr, Hindus & Mainwaring, 1997).
More research has focused on how to allow or recreate informal communication for individuals working together virtually across distances, using technology (Fish et al., 1990). Informal communication can be seen as a crucial part of the workplace and therefore necessary to recreate with the help of technology (Scholl et al., 2006; Fish et al., 1990). Technology lacks when it comes to supporting spontaneous meetings and informal communication, such as bumping into a colleague in the coffee room. Informal communication is a great way to make workers feel happy and enjoy their colleagues company. According to Fish et al. (1990) informal interactions need co-presence to occur, people need an environment that brings them together and that forces them to be in the same place at the same time. In real life, this place can be a lunchroom or something similar, but via technology it is harder to recreate this. Fish et al. (1990) also argue that the cost in terms of effort for the communication through technology needs to be low. Further it is explained that there needs to be a visual channel, seeing people is considered important for informal communication to occur (Fish et al., 1990). As distance students study off-campus, they face the similar challenges that workers do, such as not being able to have informal meetings or conversations with peers.
2.3.2 Studying at a Distance
According to Croft et al., (2010), distance students must also have high levels of motivation, be able to self-discipline, plan and organize, and manage their time. Traditional students attend lectures physically, and through the social engagement one achieves from this, motivation could arise (Croft et al., 2010). Distance students might have greater difficulty in finding this motivation for their studies, when they have no or very little contact with other students, staff or the university (Croft et al., 2010). According to Stürmer et al. (2018), having social connections between distance students is of great importance, since it leads to both positive social and educational outcomes.
6
are limited to playing videos, sending announcements and hosting plain discussion forums (Zheng, Rosson, C. Shih & M. Carroll, 2015). Currently, the interfaces of MOOCs do not allow real-time interactions and collaboration between students. Although MOOCs often have a social network component (Collazos et al., 2014), they have shown to provide little support for social activities. These problems have, like social isolation for distance students, contributed to a high drop-out rate in MOOCs (Zheng et al., 2015).
2.3.3 Socializing Online
Researchers stated (Favotto, Michaelson, Pickett, Davison & Mazza 2019) that there are pros of Computer-mediated-communication (CMC) as it can help to maintain communication and expand your social circles when you cannot meet physically. Although, some evidence say that the use of CMC has negative influences on the one using it, in terms of reducing social support and the quality of relationships. One study showed that increased social media usage by young adults in America lead to increased feelings of perceived social isolation (Primack, Shensa, Sidani, Whaite, Lin, Rosen, Colditz, Radovic & Miller, 2017). Negative experiences when using social media, has also been shown to strongly associate with increased feelings of social isolation (Primack, Karim, Shensa, Bowman, Knight & Sidani, 2019). Although, another study done with individuals aged 40 or higher in Germany shows that daily users of social media sites experience less feelings of perceived social isolation (Hajek & König, 2019).
On the other hand, other research say that online social networks decrease the well-being for young adults when their online activities are more frequent (Park et al. 2015). For example, consumption of a lot of content, where the user becomes an observer of other people online, loneliness might increase (Burke, Marlow & Lento, 2010). Envy has been presented as a common negative consequence from following and consuming the contents of others on social media (Krasnova, Wenninger, Widjaja & Buxmann, 2013). In this study, content that showcased travel and leisure, social interaction with others, and happiness, was high in generating envy, and thereby lead to lower life satisfaction due to engaging in social comparison (Krasnova et al., 2013).
Technology and internet use have also been discussed in relation to social isolation from unemployment (Feuls, Fieseler, Meckel & Suphan, 2016). Researchers argue that losing your job also means a loss of social structure and social participation. To make use of the internet to recover the social structures that you lose when becoming unemployed it is important to have the motivations and skills needed to make use of the internet. If you do not have the skills or motivation needed to make use of the internet's social functions, that can be a problem (Feuls, et al., 2016).
Although, there are solutions to aid some of the challenges that have been presented.
2.4 Technological Solutions for Social Isolation
7
2.4.1 Technological Solutions for Working Across Distances
One of the ways that researchers have tried to combat the challenges of achieving informal meetings, is through the use of media spaces. The purpose of media spaces is to support collaborative work. It is defined as, by Bly et al. (1993):
An electronic setting in which groups of people can work together, even when they are not resident in the same place or present at the same time. In a media space, people can create real time visual and acoustic environments that span physically separate areas. They can also control their recording, accessing and replaying of images and sounds from those environments. (Bly et al., 1993 p. 30)
One of the problems media spaces is trying to solve is disappearing informal meetings when collaborating and working across distances (Ackerman et al., 1997). Scholl et al. (2006) tested different technologies in a distance work environment and came to the conclusion that having ongoing video conferencing throughout the workday is good for supporting informal communication between workers. Video conferencing had the advantages of giving a rich indication of presence, allowing colleagues to see what others are doing, is someone busy, is someone reading or typing something. Video conferencing also allows good expression of emotional reactions (Scholl et al., 2006).
