“With the new ‘FB timeline’ on its way this week for EVERYONE…please do both of us a favour. Hover over my name above. In a few seconds you’ll see a box that says “Subscribed”. Hover over that, go to “Comments and Likes” and unclick it. That will stop my posts and yours to me from showing up on the side bar for everyone to see, but MOST IMPORTANTLY IT LIMITS HACKERS from invading our profiles. If you repost this I will do the same for you. You’ll know I’ve acknowledged you because if you tell me that you’ve done it I”ll ‘like’ it. Thanks”

My friend commented that her friends have shared an article about how the above status update that is circulating is a hoax. She gave me this link to the article on a website called thatsnonsense.com reporting it is a unfounded rumour. Upon read this article, I became aware how myself and the author differ in our understanding of the term hacker. To clarify for my friend I started to write this response in a comment on my status update. Given the length of my response, I’m sharing it here. I responded with the following.

1. Source of web information

Always consider who is the source of the information before sharing it. I know why I shared the status update (see 2-4 below) and which friend I first saw it circulating, but I was curious on the source of this article also. Perhaps it is all about interpretation.

I wondered who is thatsnonsense.com? The author of this article, whose name is not published (red flag) on a website whose owner is not transparent (red flag) gives some good advice about privacy settings, but then directs readers to their Facebook page and blog for more information about online hoaxes and a website surrounded by pay per click advertising. Many websites use these forms of marketing to generate revenue to fund their content, but credible sources of website content especially about technology and privacy (e.g., Mashable) are very clear about the authors of their posts and what is the company status – if it is a company. Thatsnonsense.com is a website is run by craigspace.co.uk, which is not a company but a 22 year old IT graduate from Plymouth University. He goes by craigy_lad on Myspace. From the site it appears to money is made out off the traffic to thatsnonsense.com and a Facebook Fan page is used to generate traffic to to the articles. Great if they are accurate and credible content. Not a problem. But why do none of the posts indicate the post authors name, the authors bio or where he/she is located, perhaps I missed it. The whois server indicates Canada (where the webpage is probably hosted). Even the ‘contact us’ page is questionable, no contact details, just a web form.

So would I trust what this site tells me given I don’t know the author of the posts and how revenue is being generated through it. No, not really! I am sure the author is very knowledgeable, but given how anyone can build a website today and offer advice, to me, the source is always very important and should be transparent, especially in this context to help readers evaluate credibility and accuracy of the information being reported.

The author (and others) are correct that your privacy settings are most important on Facebook, but so too is understanding what we mean by ‘hacking your Facebook’ profile and the purpose of the Facebook Ticker.

2. Who is the hacker?

Mainstream media would have you believe a hacker is someone who breaches security to access systems illegally and unethically. A computer villian. However this is a cracker, not a hacker. There is much controversy around how popular culture – driven by media journalists and film have used the term hacker. Some of us still hold true to use of the term as a positive creative computer geek who is different in intent and authorisation to a cracker, i.e., someone who cracks into secure systems with negative intentions. You can read much about the controversial history of these terms on Wikipedia and the sources this article provides for a good historical read.

In sharing this status update, the geek that I am, I looked upon “a hacker” NOT as someone who will violate my Facebook privacy and security settings from the outside, but as someone who will hack the code and content of the Facebook system and my profile – with authorisation – to what they believe is for a positive reason. For Facebook that would be sharing more information. In this, a hacker is someone who likes to mashup content, code and systems to create things and they often work in paid respectable professions, coming up with solutions and ideas to IT and business problems. For example, Hackers created the Internet at APARNET (big applause  for that one!). But hackers are also increasingly are working in Digital Marketing – mashing up code and content to create ways and means to acquire, share and profit from through advertising with the information I share through social media.

In this, Facebook could be seen as a hacker of their system to find new and differing ways to access, mash together and share our personal information and that of our friends.

