*Someone* is working on their thesis about media in Armenia, so in honor of this, some quick media freedom charts from the 2013 Alternative Resources in Media project.
There is a series of protests in Armenia right now, focused on Vladimir Putin’s visit, but overall critiquing Armenia’s possibly joining the Eurasian Union.
Unzipped does a nice summary here.
Here’s my Dec 3 hashtag analysis that is the following relationships. It is basically Armenians (far left), foreigners (middle), and Russians (right).
You can see that pretty much everyone in Armenia that is on Twitter follows each other.
This is the Dec 3 reply analysis of the hashtag – much clearer about small communication networks.
Here is Dec 4 reply analysis.
Well, really just Armenia and Azerbaijan… Googling for Georgia is too difficult.
Inspired by this campaign that looked what Google automatically fills in for searches about men and women, I tried to do this with Armenia and Azerbaijan. I was logged out of Google, so these are the “natural” search results, not influenced by my own.
Yes, Azerbaijan is rich! And absolutely, the question of its position in Europe or Asia is an important one. Which country? Well, I guess with Southern Azerbaijan in Northern Iran, this could be a little confusing.
Again, the continent thing is really confusing. I don’t blame you for searching for this, users of Google.
Here is an interesting selection. No history? Impossible.
Armenia Has Talent! Awesome. And no nukes, sorry.
Excellent questions, Google users. Russia versus USSR is a tough one for you young people, I guess.
Yes- first Christian nation!
I ask two of these four questions often. Guess which ones?
I ask three of these four questions often. Guess which ones?
Well, some of these are not nice and some are interesting empirical questions.
Interesting questions here too.
I love William Saroyan!
Area code and ethnicity – excellent questions.
Oh wow – this sums up a lot of the questions swirling in someone’s head.
Weird that nothing came up for these.
So interesting stuff people of Google!
Demand for democracy is one of my favorite outcome (dependent) variables. It isn’t perfect, but it is used frequently in public opinion surveys and has been shown to be correlated with all sorts of interesting things.
In a transitional society, popular demand for democracy (or legitimation) takes the form of a choice between competing regime types with which people have some degree of familiarity. Thus, survey questions should preferably not ask people how much they like democracy in the abstract (for example, through agreement or disagreement with one-sided Likert scale statements). Instead, they should offer respondents realistic choices between democracy and its alternatives.” (from here)
“Which of these three statements is closest to your own opinion? (A) Democracy is preferable to any other form of government; (B) In certain situations, a nondemocratic government can be preferable; or (C) To people like me, it doesn’t matter what form of government we have.”
A study that I did with Erik Nisbet and Elizabeth Stoycheff found that: Internet use, but not national Internet penetration, is associated with greater citizen commitment to democratic governance. Furthermore, greater democratization and Internet penetration moderates the relationship between Internet use and demand for democracy.
So, I was playing around with the EBRD Life in Transition II data today and did some graphics.
Wow, Swedes love democracy.
The variance in the former Soviet states is really interesting.
And then we have the Caucasus. Looks like Armenians LOVE democracy.
Only half of Azerbaijanis prefer democracy.
Pretty high don’t knows in Azerbaijan and Georgia.
So, the social networking site that one spends time on isn’t arbitrary. Research tells us that generally people go where their friends are, but also that there are demographic differences in site choice. A study of MySpace versus Facebook in 2007 is the classic case of this. For a variety of reasons, wealthier and more educated people were on Facebook and poorer and less educated people were on MySpace. Nowadays in the U.S., Facebook has sort of taken over the social networking space and a lot of those demographic differences have gone away.
In the 2010 analysis posted above, Facebook in Armenia was quite elite while Odnoklassniki was not. Some reasons include that Odnoklassniki was more accessible on for free or cheap on mobile devices, the Russian language interface was more accessible to those without English skills (at the time Facebook was mainly an English language platform), Odnoklassniki was more about fun (and porn), and Facebook wasn’t great on a mobile device.
Fast forward to 2013, and things have changed. Facebook has grown a lot globally. The Facebook mobile platform is very user-friendly. Russian and Armenian versions of Facebook work quite well. More Armenians are online as well.
So I looked once again at use. Let’s first look at the overall picture before going into the demographic differences.
(Note that this is PRIMARY SNS, they could have accounts on the other site.)
First you can see that a third of all Armenian adults are on a social networking site and 70% of all adult Armenian Internet users are on a social networking site. The Odnoklassniki versus Facebook breakdown is that 10% of all Armenian adults are on Facebook, but 20% of all Armenian adults are on Odnoklassniki. Of Internet users, less than a quarter are on Facebook while nearly half (45%) are on Odnoklassniki. The comparative breakdown is a third of SNS users on Facebook and two-thirds on Odnoklassniki.
In terms of the time that is spent on the social networking site, there weren’t tremendous differences. About a third are on the SNS several times a day and most of the rest of the users are on the SNS at least once a day.
So who is on each site?
(This is based on an ANOVA):
There is no difference in age between Facebook and Odnoklassniki and other SNS users in AGE. However, non SNS users are much older. It is the same story with ECONOMIC WELLBEING – non SNS users are poorer than SNS users. The same is for RUSSIAN skills – the only difference is with non-SNS users and users.
ENGLISH skills – Facebook users (and other SNS users, but they’re weird, so let’s ignore them) have statistically significantly higher English skills than others.
Facebook users are also statistically significantly higher in EDUCATION than everyone else.
No differences in SEX.
So, we can summarize that Facebook users are more elite – English speaking and better educated. Thus, not a big chance from 2010.
(This is based on a multinominal logistic regression):
Looking at this 2013 data, the determinants of being an Odnoklassniki user are the following. In this analysis, all the different factors consider each other, so for example, the influence of higher education on English language skill is cancelled out, so each variable is really telling its own story.