Fish et al. (1990) tested having an always-on screen with persistent audio and video that connected two physically separated office buildings to support informal communication between workers. The study showed that it was too easy to ignore each other on the always-on-screen, and the technology must be easy to use and problem free, otherwise the usage was too high cost in terms of effort required. Persistency of audio and video is related to media spaces, which Bly et al. (1993) created at Xerox Palo Alto Research Center (PARC), where people were allowed to be together.
2.4.2 Reducing Social Isolation for Distanced Students
8
As being a distance student might make it more difficult to connect socially with your fellow students, a virtual fast-friendship-procedure was developed (Stürmer et al., 2018), where university distance students got paired together to get to know each other. The findings showed that the fast-friendship-procedure increased the interpersonal liking among participants and the feeling of social integration (Stürmer et al., 2018).
2.4.3 Technology Solutions in Social Contexts
Khosravi et al. (2016) found that various technologies can reduce social isolation among seniors. General internet communication technology (ICT) use, such as the internet and email, provided new ways of communication (Khosravi et al., 2016) and could thereby foster social support from their acquaintances among seniors and lower the levels of loneliness (Chen & Schulz, 2016). Further, social network sites (SNSs) allowed seniors to build and continue social relationships, which showed to reduce loneliness (Khosravi et al., 2016).
Technologies for giving the elderly company have also been developed. For example, a pet robot could reduce loneliness and social isolation, while a conversational agent might enable seniors to connect with family and friends (Khosravi et al., 2016). Social and assistive robots have also been developed for similar purposes, such as in hospitals where patients might experience social isolation during their time there (Sarabia, Young, Canavan, Edginton, Demiris, & Vizcaychipi, 2018). The findings from this study showed that most participants thought the robot could be useful (Sarabia et al., 2018).
In a study by Feuls et al. (2016), participants had different experiences regarding internet use during their unemployment. This was often unrelated to material access or digital skills but related to motivations of using internet during this social isolation. The researchers state that it could reduce the amount of real-life connections we make, which increases loneliness and depression. Though, the internet can also provide tools for communication, finding information and gaining knowledge, and engaging in online communities and in this way, the internet can be a tool to reduce the feeling of social isolation for unemployed individuals (Feuls et al., 2016). Their findings showed that some individuals used the internet as a tool for the purpose of overcoming unemployment and saw their internet use as working, in order to reach that goal. Others used the internet as a facilitator for social life and as a tool for social use (Feuls et al., 2016).
2.5 Summary of related research
9
3. Method
In this section, we will present how the study has been conducted.
3.1 Methodological approach
In accordance to Mason (2002), a qualitative approach is appropriate and practicable when one wishes to retrieve information about a social reality. Within the qualitative approach, knowledge is viewed as situational, where specific experiences are of interest. You then focus on certain events or situations in the lives of the people that is part of the study (Mason, 2002). A qualitative approach therefore suits us, as we hope to receive information about participants technology use in this specific situation of social isolation relating to covid-19. Questionnaires might provide information about what kind of technology that people use, although the qualitative semi-structured interviews can also give insights to technology s role in their lives. This study could have used a quantitative method for data collection, but instead a questionnaire was used in combination with qualitative interviews. A qualitative approach was chosen instead of a quantitative because this study aims to identify the deeper underlying and implicit thoughts, feelings and experiences with technology usage during social isolation. It is also suitable with a qualitative approach, as we also aim to describe the phenomena of using technology during social isolation in terms of interactions and which purpose the technology usage has. When trying to both describe a phenomenon more broadly and understanding the deeper implications of this phenomenon, a qualitative study is a good choice (Fejes & Thornberg, 2015). In our study a qualitative approach makes sense since we want to describe and then understand feelings and emotions connected to technology usage. According to Fejes & Thornberg (2015) these are questions that a qualitative approach often is used to answer. This study uses a qualitative approach and uses qualitative interviews as the primary source of data collection, but a quantitative data collection method was also used in form of a questionnaire. The questionnaire was created to find participants for the interviews, but also to give some additional data that could strengthen the confidence in our data from the interviews if the questionnaire data and the interview data showed similar findings, this is called data triangulation (Thurmond, 2001).
We will further describe the methods that have been used, and in which way we have used them.
3.2 Data Gathering Techniques
10
3.3 Sampling
Posts were made on Facebook with a link directed to the questionnaire, in two different groups for University students at Umeå University, and at both of our personal pages on Facebook. It was available to answer from Friday April 10th until Wednesday April 22nd, 2020.
For the sampling of our participants for the semi-structured interviews, we strived towards interviewing people who live alone. Our belief is that living alone could mean a greater amount of objective social isolation. Further, it might also be likely that objectively socially isolated people, might also experience subjective social isolation. Among the respondents that left their emails for an interview, there were people living with one other person as well, and one living in a collective with six other people and a dog. Seeing that we strive toward finding interviewees who live alone, this individual was taken out of our selection group.
