Research objectives The objectives of this research were to: Test and establish the potential utility of the draft DCPs with stakeholders. This related to the potential usability of the DCPs for promoting responsible digital citizenship and supporting the development of digital citizenship. It also included exploring and understanding the utility of the DCPs for stakeholders in developing education programs and interfaces with their consumers, which promote responsible digital citizenship. Test the comprehensibility and relevance of the draft DCPs with members of the community. This related to evaluating the extent to which the DCPs are understood by, and are relevant to, members of the community, that is, digital citizens. The DCPs must, to the greatest extent possible, reflect the consumer understanding and interpretation of digital citizenship and translate into actionable outcomes. Across these objectives, relating to both stakeholders and the general public, the research was required to: Establish what is understood by the term digital citizenship. Explore what the audiences currently imagine responsible digital citizenship entails, including examples of best and worst practice. Identify what actions these audiences currently take which would come under the banner of responsible digital citizenship, and explore what drives and informs these actions, including what channels currently deliver information on and promote responsible digital citizenship. Explore reactions to the DCPs as they currently stand. Engage in a process of co-creation/concept generation with the target audiences to further refine the DCPs and explore how best to position these so they are seen as positive and actionable contributions to the target audiences’ engagement with the digital environment (this forms the primary objectives of the research). Establish what existing programs or channels, or types of programs and channels, will be best suited to communicate the DCPs and could stand as positive examples of each of the DCPs.
Overall, participants saw the DCPs as sitting on a continuum, that they are both related to one another and that they inform each other. ‘Know’ was seen as the ‘how to’ of engaging with the online environment, while ‘Choose’ was the ‘what’ to do now that we ‘Know’. ‘Engage’ was the outcome of ‘Knowing’ and ‘Choosing’, or the ‘why’ it is worth ‘Knowing’ and ‘Choosing’. Figure 5 General community’s perceived logic and connections re the three principle titles tested However, in further discussion, through both their spontaneous and more considered reactions, it was clear that participants perceived some overlap between the DCPs. In particular, ‘Know’ and ‘Choose’ were felt to overlap. This was a result of the reactions to ‘Know’ and their spontaneous associations and outtakes around this principle. These fell into two categories. First, participants thought about the ‘mechanics’ of knowing. This was about the ‘how to’ of getting online, the physical skills and technologies needed to use and access the internet and online services. The second reaction was to consider decision-making behaviour, based on knowing how to stay safe, and establishing rules and boundaries. The second of these two instinctive interpretations triggers the ‘Choose’ principle and a number of respondents struggled at first to understand the differences between ‘Know’ and ‘Choose’. Similarly, ‘Choose’ and ‘Engage’ were seen to be similar in that to ‘Engage positively’ was perceived to be a continuation of ‘Choosing consciously’. To some degree ‘Engage positively’ was seen as the outcome of ‘Know’ and ’Choose’ rather than a separate principle.
Stakeholder reactions to the DCPs Overall, stakeholders were positive about the DCPs and the idea of developing a set of principles. Government involvement was seen as necessary to provide legitimacy and credibility to the DCPs. As a government initiative it was welcomed in a space where there are currently no clear ‘leaders’. The questions raised were about form not function and based on a strong desire to minimise the amount of unnecessary work needed ‘at their end’. Broadly speaking, the content areas of the DCPs were intuitive, relevant and seen to be interconnected. Stakeholders did not identify anything as ‘missing’ or inappropriate in the principles. Their feedback centred on a desire for the DCPs to be simplified and clarification about whether the principles were stakeholder- or consumer-facing documents. Looking at the detail of the DCPs, the names of the each were interpreted as intended. Know what you need to was seen to focus on consumer education about technologies, rules, rights and responsibilities. Choose consciously was interpreted as focusing on empowering consumers to make informed choices. Engage positively was felt to focus on promoting responsible behaviour. These three topics areas were felt to sit on a continuum and present a logical progression. The titles also fitted with what stakeholders feel they are already doing and what they feel they have been telling their consumers or customers. A number of stakeholders had seen previous drafts of the DCPs, which had different titles. Those who had, said that the ‘new’ titles had moved on positively, and were more prescriptive and action-oriented. When tested, the body copy generated two clear and overriding responses: it only reflected their own long-standing attitudes and behaviour toward these issues there was no clear call to action, actionable outcomes or precise directives. Stakeholders did not think the body copy provided them with any ‘new news’ or with any clear direction on what was expected from them that would be different to what they already do. They consistently reported that should they wish, or be expected to pass this information on to consumers, the language would need to be revised.
