Engaging the digital generation

I'm a keynote speaker for a conference being held at the University of Middlesex on June 29th. The conference is entitled: Engaging the Digital Generation in Academic Literacy, and looks like it's going to be a very interesting event. Other speakers include Tara Brabazon and William Wong. Below is the title and abstract of my keynote:

Digital Tribes and the Social Web: How Web 2.0 will Transform Learning in Higher Education

The Social Web is transforming the way students interact with others, and is challenging traditional pedagogies, values and practices. An analysis of students’ uses of social networking tools (e.g. Facebook, Myspace) and video/photo sharing sites (e.g. YouTube, Flickr) reveals the emergence of collective digital literacies. These include filtering content, new textual and visual literacies, managing multiple digital identities, representing self in cyberspace and engaging in new modes of interaction. In this presentation I will argue that identification through digitally mediated tools has become the new cultural capital – the set of invisible bonds that ties a community together. It is this ‘social glue’ – such mutual understandings and exchanges that occur on a daily basis within social media – that build the digital communities, and create new learning spaces, nurturing the habitus of a new ‘digital tribe’.

Emile Durkheim suggested that it is easier for tribal members to project their feelings of awe toward a totem than toward something that is as complex as the tribe itself. For digital tribes, their totem – the traditional rallying point for all tribal activity – is patently the Social Web. The digital spaces found within the Web are in themselves objects of intense interest and become meeting places for the tribe, but they also act as transmitters of units of cultural knowledge – memes.

Max Weber once remarked that culture should be construed as a ‘web of significance’ spun by the individuals who constitute the culture. Significantly, the increasing role the World Wide Web plays in the shaping of modern tribal culture causes Weber’s notion to resonate. In this presentation I will argue that digital technologies and electronic networks provide fertile environments for the transmission of memes and that new literacies are needed to receive, interpret and comprehend them. Such new literary practices of communication rely heavily on shared spaces, shared symbolism and the viral nature of the social web.

I will explore how the new digital literacies impact upon teaching and learning in higher education, and discuss the implications of a growing gulf between traditional teaching and the expectations of the new tribe – the digital generation. I will pose the questions: What will be the new roles of academics in a world where the boundaries between novice and expert are blurring? and what new digital literacies will scholars need to harness the full potential of the social web?

Related posts:

The tribal web
En masse, online
Digital tribal identity
Virtual clans

Image source (modified)

The tribal web

This is the final post in the Digital Tribe series, which is abridged from Chapter 6 of the edited volume Connected Minds, Emerging Cultures (2009).

Anthropologists ascribe a variety of definitions to the word 'tribe' and it can be a contentious term. Most are agreed though, that a tribe is a small society that has its own customs and culture and that these define it. This series has explored the notion of digital tribes and clans, and has applied these concepts to those who consistently inhabit virtual spaces. Such digital territories are ideal environments within which new forms of cultural transmission can propogate and sustain themselves. The tribes and clans I have identified, it could be argued, are emerging as a direct result of their sustained interaction with, and through, social technologies.

Attempting to categorise the behaviour of online users into distinct tribal characteristics can be problematic, because behaviour in virtual worlds (and indeed in the real world) is ultimately diverse and often chaotic or inconsistent. When observed in its entirety however, the trails of evidence emerging on the Web can readily support the notion of the virtual clan. Individuals have an inherent need to belong, so groupings will occur naturally in the real world, in families, kinship groups, clans and other social collectives. The evidence for clannish behaviour online is abundant too, as seen in the creation of specific cultural artefacts that identify distinct web user groupings. The tacit gathering around new 'digital totems' to form transient interest groups is another form of evidence (e.g. Ning, MMORPGS, Crowdvine) as is the marking out of territories through the sharing of social bookmarks, the tagging of digital objects and voting for preferences and usability (e.g. Delicious, Digg). Consistent representation of digital identity within specific tools (recall the Facebooker and Flickrite tribal differences) is yet another form of evidence for the existence of virtual clans.

It should also be acknowledged that clans tend to emerge within tribes as cutural definitions and user generation of digital artefacts become more pronounced. There may be one single digital tribe in the broadest sense of its meaning, but an analysis of the virtual world and it multitude of social networking and communication behaviours indicates that there are indeed many subsets of this large digital tribe - they are the virtual clans, and although we shift our allegiances, we may each belong to several.

Image source

En masse, online

This post is a continuation of Wednesday's post entitled: Virtual Clans

Still other virtual clans are emerging from the cultures surrounding online leisure activities such as massively multiplayer online role-playing games (MMORPGs), strategy games and transnational special interest groups that meet en masse, online. In massively multiplayer online gaming, the ‘clan’ (sometimes referred to as ‘guild’) is the name used to describe a group of individuals who play competitively against other clan groups. One very popular online role-playing game, World of Warcraft, has millions of adherents who compete seriously on a regular basis in guilds with strangers they become very familiar with but never meet face to face. MMORPG clans who engage with war games sometimes name their virtual clans after real or fictitious military divisions or armies. They may further identify themselves as members of their clan by creating uniformly themed avatars (their digital altar egos) to represent themselves within cyberspace. World of Warcraft even introduced digital tabards which could be adjusted electronically to show unique features that identify a particular guild. Members then purchase their own for their avatar to wear, thereby identifying more closely with their virtual kin group.