3.4 Execution of the study
3.4.1 Questionnaire
A short questionnaire was formulated and created in Google Forms to receive an idea of the basic perceptions from University students about social isolation and their use of technology in this situation in comparison to a normal state. This would help us to generate ideas and questions for the semi-structured interviews, the main data collection method.
Generally, the questions were open-ended, allowing for respondents to describe and discuss their answers freely, without being restricted by the questions. One question for example read: Does your technology usage during covid-19 differ from your everyday life (before covid-19)? If so, how? . We also asked how technology might contribute to the respondents social lives. Other questions were of more quantitative form with alternative answers. This sort of question would help us to receive an overall picture of how the technology usage has changed or not from these periods of time (See Appendix 1).
Once respondents arrived at the questionnaire, they were informed about the purpose of our study, that their participation was voluntary and could be cancelled at any time. Information also said that all data would be anonymous and treated with confidentiality and used for academic reasons only. The final question encouraged respondents to leave their email address if they were interested in exploring this topic with us further, and they were informed that we then would contact them for an interview.
The questionnaire was answered by 31 respondents. The most prevalent age group was 18-24 years old, with 21 people. The next biggest group was ages between 25-29, with 5 people. Four respondents were in the group 30-49 years old, and one respondent was in the age group of 50-64 years old.
Out of all the questionnaire answers, 17 are female, and 14 are male. Most of the respondents live in Sweden (29 people), one in Canada, and one in the United States of America. A majority of 14 respondents reported to live alone, while 17 respondents live with at least one other person. A total of six respondents were contacted, and interviews were scheduled.
11
3.4.2 Semi-structured Interviews
For this study, a total of six interviews were made. The first interview was conducted as a pilot interview, to receive a first sample of data from the interviews, as well as testing the interview questions and how they would help to answer our research questions. The pilot interview provided data that could contribute to our study, and also helped us to realize that a few questions resulted in very similar or the same repeated answers. For that reason, the interview guide was changed a bit, with a few questions removed or rephrased so that they would be easily comprehended by the participants (See Appendix 2).
The semi-structured interviews were made with 3 men and 3 women, University students normally studying at campus (See Table 1). How long the participants had studied on campus at the time of their interviews varied from one semester to four years. The duration of the interviews was between 35 minutes to 1 hour and 2 minutes. A total of 4 participants reported to live alone, while 2 of them reported to live with a partner.
Table 1. List of the semi-structured interviews
Participant When Sex Interview Length Living
1 April 24tth Male 47 minutes Alone
2 April 27th Female 48 minutes Alone
3 April 28th Male 50 minutes Alone
4 April 30th Female 35 minutes With partner
5 May 2nd Female 48 minutes With partner
6 May 3rd Male 1 hour and 2 minutes Alone
The interviews were conducted through video calls and were recorded with the consent from each participant. Physical meetings were avoided in respect to the recommendations from different World Health Organizations about social distancing and social isolation. We were both present during the interviews, in order to minimize the risks of missing out on valuable information. This meant that we could complement each other, and both reflect on the answers that participants gave. Thereby, we could ask supplementary questions that might not have surfaced, if the interviews were done separately.
In the interviews, we aimed to give the participants the greatest amount of conversational support as possible, as this further will contribute to the person sharing more (Olsson, 2013). Also, supplementary questions were asked, to give the participants the feeling of having an informal conversation or discussion, which is suggested to be done by Mason (2002).
12
imitate this interaction with technology. To gather more data on this specific matter, the question was also sent digitally to participant 1, 2 and 3. They had the opportunity to think about the question for a few days, and then give their reflection and thoughts about it.
In the end of each interview, we asked if the participants had anything to add, or if they had any questions for us. Afterward, we thanked each participant for their contribution.
3.5 Data analysis
In this chapter we will present how we conducted our data analysis in the form of a thematic analysis of the collected data. The data analysis was conducted in two steps - firstly the questionnaire, and secondly the interviews.
3.5.1 Questionnaire
A number of 31 respondents answered the questionnaire, which had 12 questions. In order to analyze the questionnaire data, a quick summary of the demographic of the respondents was made with the help of Google Forms automatic diagrams. This showed the respondents division in age, gender, and country where they live.
Each respondent was assigned to a respondent number, in the order of when they finished the questionnaire, from 1 to 31. Numbering the respondents enabled us to understand which of the respondents, later became participants in our interviews. The respondents were then divided into groups, showing how many people they live with at home. Living situation might be as possible variable, impacting the perceived social isolation that this study focuses on. In the beginning of analyzing the data, it was helpful to be able to check the respondents living situation in comparison to their answer.
The data from questionnaire was then brought to a document, which then consisted of 14 pages. All of the answers were assembled according to question, from respondent 1 to 31. Beneath every question, the different answers were read and analyzed. This meant that certain themes could be found among the respondents, and the answers were then clustered and moved into categories, according to the content of the answers.
