Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.15207/JKCS.2021.12.8.215

An Analysis of Professional's Perspectives on the Roles of Socio-cultural Factors and Welfare Technology among Older Adults in the US  

Kang, Suk-Young (Binghamton University (State University of New York))
Kim, Jeungkun (Kangnam University)
Winthal, Jeffrey (Binghamton University)
Lenz, Rosemarie (Binghamton University)
Publication Information
Journal of the Korea Convergence Society / v.12, no.8, 2021 , pp. 215-228 More about this Journal
Abstract
The purpose of this qualitative study was to identify cultural factors among older Americans that could influence them to accept new welfare technologies. This study also explored how social and cultural-based plans could increase the acceptability of welfare technologies for improving the quality of life of older adults in the future. In-depth interviews were conducted with ten professionals who work with older adults. The collected interview data were subsequently analyzed using a two-cycle open coding process. The data analysis generated 29 codes that were organized into 7 primary codes, or categories, and 22 secondary codes nested within the primary codes. Several themes were identified: individualism, family-oriented culture, pragmatism, low-context culture, privacy, fun-seeking culture, and a less hierarchical culture. These findings will inform the development of a future survey to examine the relationship between older adults' intentions when using technology and socio-cultural factors in community settings. In order to explore the different impact levels of the cultural factors found in this study, the future study will need to include measures for identifying socio-cultural variations among individuals in one country or across countries.
Keywords
Welfare Technology; Technology Acceptance Model; Basic Qualitative Study; In-Depth Interview; Socio-cultural Factors;
Citations & Related Records
연도 인용수 순위
  • Reference
1 L. Wang, P.L.P. Rau & G. Salvendy. (2011). A cross-culture study on older adults' information technology acceptance. International Journal of Mobile Communications, 9(5), 421-220.   DOI
2 S. Naspetti, S. Mandolesi, J. Buysse, T. Latvala, P. Nicholas, S. Padel, E. J. Van Loo, & R. Zanoli. (2017). Determinants of the acceptance of sustainable production strategies among dairy farmers: Development and testing of a modified Technology Acceptance Model. Substantiality, 9, 1805-1821. DOI : 10.3390/su9101805   DOI
3 E. Meyer. (2014). The culture map: Breaking through the invisible boundaries of global business. New York, NY: Public Affairs.
4 J. A. Lee (2018). Trend and challenges of using welfare technology in elderly care. International Journal of Contents, 14(2), 30-34. DOI : 10.5392/IJoC.2018.14.2.030   DOI
5 J. K. Kim. (2018). Study on Welfare Technology and Welfare Technology Assessment for older adults. Journal of Korea Contents Association, 5, 156-166.
6 Nordic Welfare Center (2020). Welfare Technology. Retrieved from https://nordicwelfare.org/en/welfare-policy/welfare-technology/#:~:text=Welfare%20technology%20is%20all %20technology,a%20disability%20or%20the%20elderly.
7 A. E. Molzahn, M. Kalfoss, M. K. Schick, & S. M. Skevington (2010). Comparing the importance of different aspects of quality of life to older adults across diverse culture. Age and ageing, 40(2), 192-199.   DOI
8 F. D. Davis. (1985). A technology acceptance model for empirically testing new end-user information systems: Theory and results (Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology)
9 D. Al-Jumeily, A. Hussain, & S. Crate. (2014). The impact of cultural factors on technology acceptance, students point of view. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Frontiers in Education: Computer Science and Computer Engineering (FECS), Las Vegas, NV., 1-7. Retrieved from http://worldcomp-proceedings.com/proc/p2014/FEC2413.pdf
10 S. Merchant. (2007). Exploring the influence of cultural values on the acceptance of information technology: An application of the technology acceptance model. Issues in Informing Science and Information Technology, 4, 430-443.
11 S. Frennert & K. Baudin (2019). The concept of welfare technology in Swedish municipal eldercare, Disability and Rehabilitation. DOI : 10.1080/09638288.2019.1661035   DOI
12 A.R. Hendrickson, P.D. Massey & T. P. Cronan. (June, 1993). On the test-retest reliability of perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use scales. MIS quarterly, 17(2), 227-230.   DOI
13 P. Ketikidis, T. Dimitrovski, L Lazuras & P.A. Bath (2012). Acceptance of health information technology in health professionals: An application of the revised technology acceptance model. Health Informatics Journal, 18(2), 124-134.   DOI
14 I. Altman. (1975). The Environment and Social Behavior: Privacy, Personal Space, Territory, Crowding. Monterey: Brooks/Cole Publishing Company.
