Multicultural Australia, Information Technology and

Online Dispute Resolution (ODR)

Dr Francesca Primerano, Deakin University, Australia

Abstract

For effective all encompassing Online Dispute Resolution (ODR) systems, a cross-cultural framework for addressing access and interface usability issues needs to be considered in multicultural Australia. Critical analyses must be undertaken to examine the effect that the technologies are having on the marginalised, notably those with limited access to the technology, and people with specific language needs. 

Introduction

This paper was born out of a larger research project undertaken for my Ph.D. which investigated issues of multiculturalism and access to IT as a social justice issue.  In that project I critically examined the usability of government public access websites with a test group of Italian Australians, aged 45 plus.  The key issues that are raised in the thesis are equally relevant to the realisation of usable and accessible ODR systems.  The main point of this paper is that there is a very real danger that this technology is potentially very alienating and may further marginalise the already technologically disadvantaged people of our society.  While I am sympathetic to the potential and valuable possibilities of ODR, I would like to emphasise that it can be beneficial only if, issues of interface usability, access and equity are addressed, acknowledged and self-consciously negotiated by the designers of public access websites and ODR systems.

1. The Politics of Multiculturalism

Online multiculturalism is a term I designed to describe the enterprise of putting multilingual and multicultural material online.  Online multiculturalism in Australia can be worthwhile and prove to be an effective means of communication if it is well resourced, carefully planned for and systematically delivered.  However, the prospect of online multiculturalism, and consequently, multilingual websites, can also be something that is feared, seen as too hard, expensive and difficult to administer.  This attitude of fear is not surprising given the difficulty in using English only websites and the added expense of producing multilingual websites.  Until the early 1970s the Australian Government had supported an assimilationist policy.  By the late 1970s, the Australian government no longer saw assimilation as a solution to the problem of cultural difference.  The ideology of assimilation reveals itself as an inherent contradiction within the discourse of multiculturalism.  It was in the early 1970s that the idea of multiculturalism was strategically formulated to promote tolerance of cultural difference.  However, as is well documented, the discourse of multiculturalism has had a chequered history (Bennett, 1998: 1-25); not only has this often acted as a political football, it has also facilitated a superficial acceptance of difference (see Harvey 1993; Gunew 1993).  To a large extent this is still the case today.

Despite the chequered history, multiculturalism in 1970s and 1980s Australia brought about a movement to improve communication by the provision of, specifically, multilingual information and interpreting services.  However, the provision of language services for non-English Speaking Background (NESB) people has been consistently under-funded.  For example, the arrival of post-war migrants in Australia did not necessarily secure the employment of bilingual staff across many key institutions such as hospitals, schools, legal services and government departments (see Harvey 1993). 

The term ‘multiculturalism’ continues to be misread and has even come to mean in some instances all that is marginal  ‘Other’ or ‘ethnic’ to the Anglo-Australian subject.  Sneja Gunew (1993) suggests that multiculturalism takes on an agenda directly opposite to the ideas that initially brought it into use.  It highlights the marginalisation that multicultural discourse fails to alleviate through the use of terminologies like ‘the migrant’ and ‘the ethnic’ which has a broader significance for multiculturalism in that it results in a simplistic ‘Othering’ discourse. According to Homi Bhabha (in Gunew, 1990:13), cultural difference is to be found where the ‘loss’ of meaning enters, as a cutting edge, into the representation of the fullness of the demands of culture. It is the articulation through incommensurability that structures all narratives of identification, and all acts of cultural translation. 

Consequently,

if we use the term multicultural then we are homogenising over one hundred very different cultural and linguistic groups and this does, to some extent, defeat the larger purpose of setting up some much-needed precise research into differences and specificities.  It constitutes a lumping together of something which needs carefully to be teased apart.  If we use the other favoured term non-English-speaking background (NESB) then we are presented with a definition in terms of a negative’… (Gunew 1990: 15). 

I would prefer the term English as only a second language or English is just another language.  However  today’s Australia’s public service still uses the term NESB and hence this will be the term I use for this paper.

Like Gunew, Pettman (1992: 117) assesses multiculturalism as a contradictory confirmation of social cohesion, cultural diversity and equality, suggesting a plurality of cultures operating separately yet co-existing.  However, where there was conflict between the ‘migrant’ cultures and the dominant culture and its institutions, the latter always presides.  Over two decades of multiculturalism in Australia has failed to address the issue of adequate English language training, as well as offering NESB workers adequate re-skilling and training programs and easily accessible multilingual online information.  It could be argued that if more English training and re-skilling had been offered to the 1950s, 60s and 70s migrant workers, today Australia’s older NESB population may have been better equipped to embrace the new online technologies as at least their English literacy would be higher.  Instead, a large number of migrants are still not fluent English speakers; with many completely computer illiterate.  Given their computer illiteracy you can begin to see how the complexity in using ODR systems becomes a very real concern.  Using an ODR system may prove difficult for English literate users but who are not necessarily computer literate, and would be even more complicated for Australia’s NESB population.