3.5.2 Semi-structured Interviews
When we had conducted our interviews, we transcribed and analyzed the data. Each of the six interviews were recorded and then listened to and transcribed manually and all of the speech in the material was written down as text, word for word. On average, the transcribed interviews were around ten pages each, which gave us around 63 pages of data to analyze from these interviews.
To analyze our data, we performed an open coding of the data which meant that we read through the material rigorously from top to bottom and gave interesting sections or formulations a code which described what was being said or expressed in the text. When conducting an open coding it is also explained that you should not focus in on any theories or themes when coding (Fejes & Thornberg, 2015), so we tried to be open minded when coding and treated all the data as possibly being valuable.
13
identified themes had enough codes and if those codes were good enough to support the theme as something we could define as a pattern in our data. After establishing which themes we felt had enough data to support them we worked with defining and giving the themes more appropriate names that captured the main focus of each identified theme (See Appendix 3). Finally, the themes were presented as the results of our thematic analysis in chapter 4. When using citations in our results we had to translate from Swedish to English and sometimes change words for grammatical reasons, but we did our best to preserve the meaning of the participants quotes.
3.6 Ethics
This study has been conducted in accordance with the research ethical principles established by the Humanities-Social Sciences Research Council and Vetenskapsrådet (2002). The research ethical principles include four requirements that researchers should follow to conduct ethical research within humanities and social sciences, these are: The Information requirement, the Consent requirement, the Confidentiality requirement and the Utilization requirement. These requirements can be specified to include certain rules which should be followed and presented by researchers. Before each interview, the participants received an email with information about these requirements, and we did a verbal check before each interview to see that they understood and had seen the requirements.
The participants were informed that they during the entire study are participating voluntarily, meaning, that they can cancel their participation any time they want during the study and also that they can be fully anonymous in line with the information requirement. Participants were informed that they must agree to participate before answering any questions and during which conditions they want to participate this to cover the consent requirement. We told the participants that they have confidentiality and that we will not keep any sensitive information about them. Further, we informed the participants that only we will see the information and also fully anonymize the data to act in line with the confidentiality requirement. Lastly regarding the utilization requirement, we explained to the participants that the data will only be used in our study and for no other reason.
3.7 Method Critique
As the questionnaire had pre-formulated questions, it was difficult to ensure that respondents interpreted the questions in the way that was intended. When asked about technology usage, one respondent interpreted technology very broadly, and gave a few answers unrelated to this study. Therefore, those answers were left out to ensure that the data was relevant to the purpose.
The semi-structured interviews were conducted via video calls, which meant that body language might be decreased. Although, face expressions were available to view, which helped to understand the participants expressions and answers. As the interviews were also recorded, we were able to watch the interviews again afterward, and this contributes to reading the participants better.
14
said might be lost due to these translations. However, we were very careful to keep the essence of what was said and convey this so that it is understandable for the reader of this thesis. In the sample for the semi-structured interviews, two participants lived with partner, which might affect the feeling of social isolation. Although, their answers from the questionnaire showed that they still could contribute with valuable information. Nearly all of the respondents and participants lived in Sweden (expect two respondents), meaning that the results of the thesis are representative for Sweden. We acknowledge that other countries might have different and often stricter corona restrictions, which means that the results of this thesis could differ quite a lot.
The recommendations from the Swedish Government to close down universities for students arrived on March 17th (Bergvall, 2020). The questionnaire was available to answer for thirteen days, starting about three and a half weeks after these recommendations. Further, the interviews were conducted in the span of ten days between April 24th to May 3rd, starting about five and a half weeks from the recommendations. The temporal aspects could mean that some of the respondents and participants might have had time to find ways to use technology in a way that is suitable for them, while some has not. It might have been valuable to gain information about how technology was used and which role it had very early in the situation of social isolation. Although, the idea to study this situation might not have surfaced if we did not have time to reflect on how technology is used during the corona situation.
4. Results & Analysis
In this section, the results of our thematic analysis will be presented in themes. The collected data is from the semi-structured interviews, and the questionnaire. In the results Participants is referred to our interviewees and Respondents is referred to the answers from the questionnaire. This data has been analyzed through a thematic analysis, and a total of seven themes have been identified based on the created codes and categories.
4.1 A Rich and Varied Technology Usage
The participants were firstly asked about their technology usage during covid-19, in which most of the participants felt socially isolated. All of the interviewees described a very conclusive technology usage, and for different purposes. Four of the participants described that when it comes to their studies, they used their computer. This was shown very distinctly by Participant 2:
I d c c c d . . . T , a ba . A d,
, I d a . B a b ca I a a c
work related. - Participant 2
15
entertainment, four participants explained that they played video games on either consoles or computers.
When asked about how technology was used more privately, a great variation of technology usage was expressed. Participant 3 exemplified by saying: Yes, it s quite a lot . . . . a lot of writing, we have a chat in the class, then you use all the streaming services all the time, so it s a lot .