3. The Facebook Ticker

The Facebook Ticker is about sharing ‘everything.’ This appear to be the ethos of Facebook. Sharing everything as a ‘good thing’. What is unclear about the ticker is ‘with whom’ is this information – updates, uploads, comments and likes shared with. Friends = yes! Friends of friends = depends on your and your friends privacy settings. Third party app developers = yes. Marketers or advertisers = of course! Inside Facebook has an interesting article on this.  The main way to protect your information is to not post anything on Facebook and to stop using the service. If though this is too big a step, ensure ALL you’re your settings are at ‘Friends only!” and that all the social apps you have downloaded to your Facebook profile (e.g., Spotify, Netflix) are not integrated with your Facebook or the settings on these apps . Sharing content between accounts and with friends on Facebook is a personal choice. But know what you are agreeing to when you sign-up to a service, click “login through my Facebook account” or ‘Share with X App”.

The Facebook Ticker includes Facebook sponsored stories. Mashable.com, a respected source on all things social media, provides some insight to Facebook sponsored stories. In this, and some may disagree with me, Facebook is hacking my newsfeed and personal information mixing personal updates from Friends with advertising (Yuk!) to relay in the Facebook Ticker. A feature I can’t easily remove from my profile. Given how we are not used to seeing advertising in our wall feeds the Facebook Ticker, immersing updates, likes, comments with advertising – that is sponsored stories, is the next best thing.

So who is the ‘hacker?’ Facebook perhaps! Not some IT geek hiding away in a basement in the dark somewhere.

4. Why unsubscribe from Friends Comments & Likes (and ask friends to unsubscribe to yours)?

Facebook is hacking a lot of their system to find ways and means for us to share more with others, more often and more personal information. Sharing is their business and the Facebook Ticker an interesting addition.

Sharing comments and likes with my friends is a personal choice, not Facebooks choice. If a friend asks you to unsubscribe, unsubscribe. Unsubscribing means friends won’t see the conversations you have with other friends (if privacy permits) and pages or comments your like. Coupled with privacy settings, unsubscribing enables some control (albeit a little) control of what ‘conversations’ (comments) and ‘social interactions’ (‘like’) are shared with friends, friends of friends, and become mashed up with advertising through the feature: Facebook Ticker. For both you and your friends. It limits some of the social viral effect of Facebook.

For example, I’m interested in updates from Debra, I’ll see them in my wall and comment on them. Debra as my friend will get a notification that I’ve commented. We have a public conversation. But all our ‘mutual friends’ or ‘friends of friends (if privacy settings are such) will not get an update in their Facebook Ticker on their profile page that this conversations is going on. Let’s call it Facebook eavesdropping or friend spamming. In the past I could tick a box in my privacy settings that indicated ‘not sharing pages I liked and comments’ with friends. Interesting how Facebook has hacked this privacy option in the new Timeline and I find myself spending time to reinstate this option by asking friends to unsubscribe.

I agree, that asking friends to unsubscribe won’t limit Facebook hacking their system, but it places choice back in the users hands, to have a little more control over what you share with whom. For example:

1. To share updates, photo uploads on you wall and timeline etc just with friends: Ensure privacy settings are set to ‘friends only’ on every thing (updates, photos etc) so only friends will see them when they are updated or uploaded. Friends can comment and like on said content.
2. To share comments and likes (social interaction through Facebook) with only the friends you are having those interactions with: Ask friends to unsubscribe from your comments and likes – (so your conversations don’t appear in their  Facebook Ticker feed) and do the same to for them, so you don’t see their social interactions.

