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.

A further quest for identity

I have been continuing my exploration of identity, after some carefully worded searching on the Open University library (not sure what I am going to do without it). The next few blog posts are a summary of some of the papers that I read on my long train journey yesterday to see family.

The Extended Self in a Digital World (Belk, 2013)

Russell Belk is a professor in business and marketing and his discussion focuses on how possessions are an extended part of our identity. This paper was so fascinating that I even discussed it over lunch. It is interesting to come to discussions about identity from a different place, and his paper looks at rewriting an earlier work about possessions, and how digital possession might change how we view and create identity. The digital world means that many of our possessions are now ‘invisible’ (like music, film), and what was once private collections has now become public. The paper discusses whether that means that we no longer view possessions in the same way, or does it mean that we alter how we use and view these possessions as a wider part of our identity.

The key concept is that possessions serve as markers for others to form impressions of us, and are cues for individual and collective meaning. Belk notes that digital good can change our behaviour. They can stimulate consumer desires, and help actualise possible daydreams or impossible fantasies (by becoming a wizard in world of Warcraft or building a village), but they also serve to facilitate experimentation. However, the problem with digital possessions is the uncertainty over ownership. Belk asks if their roles change when we turn off the device, but I think this is no different from the collections you keep in the attic, or the music and films that sit on shelves.

This prompted discussion during lunch around how digital things might have change our own personal possession. We are moving house soon and have started to ‘declutter’. We have ‘got rid of’ a number of dvds (from a collection of over 500), books and cds. Several years ago I said that I would never have a kindle – now – I wouldn’t be without it. I have come to realise that my love of books wasn’t the physical object, but the places that they took me. I still feel the same emotions towards reading and treasure some of the stories, but I don’t need to keep the physical book. I love my kindle and find that a physical book constrains me being able to just pop it in my bag for those odd moments. It’s the same with music. My whole music collection fits on a disk that fits in my phone. I have listened to more music in the last year than I did the previous ten years before. Why. Because it fits in my pocket, and I can play it whenever there is a moment. My walk to work everyday has afforded a great deal of opportunity to revisit albums from my youth, and long train journeys home from training weekends, let me rest my brain and listen to new albums.  So music suddenly has been repackaged and repurposed in my life. I guess this is about the fact that possession are extended parts of us, and it’s how we use it, rather than the physical presentation of it that is important. But what digital possessions have meant for me, is that I get to explore my heritage and discover new things that will potential help me reconfigure my identity for now.

Getting back to Belk, there are a number of other points he makes, which many others also make, about the natural of the digital world. Our representations of ourselves can be fictional (online games and virtual worlds) or real-life (blogs, forums and social media). What we have started doing more of, is sharing our possessions, as a way of enhancing our sense of self: self-portraiture, self-reflection, and self-confession. I really important point that I had not really consciously considered, but is acknowledged by many of the writers about digital identity, is that less face to face contact encourages more self-disclosure. And most social networks afford self-disclosure as the heart of their existence. Belk tells us that this means there is more self-revelation (and this is acceptable, in fact a necessity) , a loss of control, more shared digital possessions and aggregated self (there’s lots of little bits of us joined together) and a shared sense of space. It means that the construction of self is more social, and focus on affirming our existence in a social world, while building an ‘extended’ self. But it also means that we start to have a more distributed memory, where the digital world gives us digital clutter, as well as different narratives of self, and digital cues to our sense of past.

Belk, R. W. (2013). Extended self in a digital world. Journal of Consumer Research, 40(3), 477-500. [online] Available at: http://www.dies.uniud.it/tl_files/utenti/crisci/Belk%202013a.pdf

Exploring online identity - convergence of self

From Multitude to Convergence: Contemporary Trends in the Study of online Identity (Gradinaru, 2013)

This paper attempts to explore the changes in our understanding of identity, and how ‘technological domestication’ (the fact that the internet is a functional part of our everyday lives), has meant a convergence in the online/offline identity. Today our online identities are similar to our offline, as people want to be honest and direct, and because it would be incredibly difficult to manage multi-personalities now that it is easier for us to find ways of verifying people’s identities and that we have less control, sometimes, as a user. The information about us needs to fit together.

I remember reading a number of articles when I first started my Masters in Online and Distance Education about anonymity and identity and how the internet is changing behaviour. So this article, despite it being a difficult read, really spoke about the ways that technology use has changed and that for most people, honesty and ‘realistic’ portrayals of self are more important, especially in a networked age. Gradinaru takes us back to the early internet of the 1990s and how the multitude of possibilities and anonymity spoke to us of the freedom and liberty that the internet affords, and links in with postmodern ideas and multiple personalities.  ‘Self’ could be distributed and so we could have a portfolio of personalities and play different roles at the same time. Being able to explore numerous aspects of ourselves potentially led to tensions between our online and offline identities.