2.  Information technology & Multiculturalism

I have emphasised in brief the failure of multiculturalism in Australia to draw attention to the political urgency of ensuring that the push to use online technology in multicultural societies does not continue to marginalise and disenfranchise many non-English speaking people as well as people with low or no computer skills: processes that attempt to facilitate ODR need to be mindful of this danger.  However, at a time when new online technologies are taking precedence over traditional forms of communication, there is once again a danger that the needs of NESB people may not be adequately addressed.  I say this because much of the literature about online technology still focuses on the issue of ‘technology’ and usability issues for highly skilled users: this gap needs to be taken into consideration by designers and proponents of ODR systems.  The point I would like to emphasise, however, is that designers of ODR platforms need to be also informed by socio-cultural usability research.

Both my Ph.D. research, and current work, examines the role of Information Communication Technology (ICT) and their online applications within a specifically socio-cultural and political framework.  Many other studies carried out in the field of usability, however, are done so under the disciplines of computer science and Information Technology.  Characteristically, these studies lack an in-depth focus on cultural and cross-cultural issues.  Computer Science studies also prefer to adopt quantitative methodologies that usually require the quantifiable categorisation of data. By doing this some of the more human aspects involved with interacting with the technology are ignored or missed. Some studies however, have focused more on the sociology of technology, studies such as MacKenzie & Wajcman’s (1999) collection of essays. At that time their work was groundbreaking because literature on the specific field of website usability was more commonly concerned with the ‘technological,’ aspect of the internet operating in isolation from social factors such as ethnicity and gender or indeed, ideology.  In fact MacKenzie & Wajcman’s highlight that the use of technology and ethnicity has been ‘much less explored’ than gender (25-6). 

It has been established that it is middle-class males, who constitute the largest group of online users, they dominantly take up much of the research focus on IT.  A report published in 1997 by Motorola in Britain suggests the reason for this is due to the combined factors of the expense of computers and poor computer skills.  The study also found that 91% of people had heard of the Internet and many people said they would use the new online technologies if the user interface was simpler (Motorola 1997: 4-5).  The salient point in this Motorola study is that it highlights the need for simpler and usable user interfaces.  I use this study as a case in point to highlight the importance of providing more effective and usable designs for both well-educated English speaking people and people with limited English and computer literacy.  The Motorola study is important because it highlights that people who are English speaking but who are not computer literate experience difficulty in using online technology just as NESB people with low computer literacy do.  Despite the popular belief that would suggest otherwise, the Internet is not a universal tool; rather, it is designed for a particular kind of user: They are always high-end users and usually, although not always, English speaking.  Although there is an increase of non-English languages on the Internet, it is the well trained who are primarily privileged in the design and its use.  Even in non-English speaking countries such as Turkey, Greece and Italy for example, it would be the well trained computer literate users who are privileged in using this technology. 

2.1 Towards A Multicultural Online Design Approach

The drive to get services and information online can be attributed to an IT global economic boom in the mid 1990s.  In the context of the Australian state of Victoria, the boom coincided with a keen pro-technology Kennett Liberal Government in office from 1992-1999.  The boom in technology stocks lasted until their downfall in May 2000, when the dot .com phenomena commenced to crash.  During the boom however, it was proclaimed the ‘revolution’ in communications provided by the Internet would make the global village feasible (Pardo 1998).  To this end It is worth asking, however, who really benefited from this communication boom?  According to Charp: 

Bridging the digital divide has become a universal concern and is looked upon as ‘big business’ with unlimited potential. However, closing the digital divide involves more than placing computers in locations for easy access. How to use the information effectively and efficiently must be addressed (Charp 2001: online).

The question of how to make online information more usable and accessible for the general public, but in particular minority groups, is a key concern.  My thesis emphasised and opened up important issues such as marginalisation and the Internet, access and equity and the need for effective multilingual usable online applications for Australia’s large NESB population as one way of bridging the digital divide. 