5. In summary …

The moral of this long blog post that started as a comment on a status update on Facebook …

1. Consider the source of information. Dig deeper to the source of information that is not transparent about who they are and the information they provide, especially websites offering advice. That includes the ‘copy and paste’ viral status updates’s and articles by authors who make money through web traffic to articles (true or not) about what is or is not an online hoax or breech of privacy. Find a credible and transparent source you trust, especially when it is about online privacy.
2. Consider who the hacker is. It might actually be someone who you have granted permission to use your information how they see fit. Don’t trust a company whose business model is built on ‘hacking’ their systems to find new and different ways to share your personal information, mashing it up with paid content like advertising in order to make money. Not everyone believes sharing ‘everything’ is a good thing. If you participate, become informed or in the least, tick “Friends Only” for everything while you are learning. I’m still learning and work in this business.
3. Consider who you are sharing with. Chances are all your Facebook friends won’t have their privacy settings set to ‘friends only’ or will have the same friend network on their profiles as you do. Your friends are possibly connected to people who you ‘wouldn’t want’ to see your updates, uploads, comments and likes. So although there is no negative intention in this, be aware that the definition of sharing is: “a part or portion of a larger amount which is divided among a number of people, or to which a number of people contribute” (Oxford English Dictionary).
4. Consider the sharing choices of your friends. Respect your friends on Facebook, the choices they make in what they share, and what they ask of you – as their friend – to share or not share about them. If they ask you to unsubscribe – unsubscribe. This goes for photos and tagging too. Facebook is meant to be a friendship network, wherein we keep up to date with friends, keep in contact and share. But like most social gatherings and social groups, the meaning of word friend and our expectations on how a friend behaves is fluid. We all see the world differently. Here is a talk I gave on Rediscovering Friendship for TEDxCardiff  last year. In it I talk about how friendship is a behaviour – something we do, enact and share. It is not a word or connection on Facebook.

I hope this blog post is of value to others, both connected and not connected through my Facebook profile. In the very least I hope it helps to raise awareness of both the personal and commercial implications (and our individual responsibilities) of communications through the digital social network that is Facebook.

Smiles

Share and Enjoy

My coauthor, Professor Mark Uncles (UNSW), and I have for a long time been interested in how we consider and regard usage of digital media, wherein penetration, access, usage and engagement strongly differ and also have parallels. We have also been interested in how those with and without website design experience differ in their perceptions of what is and isn’t digital media participation and what is of value in its consideration. We developed a paper exploring these issues. In this we consider how the professional context within which we work, shapes and guides our understanding of digital media participation and our own participation. This lends insight to the importance of decision making teams drawing from differing backgrounds in digital decision making – that is, creatives, digital designers, marketers/communications personnel, community members/audiences and other stakeholders. We have written a paper on the subject, that is currently in-review. The abstract is provided below.

The Complexities of Digital Participation: Abstract

Digital media participation is central to the process of marketing communications planning and digital media management. In this paper we discuss the characteristics and dimensions of digital media participation, differentiate it from digital media penetration and as an example, specifically examine the influence of two user characteristics on digital web participation. In this example, we examine the effect that user web site design experience and perceptions of web usability has on digital web participation. Hypotheses are tested on two web user segments: web users with (n=1177) and without (n=900) web site design experience. Findings show that perceptions of web usability has a significant impact on digital web participation, but these effects vary depending on: 1) how digital web participation is defined and measured; and 2) if a user has or has not got past web site design experience. The findings help in our understanding of the complexity of digital media participation and the usage-context within which it is socially constructed. The characteristics and dimensions discussed in this paper are important bases for understanding users across differing categories of digital media participation and differing digital media contexts.

Source: Page, K. L. and Uncles, M. D. (Under Review). The Complexities of Digital Media Participation.

Share and Enjoy

I however was more drawn to another topic, Digital Identity Management. A topic I am consistently observing that is a consequence of our growing use of digital and social technologies, technologies that not only function because of our use of them but because of the sophisticated functions they have that aid the vendors who own them in the collection, storage and analysis of our usage data. The topic I decided to cover was about Digital Identity Management, especially as it pertained to digital social technologies. For me it is not the illegal black market identity thief that worries me, but the legal businesses to whom we give all our data – freely, easily and increasingly.

Data is the Currency of Now!