However the way we use the internet and technology itself has changed, especially with the advent of social media tools and platforms, meaning that the difficulty is now knowing which identity to us in which context (Rodogno, 2011). Or in fact knowing what context we are in. Rodogno introduces the idea of ‘content collapse’ in sense that the complexity of the platforms and services available to us make it difficult for us to determine which identity we are in, and so multiple audiences are suddenly in the same context.  Therefore as users it’s not surprising that we have started adopting a ‘imagined audience’ and lean towards shaping our online identity to that of our offline. Otherwise we have a great deal of work to do in ‘archiving’ and protecting our different personalities.

Online identity then, is about how we present ourselves to others, but also about how we perceive ourselves through our interaction with others. This the way we present ourselves online becomes a process of managing and constructing impressions, so that we can control how other perceives us. Therefore the internet is no longer a playground with which to construct different identities (although we still use the internet to explore different facets of identity), it becomes a way of ‘customising’ our identities, with symbolic markers that link back to the ‘real’.

How is this relevant to my project?

Many of our volunteers will be of a generation who lived through these debates in the 1990s, and may see the internet still as this ‘other’ place where people go to play and be someone or something they are not. The article reminds us that the way we use technology has changed. The more embedded it has become, the more people use it as a part of their everyday lives, and so their online identities will mirror the offline. That’s not to say that there aren’t people who create completing anonymous identities, and we know that some of the fears about safety come from the fear of not knowing who you are talking to. But it has become easier to verify identity. Because people are being ‘real’.

Thus if we want to help our volunteers with their trust issues, we can once again draw on our values. The way we behave and act offline should be the same as the way we behave online. The way we interact with strangers, should be the same. Just as we might be wary of the stranger on the bus, we should also be wary of the stranger wanting to be our friend on Facebook. Being ‘real’ about our identity makes it easier to manage our identity.

Gradinaru, C. (2013). From Multitude to Convergence: Contemporary Trends in the Study of Online Identity. Argumentum: Journal The Seminar Of Discursive Logic, Argumentation Theory & Rhetoric, 11(2), 95-108.

Rodogno, R. (2011). “Personal Identity Online”. Philosophy and Technology 25 (3): 309-328.

Binge studying......

A lovely picture of a squirrel to represent me binging, but also to provide some cute factor by way of an apology.

So we have had binge eating. Then binge entertainment (where you what the whole series in one day). As you know, I like to 'binge' study. This is through necessity rather than choice really. That's what time resources do. 

According to the urban dictionary binge studying is about cramming for a test, and is not useful. However, my binge studying is more about utilising my resources within a temporal context (time). I am breaking up study time by looking at forums, twitter and other students work.
So sorry, but I guess if you are binging - it's better to share it right?

Part two: exploring concept of digital inclusion

Social and Digital disadvantage (Helsper, 2008)

Helsper’s (2008) study explored the relationship between social and digital disadvantage using available empirical data. It is a comprehensive look at the links between digital and social engagement and focuses on the debates around socio-economic links to digital inclusion. The study picks up on the question about use – and asks does it matter that many households don’t use the internet?

Key findings

The report found that those in socially deprived areas were also least likely to have access to digital resources, and the analysis suggested that this had not been improving. However it points out that there are clear exceptions from the norm. These included the ‘unexpectedly engaged’, who tended to be younger, single, socially disadvantaged and certain ethnic groups. It also included the ‘unexpectedly disengaged’, who were those in more rural areas, older and unemployed.  The analysis highlighted that educational achievement, employment and rural access could affect engagement, but this was not necessarily because of access or skill. There were links found with the level at which people accessed technology and social isolation and economic disadvantage. Those who suffer specific social disadvantages were least likely to benefit from technology that could potentially help them (for example, those with poor education faced barriers to access education, the elderly faced a reduction in the likelihood of using social application).

Digital choice

Helsper introduces the idea of ‘digital choice’. This concept, I think, encapsulates the idea that just because you can go online, you do. Online initiatives that focus purely on access and digital services, forget about the support factors that are needed for social inclusion, which may help with engagement with technology. Attitude to technology are just as important as access quality and the access location.

This picks up on some of the categories that the Tinder foundation have highlighted:

Digitally Excluded – perceive they have no access

Digitally Dismissive – choose not to use, but have access and skills

Digitally Included – have the desire, access and skills

Digitally Determined – have the access but it is not readily available

Digital choice is driven by cultural factors and social context. This means that individuals may have positive and negative attitudes and we need to tackle these attitudes and cultural barriers. This report in particular highlights that despite discussions around inclusion, the potential for the internet to address social isolation and economic disadvantage are largely untapped, because the focus has been on the barriers and have not included the enablers. There is a need to address ‘digital choice’ as well as ‘digital divides’. Digital disengagement is a complex problem and there are social, cultural and attitudinal factors that inform digital choice.

