Questions

Does the term 'natives' imply a narrow set of skills? i.e. just as 'natives' had a narrow set of skills suited to their culture before immigrants or invaders arrived?

Are 'insiders' privy to what others do not know? Is there an exclusivity formed with this term? What is problematic with this term?

Is it appropriate to say that ‘newcomers’ does not focus on age, moreso that technologies are new to them at some stage of their lives?

Digital natives continued

The phrase 'digital natives' suggests that ‘natives’ have some inherent character, a problematic suggestion in literature that has long positioned the ‘essential’ native in opposition to ‘immigrants’. Of course, in this case the ‘essence’ ascribed to the native is designed to be a positive recognition of particular sets of skills (i.e. computer competency) but the historical pattern of ascribing differences between natives and immigrants (or natives and invaders) makes the easy use of these terms unlikely.

C/- Leonie Rowan

The problem with categories

This posting is in part taken from my online chat with Prof Chris Bigum last week.

The problem with any categorical classification or label is that the phrase should not be the explanation. The phrase should be the beginning of the explanation. Labels such as digital insiders or digital natives should be the starting point of further explanation.

As Bourdieu, Bachelard, Canguilhem, and many others would suggest, nothing is neutral. Categories and labels are never value-neutral - they are in fact value-laden. Historically, categories and labels have permeated hard sciences, and this spread to social sciences (in our bid for objectivity perhaps?).

So what values are inherent in the phrase 'digital natives'?

The use of the term 'digital natives'

In 1996, John Perry Barlow wrote about digital natives and digital immigrants to distinguish between those who have always been immersed in digital media and those who have been introduced to it at some point of their lives and are newcomers to its use. The phrase ‘digital natives’ is problematic for post-colonial theorists. It focuses on aboriginal or indigenous people, and adolescents in a negative way, or refers to them in a dichotomous form in keeping with other binaries such as civilized and un-civilized, developed and under-developed. There are imperialistic notions surrounding the term ‘natives’.

The terms I prefer to use are digital insiders and digital newcomers (Goodson, Knobel, Lankshear, & Mangan, 2002). These terms allow for multiple experiences, rather than just being at one extreme or the other of a continuum.

The phrase ‘digital newcomers’ which also seems to me to be preferable as it disassociates itself with terms again that post-colonial theorists would have problems with (i.e. the term 'immigrants' can be argued to bring up negative connotations).

A person who is arguably more famous as a result of his use of the phrase 'digital natives' is Marc Prensky. More on him soon.

Contributions and opinions are welcome. More on this soon.


References

Barlow, J. P. (1996, February 8, 1996). A Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace. Retrieved 11/8, 2006, from http://www.eff.org/Misc/Publications/John_Perry_Barlow/barlow_0296.declaration.txt

Goodson, I. F., Knobel, M., Lankshear, C., & Mangan, J. M. (2002). Cyber Spaces/Social Spaces: Cultural Clash in Computerized Classrooms. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

PhD pubs

I have three publications I am hoping to submit and be accepted for publication by the end of the year.

1) Journal article
Understanding Teenager Technological Expertise in Out-of-School Settings

2) Journal article
Digital insiders and the theoretical implications for pedagogy

3) Book
I'm still debating the title - I have in mind the following: Internet Addiction: A New Way of Looking at the Use of Digital Technologies in the 21st Century (book) OR Accepting the [New?] Practices of Digital Insiders OR Digital Insiders, Technologies and their Addiction.

Research interests

Currently, I am writing a book chapter on Pierre Bourdieu. It is titled 'Subjectivity and Objectivity' and is being edited by Professor Michael Grenfell who is a Professor of Education at the School of Education in the Faculty of Law, Arts and Social Sciences at the University of Southampton, UK.

I am developing a research project which extends on my PhD entitled, 'Theorizing teenager technological expertise'. It seeks to focus on how youth understand technological expertise to happen and why. It will utilize a sociological approach to finding out about these understandings.

I am working on a paper for CYIRC which explores how the media presents young people.

Another project I am working on is a paper titled, 'Exchanging Online Stories: A Space for Both Learning and Leisure' which focuses on the Story Exchange on a website named www.thesims2ea.com and discusses possible implications for schooling.

Why the bus?

I take the bus to and from work - most of the time. Sometimes David my husband is my chauffeur ;-)

Why?

There are actually quite a number of reasons.

1. I dislike driving. Sometimes I find it stressful. I find it quite relaxing having someone else drive me.
2. Going on the bus gives me time to think about other things, that are arguably in need of more attention than being attentive to driving. For instance, thinking about following the road code and making sure I and others are safe on the road.
3. It costs only $3.70 one way. That's $37 a week if I went to and from work every day on the bus. Compare this to the cost of running a car, including insurance, petrol, and the initial outlay for buying a car.
4. It is 15 minutes of thinking time (I did think I would read, but it's not really enough time to get work out, sometimes I feel sick when reading on the bus, and in the mornings, there is not enough space).
5. I get some exercise by walking to the bus stop, and walking to my office from the university bus stop.
6. I focus on using my time well at work, because in the afternoons, either I get the bus at 3:40pm, or work until 5:40pm when the next one arrives.
7. Call me cheap or whatever, but I don't want to pay $200 per year to UOW for car parking.
8. I do not want the stress of having to find a carpark, as I am not guaranteed of getting a park, even if I have paid for a parking permit.
9. At this stage, I cannot justify paying $600 a year for a reserved car park.
10. I don't contribute a personal share of carbon dioxide emissions to the environment.
11. We only own one car. That means David can use it, and I don't need to.
12. It encourages me to be disciplined so that I get the bus on time!