“There ain’t no such thing as a free lunch!” (TANSTAAFL) is something we should always keep in mind as we sign up to the next new FREE social networking site or share our family or friend photos on the latest and coolest visual platform for photo blogging. Don’t get me wrong, I love what social technologies are doing for business, education, arts, politics and the very essence of the values that the advocate users of them find dear – like community, sharing, engagement. Being part of something that is bigger than ourselves, and in this we can have a voice. no matter how young, old, small, big, talented, poor, rich or controlled.

However in all this ‘opportunity’ let’s us not forget, that many of these social technologies are a business. A business built on large data sets or user data and expert analysts who provide the insight for business decision making in their use. Yes, they offer free access to users share information with friends, colleagues and the wider market. But somewhere we do pay. We pay by giving away gigabyes and terabytes of data, about ourselves, our family, our friends, our organizations and our communities. All for FREE!

A smart company is a data driven company. From this data, Google, Facebook, YouTube, WordPress, Blogger, MySpace, Ning … the list goes on … collate, analyse, segment, and share the data. Often it is shared with shareholders or internal stakeholders for corporate decision making – to improve the services you are using. But it is also shared with external stakeholders (like advertisers, market researchers) to improve the supply and demand for other fee-paying services and/or information that actually finance these social technologies. However it is also shared with other parties, paying clients or businesses interested not in you, or your values or the service you are using to improve the service, but the money they can make from your data. Our social behaviour is just as much a part of our identity as our name, address and post code is. When you add differing types of data together, you get a much richer and commercially attractive product – a data asset. This is very much reminisce of the Tesco Clubcard business model in the UK. However what is different is a) we don’t get a coupon for it; and b) the data is richer because of the addition of digital social network data. A type of data much richer than any grocery shopping panel data Tesco has ever collected. 

[ Profile + Demographic + Behavioural + Transactional + Network Data ] / Over time = a very rich (££) data set

Take Facebook as an example. Facebook search is Bing indexed, so our data and information is shared with Microsoft. Every Application (App) we’ve given permission to interact with our Facebook profile has also been given access to our data. We rarely get the choice on ‘what’ data we authorise to share, more often it is just a yes/no decision. If we use an App on our mobile phone to sync with our Facebook profile, it is not just the data we enter that is shared between our phone and our profile on the Facebook servers, it is also our location information through GPS and the telephone numbers of our friends that suddenly appear on the Friends list of our profile. This information (and much more) Facebook and advertisers use to cleverly target users with contextualised advertising matched to the keywords in the status update you just posted and to sell in various formats to finance the very service we have applauded for being FREE!

Awareness : Education : Responsibility

So what did I recommend in my talk? I didn’t recommend not using these services. Quite the contrary I love the use of them, but advocate an informed use, especially in organizations where use of them is increasingly being mandated. I recommended three key things critical for effective and responsible use of digital social technologies in both our personal and professional lives. Three things we should take account of during our use of them and are ongoing. As the technologies develops so too should our:

1. Awareness. As users be aware of our own activities with/through social technologies, and the data we are potentially freely sharing with anyone and everyone. Googling yourself is an example of how you can remain aware of what information is publicly available about you, your family or your organization.
2. Education. As users, be active in our education (and that of our staff/employees) in how social technologies function so we can use them both effectively and responsibly, especially in the privacy settings each may have; and our rights as users.
3. Responsibility. As users take full responsibility for the data and information we share through/with social technologies. In this I mean not just the data/information we are sharing about ourselves, but increasingly the data and information we are sharing about our friends, family, colleagues, workplace and wider social network. Policies and guidelines are well and good, but it is a feeling of personal/professional responsibility that truly regulates behaviour.

Continuing the Conversation

For the many years now I have observed and interacted with people in both professional and personal contexts as they have used and learnt about digital and social technologies. And like many people, I too am still learning the implications of this era of social technologies on both our personal and professional selves. But one thing we should not stop doing is talking about it. No one is an expert in this space, and the only way to share learnings about the management of a our digital identities (and especially that of our children) is to talk about it more and in more detail.

