Culture, Society and Identity

“..values are the primary motivational construct that influences almost every aspect of human life, guiding us to consider what is desirable then energising and directing behaviour towards attaining these goals..” (Suke, 2009)

I wanted to explore further the ideas around cultural identity and ethics, as this linked to my project premise about taking a values-based approach to digital inclusion. My assumption was that many of the discussions about identity, trust and safety are, and will continue to happen, but what we need to do is find the right ‘conversational frameworks’ with which to have these discussion. Originally I thought that I could just point people in the right direction and give them some top tips. But it has become clearer the more I have researched, that these are decisions that people have to make for themselves, but you can help them to have these conversations.

Suke (2009) paper was an interesting look at male cultural identity with students in china, and how the digital world might be changing their cultural values. Chen describes values as objects, conditions or characteristics that members of that society consider important. This is interesting in a Chinese context, as cultural values were formed from the traditional culture of china and the increasing globalised culture of the online world. Therefore these young men were interacting in two potentially different social environments and so it would be expected that this might alter their culture values.

The idea of cultural identity is also pick up in a paper by Cullen (2009), researching ideas of identity and information privacy in the context of New Zealand. Cullen notes that the concerns about privacy are different for different groups and reflect the cultural values and concepts of personal identity that people have. This difference in privacy concerns is also the basis for Lorenzen-Huber et al’s (2010) research on privacy and older aged adults. Their motivation was understanding whether privacy frameworks should be different for older aged adults, as their perceptions will be influenced by different psychosocial motivations.  They say that studies suggest that older adults are unconcerned about privacy related to data-collection and sharing and that their perceived risk is lower than the actual risk. They explored a five part privacy framework using a variety of practical experiments with older people.

• Seclusion (right to be left alone)
• Autonomy (right to self-determination)
• Property (right to determine use and dissemination of personal data)
• Spatial construct (physical and virtual boundaries)
• Data protection

They found that older adults were more concerned with emotional connections to family and friends, but particularly focused on independence and autonomy. Therefore they balanced privacy preferences against their desire for independent living, personal autonomy and satisfying relationships, and had little concern around the five areas of privacy. If devices were perceived as useful then they generally viewed them as acceptable, but they wanted to control the decision making.

What this starts to show us is that we need to understand identity and privacy as not universal. The concerns and approaches are not only different according to culture, but also to age. Therefore discussions and work with volunteers might need to be approached differently. One size won’t fit all, and the risks to one group may be different to those of another because of their perceptions.

The digital world and youth culture.

Discussions about the fragmented self are scattered around literature about the digital world and culture. Besley (2011) reminds us of Foucault’s view that our identities are not fixed but fluid. They change and develop over time in a fluid, dynamic and creative process. As Besley is reflecting on creative media and how this contributes to the wider ‘knowledge’ economy, the paper naturally explores identity with a personal and public dimension, and how the public dimension shapes our behaviour. Besleys notes that the digital identity can be more fragmented and more temporal, so we need to manage it more, although we tend to put our best side forward. Youth culture is often situated within the online world of content creation and participatory culture (affiliations, expressions, collaborative problem solving and circulations), and much of this makes us ‘media producers’.

KImmon’s (2014) focuses in on new media and the literacies that ensue. We need to have an understanding of the relationship between online participation and identity and also how the structure of social media spaces influence and shape identity. Gradinaru talked about ‘context collapse’ in the sense that it is hard for us to figure out what context we are in, but as Belk pointed out, social media context afford certain characteristics, like more self-disclosure. Therefore, according to Kimmons social networking sites have their own cultures and norms that force us to behave in certain ways, making it difficult to express ‘authentic’ identity. It is also easier to misinterpret identity through online information as it often doesn’t go deeper into the whys and whats of what we are expressing. Therefore (back to Foucault), identity is fluid and shaped by the context of the media we participate in. Which is not a new idea, as we behave differently at work, as we might at home, and so forth.

“…we need to empower learners to participate in SNS in ways that are meaningful and truthful for them, but do not reduce identity to the strict confines of the medium”. (Kimmons, 2014)

Besley, T. (2011). Digitised youth: Constructing identities in the creative knowledge economy. Annals Of Spiru Haret University, Journalism Studies, 12(1), 9-22.

Cullen (2009) Culture, identity and information privacy in the age of digital government.  Online Information Review, 33(3), 405-421.

Lorenzen-Huber, L., Boutain, M., Camp, L. J., Shankar, K., & Connelly, K. H. (2011). Privacy, Technology, and Aging: A Proposed Framework. Ageing International, 36(2).

Kimmons, R. (2014). Social Networking Sites, Literacy, and the Authentic Identity Problem. Techtrends: Linking Research & Practice To Improve Learning, 58(2), 93-98.

Suke, C. (2009). College Male Students' Cultural Value Identity in the New Media World. China Media Research, 5(4), 41-46.

Degrees of openness

Here we are again – identity, privacy, openness. The Networked Practitioner is cleverly taking us through an investigative and reflective journey to think about our own practice and where we want to be.  I have done a lot of researching this week, and networking, but may be not so much reflecting. For any of you Scouting people also reading my blog, this is definitely learning by doing. But maybe my journey will help you with yours.

The first task of the week asked us to think about our own stances on openness in regards to publishing work as a ‘digital scholar’ (see previous post). I have never published anything other than my blog and twitter feed, so I have no idea what my feelings about publishing only in open-access journals would be. At this point I think I would just be amazed to be published anywhere! I think that given my passionate desire to change the way that fellow practitioners do things, and that my ‘practice’ sits in informal education, that I would probably say that I would opt for open access. I will let you know if I ever do get published!!

So, what about sharing learning material openly? We were asked a couple of questions around this area of sharing our own material. Would we share unfinished work; and would we share immediately and openly. The answer to this will depend on what you are sharing, your profession and your field. As a tutor group it has been interesting to acknowledge that for some, their material is their income, and so sharing openly may impact their finances. While for others, their job dictates that what they create, belongs to the organisation for which they created it. I had not really considered intellectual property rights before, and it’s not a discussion I have had in my work life. (I will be going back to work next week and checking this out’.

But am I worried about my intellectual property. After all, the whole of life is a mash up and I am sure that we could never reference everybody who may have influenced our ways of thinking. Ordinarily when I create resources for work, I have no desire to put my name to them, as that’s not important and there is a bigger picture (plus, it’s what I am paid to do) But if I am trying to build my practitioner status, is it important for people to attribute me? Naturally I want to inspire people, but the worry is that in sharing my ideas and creations, someone my take that and make money out of it. I think this is why the creative commons approach is important. I never really got it before, but it’s a way to say, ’here you go, here’s what I created and you can use it too….as long as you don’t make money from it’!

The other thing to think about is also the sensitivity of your creations. Working in the safeguarding field, there are times when we share and create confidential material, which would not be appropriate to share openly and out of context. And then there is sharing work that isn’t finished yet….and I think that is for more closed networks unless you are working collaboratively to create stuff.

Time. It’s not really a resource, but it’s one thing that shapes what and how we do things. Thus for most people things they can do easily are more likely to happen. I am a dreamer a times, but ultimately pragmatic. I think that building things into the daily routine makes it easier. Thus if publishing and sharing finds a natural place in the everyday, I think it would make to easier. That’s not to say that some effort isn’t required. And when I really think about it. It I can be better networked to my fellow practitioners, and they can help in collaboration, then ultimately we might be able to co-create resources more quickly than finding the time to do it alone.