Beyond the digital divide (Selwyn and Facer, 2007)

This report from Future lab, brings us back into the sphere of education, and focuses on the more traditional approach to ‘digital divides’ and the uptake of digital technology. This puts inclusion back in to the realms of ability; “All members of society are able to access the affordances created and offered by technology use”; and focuses on the debates around digital literacies, which is the area of the report that is of most interest here. However it’s worth noting that the authors remind us that access is not just a bout broadband, but also about wireless and satellite connectivity.

The report states that skills are not limited to basic physical actions like keyboard skills but also to those which have technical and social qualities.  We need both a basic literacy, that is the ability to read and write; and a ‘functional’ literacy, the ability to put our skills in to use.  The report develops three core areas of literacy:

•  Information literacy – to be able to discern the quality of content
• Adaptive literacy – to be able to develop new skills whilst using ICT 
• Occupational literacy – to apply skills in a business, education or domestic environment.

  

Definitions of digital inclusion

INCLUSION – DIVIDE – CHOICES - PARTICIPATION

So where does that take us on our analysis and development of the concept of digital inclusion? Clearly inclusion is a complex area, and, going back to what we said at the start, it is not just about access or about skills. People need to decide whether using technology is meaningful in their lives, but we also need to remember that inclusion is not just about deficits and barriers but also about opportunities, outcomes and practices. These reports highlight the conversations that continue to take place at a government and education level. There are barriers, access is important, people need the skills and there are technology and social issues to address.

We need to localise these conversations, so that we truly understand the cultural and social enablers.  I have already written my thoughts on inclusion with my own context and that of the project, linking back to the ideas of openness. For me it’s about participation, and empowering people (giving them the motivation and belief in themselves), to participate online. It’s not about the financial or economic benefits to the individual, but about the wider societal impact of participating in the world with others. This takes me back to how I think that self-efficacy links to empowerment. 

Seale (2009) reminded us that people bring their own set of motivations, skills and resourcefulness to the online world, and my hope is that by highlighting the skills and resourcefulness, as well as the values that people share in my context, we can encourage participation and inclusion.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Helsper, Ellen (2008) Digital inclusion: an analysis of social disadvantage and the information society. Department for Communities and Local Government, London, UK. [online] Available at: http://www.esd.org.uk/esdtoolkit/communities/DigitalInclusion/tools%5COXiS%20Report.pdf

Seale, J. (2009). Digital Inclusion. A research briefing by the technology enhanced learning phase of the teaching and learning research programme. [online] Available at: http://www.tlrp.org/docs/DigitalInclusion.pdf

Selwyn, N., & Facer, K. (2007). Beyond the digital divide. Opening Education Reports. Bristol: Futurelab. Retrieved October, 24, 2007. [online]. Available at: http://www2.futurelab.org.uk/resources/documents/opening_education/Digital_Divide.pdf

Digital inclusion - what does it mean?

For the first part of my project I have been exploring digital inclusion and what it really means. Like most ‘concepts’, there is a lack of clarity around definition. This puts it in danger of becoming another meaningless concept that is bandied about. So what have I found?

Economic and political motivations

The UK Government defines digital inclusion as ‘having the right access, skills, motivation and trust to confidently go online’ (Cabinet Office, 2014). They want us to be digitally capable of going online and using it to improve our lives. However the government’s motivations stem from creating opportunities and ensuring that we have the competencies needed to develop the economy. This is evident from that fact that many of the projects that have arisen from the Digital Strategy have focused on access and skills ( see Go ON UK ). While large companies are working alongside the government to ensure we have the infrastructure to deliver platforms and services, Go-ON UK are working with partners to make sure that adults have the basic digital skills needed. And there are some fantastic projects being delivered, many of which are focusing on those who are deemed to be excluded (socio-economic areas of older demographics).

 In fact even Europe has a digital strategy to ‘help digital technologies, including the internet, deliver sustainable economic growth’. Once again this focuses on access and skills, although there is also mention of cyber-security. However this focus on access and skills, has a hint of technological determinism (technology will make the world a better place) about it. It divides people into the ‘haves’ and the ‘have-nots’, focusing on access and skills. Skills and access are not the only things that influence decision about whether people find using technology appropriate or meaningful in their lives.