Further, the participants were asked to list five different technologies or online services in their lives, according to their importance during the pandemic. Messenger is the online service that surfaced among all six participants, in the top three among five of them, and on fourth place by Participant 3 (See Appendix 4). When the participants argued for why Messenger was very appreciated, it became clear that it provided a great way to stay in contact with other people. Participant 1 stated that: Now, social media is more used to keep in contact with people . . . . The chat functions have become more important .
Streaming services were what participants found as second most important during the pandemic, where Netflix was specifically mentioned by two participants. Participant 2 placed streaming services at third place, while the other three placed it on the fifth place. Streaming services were important and worked as entertainment and a way to pass time. Participant 2 said: What am I supposed to do with a TV if I can t work and study on my computer. I wouldn t have been able to work, have any income etc. . The computer and Zoom were listed highly by Participant 2, and Moodle was listed highly by Participant 3, for the reason of maintaining your studies and work. Other listed technologies were chosen because of communication functions and entertainment (See Appendix 4 & Appendix 5).
When asked about how the lists would differ if the participants would make them before the pandemic, Participant 4 and Participant 5 said that they would use the same technologies, although to a smaller extent than they do during covid-19. Most of the respondents agreed with this and explained that they used technology for the same reasons as they did before the pandemic, only now, to a greater level. Previous social activities are now happening on social media platforms, through telephone calls, and text messages. Although, three respondents said that the reason for using technology has changed to some extent; A respondent explained that technology was used to make plans before the pandemic, but during the pandemic, its purpose has been to enable the person to be more social. This was found among two participants as well. They stated that their lists would look the same, although the way of using them might be a bit different from the use during covid-19.
I would use them as much, they would be worth as muc . B , I
ad b , c ad ab a a I d ,
a d a d c a . . . . I Fac b c c a
my hometown, with my parents and parent-in- a . A d I checking
a . . . . , b c . -
Participant 2
16
would be completely different. Due to newfound work, the use of Facebook increased in the pandemic, which Participant 6 otherwise would not enjoy using very much.
4.2 Technology as a Portal to Social Interaction
Being social and connecting with your friends and family, were very distinct reasons behind the usage of technology during the pandemic. Four participants said that they used technology more to call people than before, with their cell phone or through services offering video calls. Participant 4 discussed the reasons for why the calling activity toward friends and family have increased:
I a c a, c . . . . T a
more calling people, particularly if they live far awa c ca a people in like, Stockholm . . . . Perhaps you have more time to call and things like
a . E ca a d , a c .
But now, you might call them ten times because you have extra time to talk, as
ca a a , a a . - Participant 4
Further, all participants said that they have had video calls with others, using services such as Facebook s Messenger, Discord, Skype, and Zoom. Participant 1, and Participant 6 mentioned that they do not go out as much, and voice- or video calls have therefore been used more. These two participants also thought that this type of interaction was a good replacement for social interactions in real life. Participant 6 expressed this feeling in the interview:
S , I a a . . . U c , a
a d I a ac a a a . B a b
doing is, we have been hanging out one-on-one and been watching, what is called Netflix-party together . . . . We keep a Zoom, and we watch it on Netflix, so you
ca a c a b d . . . . F b a . -
Participant 6
All the participants also reported to use Messenger or other chat services and social media, in order to chat and talk to people. Four participants said that this usage of chat services has become higher. Regarding the technology usage, Participant 5 believed that: There s probably not a big difference, compared to before corona . . . . only a little more communication, through textual messages . Participant 2 described that technology was used quite a lot to connect with friends and family, although the amount of this usage had not changed in the situation of covid-19.
17
4.3 Achieving Informal Meetings Through Technology
In the semi-structured interviews, the challenge of achieving informal meetings surfaced. All the participants expressed the difficulty in finding informal and spontaneous conversations with other people. More specifically, a lower amount of interactions was found related to people that participants were not close friends with, did not talk with regularly, or people that they merely met in certain contexts, such as at campus or parties with new people or acquaintances. Two respondents said that they missed these spontaneous conversations with classmates. One of these respondents meant that during covid-19, every interaction that you have with someone else is an active choice, while the conversations with classmates at campus happened naturally in a physical room. The spontaneous interactions with classmates are found to be more difficult to achieve, as the people are no longer gathered like this during the pandemic. Two participants followed the same pattern and missed their classmates.