First, Sex – men are more likely to be on Odnoklassniki than women. Next, Russian language skills – those with better Russian are more likely to be on Odnoklassniki than those with poor Russian. Then English skills matter. Then education.
Determinants of being on Facebook are first English skill. Better English means more likely to be on Facebook. Next, higher education. Russian language skill matters next.
For both Odnoklassniki and Facebook, age and economic status didn’t matter much. However, younger and wealthier people are more likely to be online. So it appears that once you’re online, your choice of social networking site is more about language skills and education.
So, with that, what are people doing on social networking sites?
Remember that Facebook users are more “elite” – so the activities they do will likely be more elite as well.
In terms of communicating with friends, posting photos, and entertainment no big differences between the sites. However, Facebook users are more interested in getting and sharing information. Odnoklassniki users are also playing more games than Facebook users.
When asked what the most important activity on a social networking site, Facebook users were much more likely to say getting information.
When asked about sharing political and social information, Facebook users are much more likely to share than Odnoklassniki users. But the majority of all social networking site users aren’t sharing (they say!).
New study out today.
Considerable evidence has shown that migrants use ICT to maintain connections to their families and home. Unlike most previous researchers of migrant ICT use, we study those left behind. Using a nationally representative sample in which two thirds of respondent households have a migrant, we determine the effect of this on ICT use. Multivariate analyses including relevant demographic factors that influence both migration and ICT use reveal that transnational (migrant) family status influences frequency of Internet use, Internet ownership, and Skype use, but not other activities. Given the positive social effects of maintaining family connections, ICT use may lessen the negative effects of migration on families and society.
This study uses the 2011 Alternative Resources in Media dataset done by CRRC.
More from the new Alternative Media USAID-CRRC dataset.
Most Armenians are getting online (primarily) from home. (I wish that it had had some sort of ranking or estimate of hours, but it is what it is.)
And how do people get online at home? Cable, 3G flash card, and still dial up (I can do a breakdown by urban/rural if people are interested.)
I’ll do another post about mobile Internet in the future.
Here’s an update to this 2012 post.
Green is of Internet users and blue is for all Armenian adult citizens.
In the near future I’ll do a break down of these activities by region, sex, etc.
In this recent publication of mine, we show that rural, less educated, and poorer Armenians weren’t engaging in capital-enhancing activities like news reading or blogging. Will this still be true in 2013?
A few years ago I wrote a report summarizing a USAID-funded CRRC-conducted study of the Armenian media environment. They re-did this study this summer (no report seems to be available yet), but the data is up so I will be slowly but surely posting some findings.
Let’s start with media trust.
This graphic makes it appear that Armenians trust online media more than any other source of media. Wow! Go Internet!
But when you look at the frequencies, you see that Armenians were pretty ambivalent about answering questions on media trust. More than a third said that they didn’t know for every type except interpersonal (neighbors, friends, and relatives), local TV, and national TV. And many had “not applicable” (which I take to mean that they don’t consume that type of media). For what it’s worth, if don’t knows are higher than 10%, generally the question is considered “questionable.”
This is why even though I LOVE online data analysis tools, I get a little nervous about people just jumping in and making conclusions without understanding how surveys and statistics work.
More posts on this data to come!
(I did a quick blog post on this earlier this year, FWIW)
Attitudes toward protest is one of my favorite Caucasus Barometer questions.
(Sarah Kendzior and I wrote a piece centered around this measure in 2012).
It is an interesting way to ask a question in a vignette format.
People are asked which statement they agree with and degree.
* Very much agree: People should participate in protest actions against the government, as this shows the government that the people are in charge.
* Agree: People should participate in protest actions against the government, as this shows the government that the people are in charge.
* Agree: People should not participate in protest actions against the government, as it threatens stability in our country.
* Very much agree: People should not participate in protest actions against the government, as it threatens stability in our country.
* Don’t know
And of course they can refuse to answer.
People should participate in protest actions against the government, as this shows the government that the people are in charge.
People should not participate in protest actions against the government, as it threatens stability in our country.
Wow – Georgia in 2012 was really interesting. Of course the Caucasus Barometer was collected in the middle of a huge election, so this likely explains the jump from a stable one-third to over half supporting people protesting in one year.
Attitudes toward protest in Azerbaijan are fairly stable, with about a quarter of the population thinking that it is okay to protest and 43-49 percent thinking that it is not okay. The “don’t knows” and “refuse to answer” are pretty high in Azerbaijan — which could reflect fear, masking, or ignorance.
Between half and two-thirds of Armenians feel that protest is a good thing. And between 20-34 percent of Armenians don’t think that people should protest. A pretty low percentage had no opinion in the matter. The Caucasus Barometer is collected in the late fall. With the 2008 presidential election issue and the early 2013 presidential election issue, during which some protesting occurred, one must wonder if these protests and the response to them had an effect on public opinion.
I was curious who these supporters and non-supporters are (I only did this on the 2012 data).
Armenians that refused to ansawer were highly educated and more urban.
Armenians that answered “don’t know” were wealthier.
Armenians that supported protests were wealthier and more interested in discussing politics.
However, Armenians that didn’t support protests were also wealthier and more interested in discussing politics.
Azerbaijanis that refused to answer were more urban, frequent Internet users, and wealthier, as well as more likely to discuss politics with friends.
Azerbaijanis that said that they didn’t know were more rural and wealthier.
Azerbaijanis that supported protests were more urban, more likely to discuss politics, and wealither, as well as female.
Azerbaijanis that didn’t support protests were also more urban, wealthier, and discuss politics.
In Georgia, those that support protest are more urban, better educated, and more willing to discuss politics.