It is clear that cultural difference is an important design issue which Wild & Henderson (1997) took up.  They were criticizing Australian University web pages for being ineffective for culturally diverse students.  They state that Australian websites do not cater to the needs of their diverse and increasingly international audience.  Because of this situation, Wild & Henderson propose that all websites could usefully adopt a ‘culturally appropriate’ model of instructional design (180).  Similarly, Hopkins (1998), President of Weblations, affirms that constructing multilingual websites requires an understanding of the social and cultural issues that impact on a user’s understanding of online technologies. 

If government and community organisations are providing important information online, the needs of NESB users must be considered to ensure access to this information.  The question that needs to be asked is, how will this be realised?  In response to the university website problem discussed above, a government-funded report makes a clear recommendation that ‘the university sector should be pro-active in profiling and accommodating characteristics of user needs’ (Bruce cited in Wild & Henderson 1997: 181).  That is, the specific needs of diverse users need to be incorporated within the website design.

With the emerging pervasive use of the Internet, and facilities such as ODR there seems to be a push to use icons and the English language as a lingua franca, as a means of communication that dispenses with a script based language.  However, it is realised that this alternative system is inadequate, both at a local and a global level.  Several commentators have noted that iconography needs to be used in conjunction with text precisely because iconography alone is inadequate in conveying information (Teasley & Instone et al, 1997; Ogozalek, 1994).  These studies demonstrate that iconography in isolation do not present a lingua franca.  However, what these studies do demonstrate is the questionability of the notion that website and interface designs can genuinely communicate their functions ‘intuitively’ for all users: these are questions that the designers of ODR systems need to address. 

The next point I wish to highlight in this paper is a couple of interface design examples that have begun to grapple with the issue of culture. Alvin Yeo’s (1996) Cultural User Interface (CUI) is a concept that attempts to tackle the role of culture in the design of an interface.  CUI discusses issues regarding the different cultural understandings of the interface.  Another theory attempting to grapple with the issue of design and cultural difference is the Local User Centred Interface Design (LUCID).  The ideas of internationalisation and localisation that inform LUCID generate a design method which is outlined in the work by Smith & Dunckley (1993). LUCID entails designing an interface in a way that enables it to be informed by the particularities of a specific localised culture. 

The field study conducted as part of my thesis confirmed that many migrants in Australia experience a degree of difficulty in understanding English based interfaces and new technical words in a context where the dominant language is English and the operational environment is technological.  The field study findings confirm the degree of difficulty novice NESB users have in using the vocabulary associated with online technology as well as the technology itself.  Community development, education and training are important so important that the Internet can become a tool to be used progressively by more and more people from diverse cultural and linguistic backgrounds. 

Many potential NESB users communicate by their particular knowledge and phenomenon of code-switching (see Clyne, 1982) This is a specific mode of communication amongst language minorities in Australia and possibly other multicultural societies such as Canada, United Kingdom and Sweden, for example. 

It is worth noting that there is still a large number of Italian-Australians who only have limited English literacy (see ABS 2001), and of whom many older Italian-Australians speak a mix of dialect, Italian and minimal English (Bettoni & Rubino 1998, Rubino 1991, Bettoni 1985, and Di Biase & Paltridge 1985).  The point is that online information is best understood when presented in a multilingual format.

3. Language as an Access Issue

English, as the institutional state language, poses access and equity problems.  NESB people living in English speaking countries are disadvantaged when it comes to accessing information and power structures because of the crucial role language has on influencing social participation.  Lindsay Tanner, the Federal Member for Melbourne, reinforces the importance of having knowledge of the English language when he states that:

The ability to speak English is vital to anyone’s ability to successfully integrate into the broader community and make a lasting contribution to Australia’s workforce.  It is ridiculous to apply employment activity tests to refugees without first teaching them how to speak English (Tanner 2000: 2).

Again this highlights the pivotal role that English has in Australia.  Tanner makes the point that without English skills people cannot contribute effectively to Australian society.  I raise this to highlight not only the importance of the English language in Australia but also as an example of how people can be marginalised when they don’t have the adequate language skills.  Hence I argue that at the very least if online material is available in different languages people of a non-English speaking background can be informed and can engage in Australian multicultural society at some level.

4.  Conclusion

It is imperative that online information be made available in a variety of forms and places so that it does not disadvantage people of NESB living in multicultural societies.  Flexible and alternative models of communication and information provision are crucial and this includes the design of ODR systems.  Further, it is essential that the barriers and limitations to online products be addressed by government, business, community organisations and other interested parties. In an increasingly technological age, a major role for governments and activists in culture technology and communication in multicultural societies should be the provision of accessible multilingual information on various online applications in relation to government and public access websites.  The enterprise of building accessible multilingual public access websites will decrease the homogenisation of cultures and conversely promote the practice of cultural diversity by ensuring that issues of access and equity are addressed.  This will hopefully empower minority groups rather than contribute to their already marginalised status. This paper has argued for equality in the delivery of Information Communication Technologies in an attempt to hinder the marginalisation of people from non-English speaking backgrounds continuing in to the Information Age: an ethic of social justice that should be adhered to in regards to all online applications.
 