At the end of the evening we were asked a number of questions. Below I have provided my responses.

1. What can an individual do if someone is being slanderous about them in a digital social space?

Peter Gwyn Williams from e-Crime Wales gave a really good response to this question. “Take a screen capture of it, contact them to inform them you have evidence of their behaviour and then report them to the authorities”. Obviously this has a lot to do with jurisdiction and given the geographic fluidity of activity in digital channels, it is often difficult to bring to account people who are not contactable, unknown or reside in a different jurisdiction to your own. However  libel, a false, malicious statement published in mainstream media (i.e. on the internet, in a magazine, etc.) is a very serious offence, and should be brought to the attention of the host/service providers of any social community or network for breach of the networks terms and conditions.

2. What is going on in the education/sector and schools to help educate children?

A lot is and isn’t going on. In my opinion it is not so much the children we need to focus in terms of digital literacy and awareness, but the teachers and the educational system so that it is more open to learning about, with and through social technologies. Banning Facebook, Myspace and mobiles is not the answer. Have a dialogue about it with children, in front of children and between members of the educational community (be that parents, teachers, regulators) is. Here is a link to a World Summit on Media for Children and Youth that was held in Sweden this year or the annual Digital Media Learning conference in the US. Having more ‘educators and teachers’ attend forums like these is critical to educating the educators about social technologies and their role on the world of youth.

3. What would I advise as an example of corporate policy for the use of social technologies?

I prefer the word guidelines to policies. Policies are very static, where as guidelines are fluid and can adapt as the technological context changes. I always advocate an organic approach, where guidelines for social technology use come from within the company, informed by the staff and personnel who are contracted to adhere to them. So they come out of discussion and debate as to what is and isn’t responsible behaviour. But often this is difficult in very large corporate multinationals. In this I’d turn to example of practice in other organizations for learning and a point of debate for their suitability or adaptation within your own organization. One large complex organization whom I think many organizations can learn from in terms of stakeholder guidance over the use of social technologies is the US Army. In early 2011 they released their Social Media Handbook on Slideshare for all to read. With over 90,000 views it is probably one of the most read social media guides available and is very detailed. MediaSnackers have also conducted a podcast interview with SSG Dale Sweetnam, the non-comissioned officer in charge of the US Army’s online and social media division.

Digital and social technologies are affording us and our organizations many new freedoms in communications and information sharing. But with freedom also comes responsibility, not just for the service providers or owners of the social technologies. But our own responsibility in our own behaviour in what we share, to whom, about whom, how and and where.

Smiles

Kelly

Share and Enjoy

Collaborative learning has a diverse meaning, from group or team-based working, to peer-to-peer interaction on shared tasks. With the rise in dynamic ubiquitous digital technologies has provided another rich layer to collaborative learning as the need to learn how to collaborate now coexists with the need to learn how to use digital technologies.

Digital Mediated Collaborative Learning

Given the growth in digital media and its functionality to support and mediate team-based activities, we are seeing a rise in the interest in the use of digital tools to support and mediate collaborative learning, called digital mediated collaborative learning (hereafter DMCL). This study explores the use of Wiki technology for DMCL.

Commonly termed a Wiki, like Blogs and RSS, Wiki’s have been dubbed ‘social software’ because they facilitate social connections allowing users to develop digital content, collaboratively and open to a public. The term became synonymous with collaborative website design after programmer Ward Cunningham pioneered it in 1995 to discuss software design that enabled community content co-creation. However, wiki use for/in collaborative learning is no easy task. It requires the unlearning of old models socialized in a mindset of ‘I learn’ to the learning of new norms, processes and mindsets of ‘we learn’. Couple this with complex digital tools and the landscape for learning becomes quite complicated for the even the most digitally literate.

Limited past research exists on the use of Wiki’s in the contexts of management higher education or management learning and professional development. In this study we therefore reviewed the literature of two relevant situated contexts for the use of Wiki’s to our research study, the use of Wiki’s in management practice and the use of Wiki’s education.