Furthermore, virtual clans often develop their own closed newsgroups and e-mail listings to keep their geographically distributed members informed. In MMORPGs, clans can identify themselves further by developing their own virtual territories, building businesses, and earning virtual currency (Childress & Brasswell, 2006). They can be fiercely competitive and often take immense pride in their achievements at the expense of rival clans. As virtual clans become larger and more organised they also tend to become more hierarchical, even electing their own leaders – clan chieftains, and developing their own unique ‘tags’ which can be used to visually identify themselves as clan members in text communication.

In Second Life, a 3-D multi-user virtual environment (MUVE) which at the time of writing has reached in excess of 8 million subscribers, there is a distinct differential between those SLifers who own land and commodities, and those who are simply ‘visiting’ and making use of these commodities. The traders and the consumers are a reflection of real life, so in effect, in-world experience mirrors our observations of real life. The use of avatars is a departure from real life with many SLifers participating in the practice of gender swapping. Even more strangely, some SLifers employ avatars that represent themselves as animals of all kinds, some common, some exotic. Still others choose to present themselves as fantasy figures, such as characters with Anime cartoon features, or aliens, wizards, pixies or fairies. Yet the clear distinction in Second Life is between the traders and those who purchase. The SLife tribe thus has at least two distinct clans, and it is highly likely that others will emerge as Second Life and other MUVEs become better established.

Tomorrow: The Tribal Web

Reference

Childress, M. D. and Brasswell, R. (2006) Using Massively Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Games for Online Learning. Distance Education. 27 (2), 187-196.

Image source

Virtual clans

This post is a continuation of yesterday's post entitled: Digital pervasion and loss of identity.

Virtual clannish behaviour can be observed in a number of ways, but probably most overtly in the subtly distinctive ways in which people use their mobile phones. Members of the mobile tribe can be divided into at least two clans. One clan can be observed holding their mobile phones to their ears whilst another group tends to stare at their devices. This is the audio message clan and the text message clan. The former continue to conceive of the mobile phone as having the same functionality of the fixed line telephone – ‘that’s why it’s called a phone’. The latter have made the conceptual leap of seeing the mobile phone as a multi-functional communication tool, and as we have already seen, have developed their own reduced or slang version of common language.

Another example is the social networking tribe which boasts many clans, such as the MySpace clan, the Bebo clan, the YouTube clan and so on. One particularly interesting comparison can be made between the users of Flickr and FaceBook. The Flickrite kin group generally trades in images (photographs) and members rarely identify themselves using their real names. By contrast, FaceBookers identify themselves using real names and photographs, and coalesce around groups with common interests that are wider than photographs. FaceBookers also have a reputation for being frivolous, and engage in virtual food-fights, ‘poking’ each other and sending silly notes, much akin to the naughty school children who sit in the back row of the classroom. Flickrites are more likely to trade in affirmative comments, the ‘favouriting’ of attractive images and the awarding of prizes in mutual celebration of each other’s photographic skills. FaceBookers on the other hand, are more intent on gathering together as many ‘friends’ as possible – some with strong social ties, many with weaker ties, as they are ‘friends of friends’ or simply random acquaintances.

One virtual tribe will behave in a manner that can be distinguished from other tribes. Clans on the other hand tend to be large ‘kin groups’ that generally involve themselves in an identifiably common practice, but are distinct in some way within this practice. They yet remain a part of the larger social mass of the tribe. Whereas clans represent a part of society, tribes may constitute the entire society. Virtual clans are defined more by the technology they subscribe to, and ultimately, the software they use. Although we are bombarded on all sides by advertisements and corporate images prompting us to subscribe, buy into and involve ourselves in commodities of all shapes and sizes, many of us also have infinitely more choice in what we do, the alliances we make and how we spend our money. As a result of this plethora of choice there are many virtual clans – the distinctions are often subtle, but the clans are different, inspired by different motives, identified by different artefacts and activities, and ultimately, distinguished by different aims and destinations.

Virtual youth clans spend much of their time texting each other on their mobile phones. They may identify their clan more subtlety that through the kind of mobile phone they use, its features and capabilities. They may identify as a part of a clan through the use of specific language and other symbolism. Some virtual clanships are emerging through the choice of social networking service – Bebo users are distinctly different in many small ways to their counterpart clans who subscribe to FaceBook, who are again different to those who use MySpace.

On Friday: En masse, online

Image source

Digital tribal identity

Earlier this year I published an edited volume entitled 'Connected Minds, Emerging Cultures' which was a compendium of papers written by leading theorists and practitioners in the field of learning technology. Over the next few days I will present an abridged, bite size series of exerpts from one of my chapters which was entitled: 'Digital Tribes, Virtual Clans'. I hope you enjoy it and look forward to reading your comments.