15 National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (2018). What are some types of assistive devices and how are they used? Retrieved from https://www.nichd.nih.gov/health/topics/rehabtech/c onditioninfo/device
16 F. D. Davis. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and use acceptance of information technology. MIS quarterly, 13(3), 319-340.   DOI
17 P.F. Musa. (2006). Making a case for modifying the technology acceptance model to account for limited accessibility in developing countries. Information Technology for Development, 12(3), 213-224. DOI : 10.1002/itdj.20043   DOI
18 M. Lenca, M. Lipps, T. Wangmo, F. Jotterand, B. Elger, R. Kressig (2018). Health Professional's and researchers's views on Intelligent Assistive Technology for Psychogeriatric Care. Gerontechnology, 17(3), 138-149. DOI : 10.4017/gt.2018.17.3.002.00   DOI
19 Federal Interagency Forum on Aging-Related Statistics. (2020). Older Americans 2020: Key indicators of well-being. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Report
20 D. A. Adams, R.R. Nelson, & P.A. Todd (June, 1992). Perceived usefulness, ease of use, and usage of information technology: A replication. Management Information System (MIS) quarterly, 16(2), 227-247   DOI
21 R. Rauniar, G. Rawski, J. Yang, & B. Johnson. (2014). Technology acceptance model (TAM) and social media usage: an empirical study on Facebook. Journal of Enterprise Information Management, 27(1) 6-30. DOI : 10.1108/JEIM-04-2012-0011   DOI
22 V. Venktatesh & F. D. Davis (2000). A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: four longitudinal field studies. Management Science, 46(2), 186-204.   DOI
23 P.Y.K Chau (1996). An empirical assessment of a modified technology acceptance model. Journal of Management Information Systems, 13(2), 185-204.   DOI
24 J. Kim. (2020). Senior Business Overseas Cases and Strategies for Revitalization, Aging Review Quarterly, 37, 30-42. Korea Insurance Research Institute.
25 H. Zade, M. Drouhard, B. Chinh, L. Gan & C. Aragon. (2018). Conceptualizing disagreement in qualitative coding. CHI '18: Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 159, 1-11. DOI : 10.1145/3173574.3173733   DOI
26 S. B. Merriam, & E. J. Tisdell. (2016). Qualitative Research: A Guide to Design and Implementation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
27 L. Burla, B. Knierim, J. Barth, K. Liewald, M. Duetz, & A. Thomas, A. (2008). From text to codings: intercoder reliability assessment in qualitative content analysis. Nursing Research, 57(2), 113-117. DOI : 10.1097/01.nnr.0000313482.33917.7d   DOI
28 C. MacPhail, N. Khoza, L. Abler, & M. Ranganthan, M. (2016). Process guidelines for establishing intercoder reliability in qualitative studies. Qualitative Research, 16(2), 198-212. DOI : 10.1177/1468794115577012   DOI
29 M. J. Belotto. (2018). Data analysis methods for qualitative research: managing the challenges of coding, interrater reliability, and thematic analysis. The Qualitative Report, 23(11), 2622-2633. Retrieved from https://nsuworks.nova.edu/tqr/vol23/iss11/2
30 D. Compton, T. P. Love & J. Sell. (2012). Developing and assessing intercoder reliability in studies of group interaction. Sociological Methodology,42, 348-364. DOI : 10.1177/0081175012444860   DOI
31 G. Hofstede. (1980). Culture's consequences, international differences in work-related values. Newbury Park, CA SAGE.
32 J. Saldana. (2016). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.
33 J. W. Creswell. (2014). Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. United Kingdom: Content Technologies.
34 E. T. Hall. (1981). Beyond culture. New York, Anchor Books.
35 G. Youn, B. G. Knight, H-S. Jeong, & D. Benton. (1999). Differences in familism values and caregiving outcomes among Korean, Korean American, and White American dementia caregivers. Psychology and Aging, 14(3), 355-364. DOI : 10.1037/0882-7974.14.3.355   DOI
36 D. Segura & J. L. Pierce. (Autumn 1993). Chicano/o family structure and gender personality: Chodorow, familism, and psychoanalytic sociology revisited. Signs, 19(1), 62-91.   DOI
37 AARP. (2018). Where WeLive: Communities for All Ages. AARP, Washington DC.
38 R. Ormerod. (2006). The history and ideas of pragmatism. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 57, 892-908. DOI :10.1057/palgrave.jors.2602065   DOI
39 S. Trepte & P. K. Masur. (2017). Need for Privacy. In: Zeigler-Hill V., Shackelford T. (Eds) Encyclopedia of Personality and Individual Differences. Springer, Cham. DOI : 10.1007/978-3-319-28099-8_540-1
40 A. F. Westin. (1967). Privacy and Freedom. New York: Atheneum.
41 R. Schulz, H-W. Wahl, J.T. Matthews, A. De Vito Dabbs, S.R. Beach, & S. Czaja (2015). Advancing the Aging and Technology Agenda in Gerontology. The Gerontologist, 55(5), 724-734. DOI : 10.1093/geront/gnu071   DOI
42 D. F. Mahoney. (2010). An evidence-based adoption of technology model for remote monitoring of Elders' Daily Activities. Ageing International, 36(1), 66-81.   DOI
43 R. Schulz, H-WWahl, H-W., Matthews, J.T., De Vito Dabbs, A., Beach, S. R., & Czaja, S. (2015). Advancing the Aging and Technology Agenda in Gerontology. The Gerontologist, 55 (5), 724-734. DOI :10.1093/geront/gnu071   DOI
44 Hofstede Insights (2021). Country Comparison. https://www.hofstede-insights.com/country-comparis on/south-korea/
45 N. R. Hooyman & H.A. Kiyak. (2011). Social gerontology: A multidisciplinary perspective (9th ed.). New York: Pearson.