References

Australian Bureau of Statistics.  2001.  ‘2001 Census Basic Community Profile and Snapshot’ [Online].  Available: http://www.abs.gov.au/Ausstats/ABS%40Census.nsf/4079a1bbd2a04b80ca256bnd00208f92/7dd97c937216e32fca256bbe008371f0!OpenDocument#Language [Accessed 23/07/02]. 

Australian Bureau of Statistics.  2002.  ‘Social Trends - Population Composition: Languages spoken in Australian 1999’ [Online].  Available:  http://www.abs.gov.au/Ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/7DF24DBD701CE508CA25699F0005D614 [Accessed 23/7/02].

Bennet, D. (ed.) 1998.  Multicultural States: Rethinking Difference and Identity London: Routledge. 

Bennett, D.  1998.  ‘Introduction.’  In D. Bennett (ed.), Multicultural states: rethinking difference and identity.  London: Routledge,  1-25.  

Bettoni, C. 1985 Tra Lingua e Inglese (Between Language and Dialect), Sydney: FILEF Italo-Australian Publications. 

Bettoni, C.; Rubino, A. 1995. ‘Emigrazione al Femminile: Il Caso Italo-Australiano.’  In G, Marcato, (ed.) Donna E’ Linguaggio Belluno, Italy: CLEUP.

Bhabha, H.  1990.  ‘DissemiNation: Time, Narrative and the Margins of the Modern Nation.’  In H. Bhabha (ed.) Nation and Narration, London: Routledge, 291-322. 

Charp, S.  2001.  ‘Bridging the Digital Divide .’  Technological Horizons In Education Journal, vol. 28, no. 10 [Online].  Available: http://www.thejournal.com/magazine/vault/A3442.cfm [Accessed 10/12/01]. 

Clyne, M.  1982.  Multilingual Australia.  Melbourne: River Seine. 

Di Biase, B & Paltridge, B (eds.).  1985.  Italian in Australia Language or Dialect.  Sydney: FILEF Italo-Australian Publications. 

Gunew, S.  1993.  ‘Feminism and the Politics of Irreducible Differences: Multiculturalism/ Ethnicity/ Race.’  In S. Gunew & A. Yeatman (eds.), Feminism and the Politics of Difference.  St. Leonards, N.S.W.: Allen & Unwin, 1-19. 

Harvey, J.  1993.  ‘Different Starting Points: Different Stories, Rethinking Australian Multiculturalism.’  Proceedings on the Conference on Racism, Indigenous Peoples, Ethnicity and Gender in Australia, New Zealand and Canada.  University of Technology, Sydney, 9-11 December.   

Hopkins, R. Jr.  1998.  ‘Multilingual Websites: Benefits you can count on, headaches you  can avoid.’ Online: http://www.weblations.com/eng/articles/art_2.htm [Accessed 7/10/00]. 

Mackenzie, D. & Wajcman, J. (eds.).  1999.  The Social Shaping of Technology, Second Edition, Buckingham: Open University Press. 

Motorola.  1997.  The British and technology: The Motorola report.  Slough: Motorola. 

Pardo, M.L.  1998.  ‘How is the Internet Impacting on Individuals and Society and What Visions Do We Have for the Future?’ International Conference: 25-27 March 1998, Bristol, UK, IRISS '98: Conference Papers [Online].  Available: http://www.sosig.ac.uk/iriss/papers/paper23.htm [Accessed 25/08/98]. 

Rubino, A. & Bettoni, C.  1998.  ‘Language Maintenance and Language Shift: Dialect Vs Italian Among Italo-Australians.’ Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, Vol. 21 No. 1 21-39. 

Rubino, A. 1991. ‘Patterns of Language Choice and Language Contact in Formal and Informal Settings.’ Rivista di Linguistica, Vol.3 No.2 277-305

Tanner, L.  2000.  ‘Multiculturalism Undermined.’ Melbourne Memo: Report to the electorate of Melbourne.  Pamphlet from the office of the member for Melbourne, Lindsay Tanner, M.P. 

Wild, M. & Henderson, L.  1997.  ‘Contextualising learning in the World Wide Web: accounting for the impact of culture.’  Education and information technologies Vol.2., no. 3, 179-192.