. . . N a a a d , c ac
those you became extra good friends with . . . . in comparison to before, when you
d (a ), c d a . . . I
a b d a d a c , a d b a c a . -
Participant 3
In addition to the lack of connection to acquaintances, Participant 1 was also concerned about the fact that: it doesn t feel as spontaneous anymore, things are more structured. You cannot ask someone if they want to go and grab a beer . By the means of this, it seems as if the interactions with closer friends that you normally meet physically, also have decreased. Participant 6 further explored the problems of missing these informal conversations and talked about a friend:
Normally I would see her randomly, in the city or at the University. But now I d a d mly. So, she ghosted [cut off all contact without warning] me,
a d I ca a d . T a d ac , I ca
say to her face-to- ac , da c d a a
ad a ? a ? - Participant 6
When asked about how technology might solve the problems of the lack in these spontaneous conversations, participants were uncertain about how technology could replace these informal meetings. Despite this uncertainty, some suggestions were made to help assist these interactions. Participant 1 and Participant 3 said that using technology to write to people that you do not know that well, felt strange. However, if you meet them at the university, it felt more okay to talk to them. Participant 1 found that the voice/video call and chatting software Discord might contribute to more informal meetings, and said:
T D c d a c a a d
like to talk to. Social contexts might do that otherwise, such as being at a party or
18
. . . . I c c a
and events, than to get in touch with people. - Participant 1
Participant 5 agreed with Participant 1 and stated that to recreate these informal meetings through technology, you should find a medium or technology, where meetings or events are set up, and hopefully others will want to meet you as well. Participant 5 thought that: it s more about the people s use of technology, rather than the technology itself .
Participant 2 suggested that whichever technology or platform that is used to find these informal meetings, the user should be able to see when other people are online. Participant 2 said: . . . . and then you could spontaneously start to chat, because you re like oh, this person is online on Instagram . Other than that, Participant 2 considered that people went into some sort of technological game during lunch time, where everybody could be.
Participant 3 and Participant 4 explored different solutions on social media. Participant 3 contemplated whether commentary fields on Facebook or chats on Snapchat, could act as a space for informal conversations. These suggestions go along with what Participant 2 said about viewing who is online, as they allow the user to see when others are writing comments or in the chats. Participant 4 discussed about socializing in groups through video calls.
I a Fac b a a d a ca d d a . I d
really know what it is, but I can imagine that you can have something like that.
S a Z , . Ma . I d a ac either . . .
or start playing computer games or something. Then you could hang out in bigger groups, but online. - Participant 4
The results show that creating groups and events might help to foster the informal and spontaneous conversations, although the act itself might be structured and planned. These places were conversations can be held, could remove the strange feeling of reaching out to people you do not know very well, through technology.
4.4 Emotions Connected to Technology Usage During Social
Isolation
Technology usage during covid-19 related to emotions, such as loneliness, envy and anxiousness. Five participants expressed that having technology as their main tool for socializing, working and entertaining themselves, lead to certain emotions. Firstly, these five participants all said that they felt lonelier while being socially isolated and having to use technology for socializing. Participant 1 explained the feelings during covid-19:
But you feel lonelier, at least I do, a little bit lonelier than I otherwise would have.
B c a d c ac , I d
have felt completely unworldly if it were not for the technology, I would go crazy, I think. - Participant 1
19
socializing in a situation of social isolation. But loneliness was not the only feeling expressed by the participants in our interviews. One participant expressed that social media was important for communicating and socializing during corona, but that using social media made the participant feel more worried and anxious. This was due to that almost all the posts on social media were related to corona and that they were usually tragic posts. When asked if they saw any specific negative aspects of using social media during social isolation the participant talked about anxiousness from social media. Participant 4 said: It can be because social media right now is focused a lot on corona and similar stuff. So, it can be very negative to use social media since you get to read about it all the time. You get a bit paranoid if you always live in corona so to speak .
Another participant expressed a unique feeling that no other participant expressed. This participant said that social media made them feel something that was difficult to explain. They said that it felt funny and right that influencers had to stay socially isolated like everyone else. When this participant was asked if they were feeling envious when using social media during this situation or malice towards influencers, the participant explained that they were unsure what feeling it was. They said that they think the feeling was solidarity and that in normal times before corona and social isolation, they might have felt envious sometimes. Although, during the pandemic, the participant felt that influencers on social media should feel solidarity with the rest of the people, and also see that everyone is in the same situation.
. . . I d d c b , I a b a a
c a I Ja a ca, I Ba a a ,
I A , a . N I , a a ac ,
it is to be a normal person. Participant 2
Participant 2 further explained: When you say it like that… That I say that I am not envious... Maybe that is what I am? But I believe my feeling is: where is your [influencers] solidarity during normal times? . Although Participant 2 was not entirely sure about how to describe this feeling, Participant 6 expressed to have a tendency to become jealous, and then wished to be in the situation that these other successful people on Facebook were.
4.5 The Role of Technology During Social Isolation
In this theme, we will present the empirical data connected to university students use of technology, in relation to the role it has in their lives during social isolation.
When talking about technology usage during the corona situation with participants statements relating to the role of technology in their lives emerged. All participants said that technology had an important role in them living their lives during the social isolation caused by the corona pandemic. When asked how they kept in touch with their friends and family, Participant 1 explained that without technology, they would not be able to contact anyone and that everything would have been hard: . . . barely that you have been able to go outside at all, otherwise you would not have been able to keep contact at all or, it would have been very hard with everything so to speak .