Tribes use common culture to construct group identity and will employ dialects as a shared but often exclusive form of communication. The dialect of the London East End for example, is peppered with rhyming slang, whereas just a few hundred miles away, the Geordie dialect of the North East of England is heavy with accent and vocabulary that have survived from the incursions of the Norsemen several centuries before. Such linguistic devices, although deriving from different roots, both serve to exclude outsiders who attempt to enter into the circle. Thus the shared symbolism of the slang or dialect tacitly protects the tribal culture and secures its social exclusivity for its members. Communication, including speech, clothing and actions all serve to signal our cultural identities and group membership (Pahl & Rowsell, 2006). Cultural transmission is the communication of ideas. According to Dawkins (1976) key actions and thinking patterns of members of a culture are influenced by a contagious patterns of information known as ‘memes’. Memes carry no specific rules, but in effect are adopted and shared around by the tribe as a means of perpetuating that culture.

The smaller elements with the tribe, which we call clans, also employ shared symbolism. Each clan for example, has its totem, a symbol that represents it and distinguishes it from other, possibly rival clans. In primitive clans, the totem was often a representation of an animal or tree. Durkheim suggests it is easier for clan members to project their feelings of awe toward a totem than toward something that is as complex as the clan itself (Haralambos & Holborn, 1995). For digital tribes and virtual clans, the totem – the traditional rallying point for all tribal activity – is patently the world wide web. Not only are these digital spaces objects of intense interest and rallying points for the clans, they also act as transmitters of units of cultural knowledge. Several authors have argued that digital technologies and electronic networks provide perhaps the best environment for the transmission of memes (Blackmore 1999; Adar, Zhang, Adamic & Lukose, 2004). Such new literary practices of communication (Lankshear & Knobel, 2006) rely heavily on shared spaces, shared symbolism and the viral nature of the social web.

Weber originally suggested that culture should be construed as a ‘web of significance’ that was spun by the individuals who comprised the culture (Weber, 1947). Significantly, the increasing role the World Wide Web plays in the shaping of modern tribal culture causes Weber’s notion to resonate. Until recent technological innovation, people with common tribal identity lived in geographically specific locations, and considered areas of land to be their sole territory. Such territories are now being eroded due to the emergence of new digital tribes who occupy spaces located within cyberspace – a virtual space that transgresses all traditional, social and political boundaries.

Tomorrow: The digital tribe and the network nation

Related posts

When two edu-tribes go to war (Peter Ford)
Hoe verbind jij je met andere mensen op internet? (Wilfred Rubens)

References

Adar, E., Zhang, L., Adamic, L. and Lukose, R. (2004) Implicit Structure and Dynamics of Blogspace. Cited in Lankshear, C. and Knobel, M. (2006) New Literacies: Everyday Practices and Classroom Learning. Maidenhead: Open University Press.
Blackmore, S. (1999) The Meme Machine. Cited in Lankshear, C. and Knobel, M. (2006) New Literacies: Everyday Practices and Classroom Learning. Maidenhead: Open University Press.
Dawkins, R. (1976) The Selfish Gene. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Haralambos, M. and Holborn, M. (1995) Sociology: Themes and Perspectives (4th Edition). London: Harper Collins.
Pahl, K. and Rowsell, J. (2006) Literacy and Education: Understanding the new literacy studies in the classroom. London: Paul Chapman Publishing.
Weber, M. (1947) The Theory of Social and Economic Organisation. New York: The Free Press.

Tribes, clans and totems

Now that my new edited volume 'Connected Minds, Emerging Cultures' has finally hit the bookstore shelves, I have a little time to reflect on the contents of the 17 chapters, by 19 authors. Over the next week or so, I will post up some (very brief) excerpts from the book and add some of my own post-publication commentary. As I do, I hope that you will respond with some of your own comments and views, so that we can promote some new debates right here, right now.

Now I have the final version of the book in my sticky little mitts, I've been revisiting one of my own chapters, entitled 'Digital Tribes, Virtual Clans', (Google Books has partial content here) a contribution which in retrospect could be considered quite a bold one. In Chapter 6, I take the reader on a tour through what I consider to be a number of 'virtual clans' within the 'Internet Tribe', and argue that these clans are emerging as a direct result of sustained interaction through social networking tools and other technology mediated communication. I argue that as clans (e.g. Flickrites or Facebookers) become more specialised, the generation of their artefacts becomes more pronounced. One of my favourite sections in the chapter reads:

Each clan ... has a totem, a symbol that represents it and distinguishes it from other, possibly rival, clans. In primitive clans, the totem was often a representation of an animal or tree. Durkheim suggests it is easier for clan members to project their feelings of awe toward a totem than toward something as complex as the clan itself. For ... virtual clans, their totems - the traditional rallying points for all tribal activity - are patently the social networking tools within the World Wide Web. Not only are these digital spaces objects of intense interest and rallying points for the clans, they also act as transmitters of units of cultural knowledge (p. 67).

I would be interested to hear how other people perceive social networking services, and whether subtle differences can be detected in the way people generate their content, represent themselves and interact with others. Flickrites, Twits, Plurkers, Facebookers, Myspacers, Beboids, etc. Are the social networks acting as totems, or am I ...um.... barking up the wrong tree? (Image source: daltontrail.com)