Can you think of any examples? What do you think would define ‘irresponsible Cybersmart citizenship’ in terms of peoples’ behaviour? Can you think of any examples? How relevant do you feel this concept is? Is the concept something you have ever of / thought of before? If so in what context? Conclude discussion on Cybersmart Citizenship by reading out the following and checking off whether they feel it is relevant / makes sense: “Cybersmart Citizenship is about the way that individuals access services and interact online, in particular it is about confident and positive engagement with digital technology, and understanding of online opportunities, rights and responsibilities.” Cybersmart citizenship Principles 60mins This section will introduce respondents to the Cybersmart citizenship Principles and explore their spontaneous reactions / thoughts / feelings and understanding of them. Explain underneath the umbrella of ‘Cybersmart citizenship’ some specific principles are being developed to better inform what Cybersmart citizenship is all about and to ensure people have a more rounded and detailed picture of how Cybersmart citizenship may apply to and benefit them. Then, for each of the CSPs the discussion flow will run as follows: Introduce only the principle phrase’ (‘Know what you need to’, ‘Choose consciously’, and ‘Engage positively’), then ask respondents to imagine what a principle under this title might entail Present the ‘principle in action’ examples and discuss Present the body of the principle and undertake a highlighter exercise + word association. Discuss their reactions to the principle, including how it matches up with or differs from their expectations as discussed earlier and then show respondents the examples provided on the principles plus others and discuss the relevancy of these Summarise the principle in one sentence Go through each of these steps for each principle before moving on to the next. Rotate the order of the principles.
7. RECORD GENDER Male 1 CHECK SAMPLE Female 2 8. How often would you say you access the internet? I am always online and access it many times throughout the day, everyday 1 CHECK QUOTA A few / once a day 2 A few times a week 3 A few times a month 4 Once a month or less 5 Never 6 9. Which of the following do you use the internet for and how often? Several times a day/ Most days A couple of a week A few a month Rarely / never Reading news, reading articles, researching holidays – general research and reading 1 2 3 4 Watching movies/tv shows / videos 1 2 3 4 Reading/looking at social (e.g. Facebook, Twitter, Instagram). By this we mean looking at comments and updates from others rather than adding your own comments/ photos/ videos 1 2 3 4 Contributing to social media (e.g. Facebook, Twitter, Instagram). By this we mean adding your own comments/photos/videos to these sites 1 2 3 4 Writing 1 2 3 4 Contributing to different sites (e.g., writing reviews, such 1 2 3 4
Quotas: REGULAR USERS AND CONTRIBUTOR (ALL GROUPS) Regular users of online content – code 1 at Q8, and code 1 at Q9 for at least 2 of a- c (non-shaded area) Use via smartphone and tablet – code 2 or 4 at Q5 Regular contributors (social media, blogs etc) code 1 at Q9 for at least 2 options in shaded area (d-h) and code 1 at Q10 EXPOSED USER BUT IRREGULAR CONTRIBUTOR (GROUPS 4-8) Less regular users of online content – code 3-5 at Q8, and code 2-3 at Q9 for at least 2 of a- c (non-shaded area) Can use via smartphone, tablet or at home/work/school all codes at Q5 Irregular contributors (social media, blogs etc) - code 3 or 4 at Q9 for any option in shaded area (d-h) and code 2-4 at Q10. Must not code 1or2 for any options in shaded area (Q9 d-h). Lifestage Age Attitudes and use of the internet Gender Location State 1 Teens 16-17 Regular user & contributor Males St Leonards NSW 2 Teens 16-17 Regular user & contributor Females Murray Bridge SA 3 Youth 18-24 Regular user & contributor Mixed Tamworth NSW 4 Young Without Children 25-40 Mix of Regular user & contributor and Exposed user but irregular contributor Mixed Adelaide SA 5 Young Family 25-40 Mix of Regular user & contributor and Exposed user but irregular contributor Tamworth NSW 6 Older Family 34-45 Mix of Regular user & contributor Adelaide SA
and Exposed user but irregular contributor 7 Older Family / Empty nester 45+ Mix of Regular user & contributor and Exposed user but irregular contributor Murray Bridge SA 8 Never had children 45+ Mix of Regular user & contributor and Exposed user but irregular contributor Mixed St Leonards NSW
Relevance for individuals Relevance for providers of online services Relevance for providers of support and advice This principle alerts individuals to the choices they have to manage their online experiences. This includes assessing risk before sharing personal information, selecting the most suitable privacy options, choosing secure passwords and deciding on the most appropriate digital technology. This principle encourages providers to support informed choices through transparent and easy to use options. This includes offering users clear options to make their own decisions about how to engage online, and supporting choice in privacy and security settings. This principle encourages government, industry and community providers to promote thoughtful and informed choices. This allows users to select the options which best suit their needs and requirements. Actions and behaviour to fulfil this principle Choice—taking charge of how and whether to interact online on individual preferences. Well-informed decision-making—making thoughtful decisions about exchanges of personal information, electronic transactions, privacy and security from a position of knowledge and confidence. Risk assessment—judging the nature of the relevant risks. Engage positively The positive benefits of engagement with the digital world are worth the challenge. Description If we behave with consideration and self-awareness, and are resilient when others don’t, we all benefit. Engaging positively includes respecting others and recognising the of freedom of expression and of personal privacy. Providing access to services and information, of preferences or ability, is also key to positive online engagement. This principle recognises that unethical behaviours such as harassment, bullying and online abuse can contribute to negative online experiences and longer term consequences for individuals and communities. Relevance for individuals Relevance for providers of support and advice Relevance for providers of online services This principle alerts individuals to the value of positive online engagement, of taking responsibility for themselves and their actions, and of treating others with consideration. This principle encourages government, industry and community providers to ensure that appreciate the effect their actions can have on others, consider differences in rights and values, and promote access and acceptance. This principle encourages providers to foster a respectful online environment where individuals can readily take preventative action where required. Actions and behaviour to fulfil this principle Consideration—respecting the rights of others to participate, have an opinion and maintain personal privacy.