Motivation to go online

The government strategy highlights ‘motivation’ and ‘trust’ as elements of their digital strategy, and say that overcoming the barriers is about all of them, but there seems to be little in depth discussion around the motivation and trust barriers. The motivation seems to be that being able to go online will make it easier to find a job, to improve household income, to get more benefits from public services and entertainment. But I wonder whether these motivations are too ‘capitalist’ in their approach. In other words, they are appealing to people economically and financially, rather than socially and culturally. Motivation is about the relevance to the individual, and the triggers will be different for different people. There cannot be a one size fits all approach.

Digital Inclusion (Seale, 2009)

Seale’s (2009) report is an update about the research being conducted around digital inclusion, and what wider discussions can bring to the development of technology enhanced learning. She highlights in the opening that definitions of digital inclusion

 ‘tend to embed within them an expectation or imperative that digital inclusion happens when all members of society are able to access the affordances offered by technology use ‘(page 3)

The report focuses on four aspects: Access, Use, Participation and Empowerment. Access, as is seen by the Government’s digital strategy links to technologies and services (direct access is seen as being able to access technology and indirect access is about accessing online services). Use, is highlighted as mainly being about the skills that individuals have to use technology. However, Seale notes that it is not just a lack of skills that influences technology use. Technology must have some meaningful use in people’s lives and afford contextual uses; in other words, does it have a ‘life-fit’. Seale also asks us whether non-use of technology is problematic. This is an important question, which later papers will explore.

Traditionally, ‘inclusion’ is focused on helping people to participate in society. Therefore digital inclusion is about helping to reduce the disadvantaged, and encourage participation for the marginalised. (see the Helsper paper on my next blog post for the link between social and digital exclusion).  Seale draws our attention to Cook and Light (2006) who explore participation and see it as a fluid process and make a distinction between active (we influence the way technology is used) and passive  (recipients of the service) participation. This leads on to the final aspect, empowerment. You see power comes up a lot in discussions about the online world, but also in discussions about inclusion. Seale highlights that the government see technology as a vehicle for empowerment, and link this to the idea of independence. Seale issues some sensible warnings about linking empowerment to independence and self-sufficiency, as it leads us to link digital inclusion with skills deficits, forgetting that people have a whole host of other ‘strengths, motivations and resourcefulness’ to bring with them. Personally I would rather use the term self-efficacy, that is, an individual believes in their own ability, which is what I think empowerment is all about rather than independence.

The key point that Seale is making is that digital inclusion is multi-faceted. It is a social, cultural and cognitive concepts, and so we must define and redefine for our own contexts while recognising the wider discussions that are going on. If we think about inclusion in terms of access, then we consider how equality of opportunity can benefit. If we think about inclusion in terms of use and empowerment, then we are prompted to think about the equality of the outcomes not just the opportunities.

For my next blog post I will be exploring the concept of digital inclusion some more, and looking at how this links to social disadvantage, participation, and whether we need to change how we look at this, and consider whether digital choice is a good thing.

Cabinet Office (2014) Government Digital Inclusion Strategy, 13 April 2014 [online] Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/government-digital-inclusion-strategy

Cook, J & Light, A. (2006) New patterns of power and participation? Designing ICT for Informal and Personalised Flexible Community Learning. E-Learning, 3, 1, 51-61.

Seale, J. (2009). Digital Inclusion. A research briefing by the technology enhanced learning phase of the teaching and learning research programme. [online] Available at: http://www.tlrp.org/docs/DigitalInclusion.pdf

Project poster version 2: for review

Following peer review and a bit of tinkering, here is version two of the project poster.

The purpose?
The poster is designed to be an 'advertisement' for my presentation at the online conference for my H818 module (Networked practitioner). You can read about the project in some of my earlier posts, but particularly here. 

As part of my project I am creating a multimedia website that contains information and guidance for volunteers, based on my assumption that adopting a values-based approach to digital participation, might help remove some of the barriers to going online. The website will explore digital inclusion, and the barriers defined by the government. 

At the conference I will be talking about my topic and theme (digital inclusion and removing the barriers) and presenting the website as my 'multimedia artifact'.

Therefore the poster should act as a way to 'hook' people into my presentation, giving enough information for it to make sense but leaving some room for presenting my findings and approach.  I believe that the video should also work as a standalone for the website as well, possibly with a few changes.

For review
So, I have been asking my fellow students to review, but as this is all about being 'networked' I also thought I would spread my wings wider. I know that there are still elements that I need to tinker with.
Can you help?
If you saw this, would you want to know more, or come to the conference presentation?
Do you think it makes sense?
Should I loose the pictures where there is no text?
Is there enough time to read it? Or is it too slow? Too long?
Are any of the pictures out of place (as visuals can be a personal thing)?
Is the project and the outcome explicit enough?

Please watch my film and comment below, or pop me an email. 
All help muchly appreciated.