20
Another participant explained similar feelings by saying that technology allows you to keep in touch with people even if it is not the same as meeting in real life, but it contributes heavily to knowing how everyone is doing. The same participant went on to explain that for them, technology was a source of entertainment and a time killer during social isolation and the latter is something another participant also mentioned. One of those participants added that it might not be a good thing since they felt it did not contribute a lot to their life. Participant 6 also mentioned the double-edged sword of technology s role in their life during social isolation related to using their computer all day: . . . I am behind my computer all day long, almost. It is bad for my neck, eyes and lower back . In line with this, the increased use of technology took a toll on one of the respondent s body as well, from sitting down a whole lot more. One of the respondents from the questionnaire expressed sadness in regard to not being able to exercise in the same way as before, leading to feeling weaker, both physically and mentally. This respondent and one other respondent found themselves using technologies and applications to move their bodies and work out at home.
Participants often talked about technology s role as a life saver during this time of social isolation. One participant said that technology has a very positive role and that without it they would have had to break the restrictions social distancing restrictions for corona and that their technology usage kept them from going crazy. Participant 2 expressed themselves in a very similar way by stating that technology is what has saved society during these times and that without it they would have gone insane from the lack of social interactions and entertainment: . . . technology is what has really saved society. That the schools are open, that you can get healthcare via technology, entertainment, which might be the most important. Otherwise one would have gone insane .
Twenty-one respondents said that they used technology more during covid-19. Technology has become an essential part of their lives as students, and in some cases work lives. For example, video conferencing tools are used for lectures and group work related to their studies or other work-related activities, and respondents are able to study from home.
Participant 1 also explained how technology s role is different during social isolation by describing how technology in regular times acts as a complementary tool to set up real life socializing and meetings. This is in contrast to the current situation, where technology is not a complementary tool since it has become the way in which individuals socialize, communicate, entertain themselves and work. When asked if technology was more prevalent while being socially isolated Participant 1 said: yeah, I would say that it is not a complementary tool anymore but the opposite .
According to this participant technology has taken on a new role while living socially isolated since it has become the main tool for social interactions in the life of this participant. The other participants also mentioned the important role technology has in their current lives. The important role of technology was expressed further by Participant 2 who said: If I did not have these communication technologies, then it would have been nothing. Then I would have been isolated for real .
21
bigger or different role now . . . I still think it has the same role as it has outside the pandemic, to keep in touch with people, and that is about it . Although, the participant went on to say that they appreciated technology more during social isolation than they did before.
4.6 Functionality for Socializing Better During Social Isolation
This theme focuses on the specific functions that participants felt were important for socializing with technology. Three of the participants mentioned Snapchat as a service that was good for socializing with friends. When asked which functionality they specifically liked, they said that the possibility to send pictures and videos that disappear quickly was a good functionality since it made socializing more fun than on other services. Two respondents said that talking and chatting to people online, along with sending pictures and videos, also helped respondents to feel more connected to their peers. Participant 5 thought that: The good thing about Snapchat is that you can switch between picture and video whenever you want, you can express yourself more creatively, use small stickers, funny texts or record a video with music . Online games were mentioned by two participants as a good way to socialize and Participant 1 explained that the social functions in games like chatting with voice or text and playing together with others were key functions of online games to socialize during corona: . . . but there, the social functions have also become important, you get to know people there . . . . All participants used Facebook Messenger as a service to socialize with friends and family. The most praised functionality with Facebook Messenger was that you can message almost anyone since almost everyone is on Facebook. It made it a lot easier to socialize with people compared to getting everyone s number on your phone. Two participants mentioned that the voice call and chatting service Discord, had great functionality for socializing, and can be seen as way to create communities. Both of them mentioned that Discord is good because it allows you to talk with many people at the same time but also have different chat rooms for different people. Since these chat rooms are always open, they also contribute to spontaneous socializing between members of these servers and chat rooms .You can have different chat rooms for different people you know, you can create many rooms where people can just jump in and out, and then you can sit there. It is like sitting at a café and then people coming in and talking to you, and everyone is free to come and go as they like. It is similar to hanging out with your friends.
- Participant 1
4.7 Close to Real Life Interaction but Not the Same
22
participants answers, was that they all favored a service that allowed conversations in real time, with audio, and in some cases visuals in video.
Participant 3 argued that video calls were the best way to use technology to bridge across distances, as it can provide body languages and facial expressions. Participant 1 believed that video calls can provide body language, but in a much worse way than in real life. Although, problems with internet connection might occur, and make it more difficult to hear what others are saying. Participant 3 also thought that video calls were lacking, as they do not allow physical interaction. Participant 4 discussed the closest technology to real physical meetings:
. . . V d ca . . . I ad a a S c . A d
da ca , a . S , I would say that.
When you meet like this (video call), or on Messenger, like four friends meeting
a a . B a , I ca ac ca c ac .
- Participant 4
Participant 6 acknowledged the challenges of video calls that previous participants discussed. Despite these potential challenges, Participant 6 was very happy to use video calls for socializing.