The dominant discourse in management practice is the use of Wiki technology for productivity gains in the achievement of organizational goals (e.g., reduce cost, time, increase security, access) in project management and information sharing. In contrast in education, the focus is on the people and group learning. In this, the evolving paradigm around Wiki’s in education is focused on ‘learning to write and/or collaborate’, on text and interaction and the promotion of deep learning experiences, both in and outside the classroom, not just on technology and/or productivity’.

Drawing from these studies, we devised A Wiki Way of Learning to curricular design and trialed it’s use in two cohorts of postgraduate management education students.

A Wiki Way of Learning Trial

In the academic year 2008/2009 I introduced Wiki’s into my 8-week MBA Marketing Research class of 52 students to trial their use as the students worked on research projects in groups of 8-10. I designed the entire learning experience to work with the Wiki’s, from the class room activities, the group project, my involvement as module coordinator and the Wiki’s functional design in coexistence. I didn’t just tack on Wiki’s to a group project and tell the students to go off and use it, I designed the learning objectives and the project around weekly Wiki tasks, monitored student progress each week, provided weekly feedback and offered incentives. The Wiki was not just part of the group project, it was part of every class lecture and discussion.

The feedback from the students was very positive receiving the highest student ratings across all modules on the MBA (i.e., 4.7/5), and qualitative student insights into how it contributed to their learning experience. However, what I couldn’t report was insight to two very important questions:

1. Did the use of Wiki’s have a positive or negative impact on their learning of the module content?
2. What role did student levels of digital literacy play in their learning and Wiki experience?

With this first years learning of how to design and integrate Wiki’s into a management class environment, in the 2nd year I empirically explored these questions.

A Wiki Way of Learning Study

In the academic year 2009/2010 I continued the use of Wiki’s in my 8-week MBA Marketing Research class of 62 students, but this year I explored the interplay of student digital literacy, knowledge and Wiki use on domain learning and the quality of the student learning experience.

Findings from this study indicate a significant positive relationship between Wiki use and student domain learning as evidence by student performance in a multiple choice revision quiz (in class) and essay examination. The more pages and lines students edited, the higher their overall performance during revision and examination.

Consistent with the literature on digital literacy and knowledge, the study also revealled significant differences in student digital literacy, knowledge and Wiki use between male and female students. Female MBA students self-reported lower levels of digital literacy and knowledge than their male peers, however from log-file data female report significantly higher levels of Wiki use during the project. So even though the female students might under report or have less confidence in their perception of their skills and knowledge with digital technology, doesn’t necessarily mean they will use them any less than their male peers. This poses an interesting question for how we measure and evaluate digital literacy.

My Final Thoughts …

This was a great study to conduct with my students, one of great learning for them about using Wiki’s to collaborate to cocreate a project, and for me on how we integrate technology into learning contexts. I think this is important to inspire not just the learning of a domain or module content, but the learning of and about digital technology through the situated practice of ‘doing’, as opposed to telling.

Digital literacy, knowledge and learning is increasingly critical for management students and professionals of today and tomorrow. As management educators in higher education, it is imperative that we explore, study and adopt new and differing methods for digital mediated learning in our curricular, designing the learning experience with digital media as part of it, not separate to it or an add on, to ensure our students have the neccessary knowledge and skills to participate effectively in a world of dynamic ubiquitous digital mediation.

Thanks

Many thanks to Shashank Garg and Jennifer Smith, postgraduate students at Cardiff University for their research assistance in data collection; and the MBA Marketing Research Classes of 2008/2009 and 2009/2010 at Cardiff Business School for their participation. We’d also like to thank Professor Emmanuel Ogbonna, Lisa L’Homme and Neil Wellard who direct and manage the Cardiff MBA for their ongoing support and assistance during these studies.

Smiles

Kelly

p.s. for a copy of the draft manuscript currently under review, please don’t hesitate to contact me.

