한국융합학회논문지 (Journal of the Korea Convergence Society)

  • 제12권8호
  • /
  • Pages.215-228
  • /
  • 2021
  • /
  • 2233-4890(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2713-6353(eISSN)
한국융합학회 (Korea Convergence Society)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

사회문화적 요인이 미국 고령층의 복지기술 수용에 미치는 영향: 전문가 인터뷰를 중심으로

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

  • 투고 : 2021.05.25
  • 심사 : 2021.08.20
  • 발행 : 2021.08.28
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

본 연구의 목적은 질적연구방법을 이용하여 미국 고령층의 복지기술 수용성에 영향을 미치는 사회문화적 요인을 추출하고 각 요인과 복지기술 수용성간의 연관성을 분석하여 향후 고령자의 삶의 잘향상을 위한 사회문화적 기반복지기술 수용성 증진방안을 도출하는데 기여하기 위함이다. 10명의 노인분야 전문가와 심층인터뷰를 통해 수집한 자료를 두 차례에 걸친 개방형 코딩 프로세스로 결과를 도출하였다. 자료분석 결과 7개의 주 코드와 주 코드에 중첩된 22개의 2차 코드 등 총 29개의 코드를 통해 사회문화적 요인을 추출하였다. 분석결과 개인주의, 가족중심문화, 실용주의, 저맥락 문화, 프라이버시, 재미추구와 수평적문화 등이 미국 고령층의 복지기술수용에 영향을 미치는 사회문화적 요인으로 나타났다. 이 연구결과는 고령층의 복지 기술사용의도에 영향을 미칠 수 있는 국가별 문화적 차이를 정의하고, 각 요인과 복지기술 수용성간의 관계를 분석하기 위한 설문조사 개발에 기여할 것이다. 이를 위해서는 향후 연구에는 한 국가 또는 국가 간 사회문화적 차이를 설명하는 척도개발이 필요하다.

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.

키워드

과제정보

This research project was supported by 2019 National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF-2019S1A5A2A03048377).

참고문헌

  1. 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
  2. S. Frennert & K. Baudin (2019). The concept of welfare technology in Swedish municipal eldercare, Disability and Rehabilitation. DOI : 10.1080/09638288.2019.1661035
  3. 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
  4. 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
  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. https://doi.org/10.1093/ageing/afq156
  8. 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. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJMC.2011.042452
  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. 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)
  12. F. D. Davis. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and use acceptance of information technology. MIS quarterly, 13(3), 319-340. https://doi.org/10.2307/249008
  13. 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 https://doi.org/10.2307/249577
  14. 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. https://doi.org/10.2307/249803
  15. 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
  16. V. Venktatesh & F. D. Davis (2000). A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: four longitudinal field studies. Management Science, 46(2), 186-204. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.46.2.186.11926
  17. P.Y.K Chau (1996). An empirical assessment of a modified technology acceptance model. Journal of Management Information Systems, 13(2), 185-204. https://doi.org/10.1080/07421222.1996.11518128
  18. 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
  19. 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
  20. 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. https://doi.org/10.1177/1460458211435425
  21. D. F. Mahoney. (2010). An evidence-based adoption of technology model for remote monitoring of Elders' Daily Activities. Ageing International, 36(1), 66-81. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12126-010-9073-0
  22. 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
  23. 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
  24. Federal Interagency Forum on Aging-Related Statistics. (2020). Older Americans 2020: Key indicators of well-being. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Report
  25. J. Kim. (2020). Senior Business Overseas Cases and Strategies for Revitalization, Aging Review Quarterly, 37, 30-42. Korea Insurance Research Institute.
  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
  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
  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
  31. 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
  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. Hofstede. (1980). Culture's consequences, international differences in work-related values. Newbury Park, CA SAGE.
  36. 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
  37. 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. https://doi.org/10.1086/494862
  38. N. R. Hooyman & H.A. Kiyak. (2011). Social gerontology: A multidisciplinary perspective (9th ed.). New York: Pearson.
  39. R. Ormerod. (2006). The history and ideas of pragmatism. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 57, 892-908. DOI :10.1057/palgrave.jors.2602065
  40. E. Meyer. (2014). The culture map: Breaking through the invisible boundaries of global business. New York, NY: Public Affairs.
  41. 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
  42. I. Altman. (1975). The Environment and Social Behavior: Privacy, Personal Space, Territory, Crowding. Monterey: Brooks/Cole Publishing Company.
  43. A. F. Westin. (1967). Privacy and Freedom. New York: Atheneum.
  44. AARP. (2018). Where WeLive: Communities for All Ages. AARP, Washington DC.
  45. Hofstede Insights (2021). Country Comparison. https://www.hofstede-insights.com/country-comparis on/south-korea/