I basically think that video conferencing has worked really well to socialize . . . Videochatting like this is rea a , b ca d b a . I : W
a a c a . W a . A d a a d
c , ab , c
a , a ac . - Participant 6
One respondent agreed with this, and enjoyed having conversations over Zoom, a video conferencing tool. The respondent phrased the conversations as being more focused than they would in real life ; Things around in a physical environment might distract the conversation, while Zoom-meetings gives focus to the individual that is speaking. Participant 2 also believed that video calls was the best technology to use, as an alternative to meeting in real life, although it was not perceived to be the same. A discussion about flow in a conversation was held when asked about when the closest feeling is achieved:
I a d a . . . . I
that you can get to a quite high level of flow. You can sense when the other person is gonna respond, when I should be quiet . . . . So, I think that if you give it some time, you still can get into a pretty high level of social exchange with each other.
- Participant 2
5. Discussion
23
Some research within the area of computer supported collaborative work has shown that working and collaborating across distances with technology as a tool can be successful (Grudin, 1991). This is something our study also shows, and the participants explained how technology has become an essential part of their lives. We can see through our results that even when a global pandemic breaks out, students felt like they mostly have the necessary technological tools to continue studying and collaborating with each other. The use of video conferencing and chatting allowed for collaboration on projects and to take part in lectures across distances. This can in some ways relate back to the studies by Markham & Belkasim (2011) and Coroporaal et al. (2014) showing that collaborating across distances with current technology is possible, even if it is not always easy or perfect. Earlier research shows that with technologies such as smartphones, tablets, laptops, and traditional campus education can be replaced with online learning methods where course material is placed online and available for the students at home (SazmandAsfaranjan et al., 2013). Our results show that this is very similar to how university students use technology for their studies during the corona pandemic; They use laptops, phones and other technologies to have video conferences etc. and often get course material from course platforms such as Moodle. In this way, our results show that being a regular distance student and being a student during corona might be very similar in terms of what technological tools you use and how socially isolated you feel, even if the social isolation might be quite different.
Our findings show that one of the main reasons for using technology during covid-19 among university students, was to be social and connect with friends and family. This sort of usage is not surprising, considering that earlier research about distance students has shown that having social connections with others is important, both for social and educational outcomes (Stürmer et al., 2018). The results showed that participants and respondents mostly appreciated video calls, Discord, Snapchat, Instagram and social media with chats, for socializing. This might be because these platforms offer immediacy and intimacy, and according to previous research, this means that they can very closely imitate the social interactions in real life. These technologies were the most liked, and perhaps for the reason that they enabled them to talk to each other in real time, and also receive the feeling of the other person actually being on the other side of the conversation, thanks to pictures and videos (Pittman & Reich, 2016). The closeness in imitating these real-life social interactions, thereby appear to be the best supplement for decreasing social isolation.
Rush (2015) could see that 98% of 1002 distance students thought that social isolation was the worst aspect of distance education and according to Croft et al. (2010), this is caused by geographical distance. In our study, we found that our participants mostly felt socially isolated because of the distance they felt to their friends, which is similar to what Rush (2015) and (Croft et al., 2010) found.
24
interact with friends since the software allows for persistent audio channels that anyone invited to a server can access at any time. Another solution was to create events and groups, making it easier to contact acquaintances.
The results showed that it might not be about which technology to use and more about making people use technology to achieve spontaneous interactions. In our study it was also shown that it is important to be able to see when someone is online to start spontaneous conversations or that the comment fields on Facebook or Snapchat could act as a space for spontaneous interactions. One of the most interesting ideas was having socializing in groups through video calls or having video call parties where many people could join to create spontaneous meetings. But our study shows that the solutions to achieve informal meetings through technologies still often come with the problem of being structured before being spontaneous.
Earlier research has also identified the loss of informal conversations when working across distances (Ackerman et al., 1997). There have been attempts to solve the problem of losing informal interactions by creating media spaces (Bly et al., 1993), and Fish et al. (1990) more specifically tried to create a video conferencing screen that connected to office spaces to support informal communications. Our results show that using video conferencing in certain ways could be good for achieving informal conversations.
Previous research has shown that frequent online activities could lead to a decreased well-being among users of online social networks (Park et al., 2015). Social media usage might also increase feelings of social isolation (Primack et al., 2017), and negative experiences especially increased these feelings (Primack et al., 2019). The results from our study showed that participants consumed a lot of content and news related to the coronavirus, leading to anxious feelings about the situation. The concept of filter bubbles is that algorithms filter out information and content that an individual is assumed to have little interest in consuming on a platform, while content that the individual would like to consume, stays (Haim, Graefe & Brosius, 2018). Considering this, the fact that online activities in online social networks lead to anxiousness among the participants, might be due to the huge impact that the pandemic has made in the world. Moreover, content about the coronavirus appears in many forms and places in online social networks, that algorithms might calculate that this is the type of content that the individual wants.