Share and Enjoy

Following the chair’s introduction by Dr. Henry Jenkins, the opening keynote talk was delivered by S. Craig Watkins. Highly regarded for his research about race, youth and digital media usage and his books, The Young and the Digital and Hip Hop Matters. He was invited to join the MacArthur Foundation Series on Youth, Digital Media and Learning.

With this in mind and with no experience in this area I was looking forward to hearing the perspective from which he considers this space. Below is provided a few key insights I took out of his keynote talk:

• SCW Insight: The conversation around youth use of digital media and the digital divide as a racial ravine has changed. Black and latino youth are using technology and the degree of engagement has evolved considerably since 1998?

Here he poses the audience to reflect on what this conference might have looked like in 1998, over ten years ago in terms of race and usage?

• SCW Insight: If we ask them [youth] if they use and access – it assumes they are not connected for a certain period of the day? They are in fact using social media ‘more’ than heir white counterparts.

He presents to the audience a number of emergent patterns about black and latino youth usage, which challenged historical views about black and latino participation in the digital media space:

1. Usage is mobile: Mobile phones are merging as the preferred platform. 92% own a mobile phone …
2. Usage is peer and Interest driven: They are ‘Living and learning’ with new media …  engaging their peers … peer interaction … peer informed spaces that drive their usage and interest driven genres (e.g., hip hop)…
3. Use digital media is the new town square: ‘Back in the day’ .. hip hop … youth always writing stories, carrying pens and papers, documenting  their stories about their life in poems and hip hop … today, the digital landscape is the new town square about hip hop … they go online to engage with their community, and engage in a ‘stunning’ critique about the world around them ….
4. Use digital media as a space of opportunity: Messaging & hanging around in digital media is NOT just wasting time, but they are creating gateways for them to create opportunities and engage with what they are love and passionate about … e.g., a young girl who used hip hop to connect with hip hop artists, but also to connect with her friends and record/tweet about her own hip hop …

He goes on to discuss the affinity between social media and hip hop (e.g., mobility, DIY, peer-based learning, participatory, view of them in their world) and summarises some key tenants of what they have learnt so far about black and latino youth in the digital media space:

1. Black youth capital is about – ‘keepin it real in the digital age’
2. Black cultural capital wherein “soft skills” and code switching in/between digital and real world is important. Soft skills he defines as the ways people interact with others, esp. how they talk … black and latino youth profiles in digital space, how they present themselves, their linguistic practices, these styles of behaviour suit their peers, but not perhaps the wider/formal view of the world (e.g., getting a job).
3. Creating and critiquing expression and peer-group connection: Digital media is the space where they grapple with their own fears and their own concerns and peer-group connection. He gives an example of New Orleans and Katrina and how a young boys digital media practices changed before (i.e., didn’t use/value Myspace) and after Katrina (e.g., place to express and reconnect with his peers, post evacuation.
4. Creating and critiquing the politics of race and place … public memorials, grieving and engagement with social issues… are engaging with differing skills and life experiences and these life experiences are shaping their interaction and participation in the digital world.
5. Creating and critiquing in any place through digital space … Black/Latino … more likely than white via handheld … more reliable than home access and in these places they feel ‘policed’, not so with mobile technologies … mobile becomes an empowered space in any place …

In summary, S. Craig Watkins poses some interesting insights into not just the usage of black and latino youth with digital  media, disposing the historical view of the 1990’s of the synergy between race and digital divide .. but also sharing his learning on black and latino youth in the digital space … their experiences, values and in his words ‘how they are in this world’ (S. Craig Watkins, DML-2010).

From this delivery I felt an additional area worth exploring:

1. In addition to how black and latino youth use, are, see, interact and participate in the digital media space, how does digital media make black and latino youth feel as part of this experience? This question comes from an exploratory study with MedisSnackers in the UK that I was fortunate to be part of entitled: The Web Makes Me Feel!

Smiles
Kelly

Share and Enjoy