New Media for Children and Young Adults

It struck me, coming across the same “attitudinal” factors in the American and Canadian studies, that the idea that we need to convince people that they should be on the internet runs counter to some of the values we’ve espoused earlier in this course.
I’m not at all a fan of the all-or-nothing response to technology, but I find this comparison fascinating: in the speech from Blair Levin and the Statistics Canada project, we seem to lament that, due to literacy, a parent’s background or their neighbourhood, certain groups are less likely to participate in ICT’s, especially for fun.
On the other hand, we’re trying to pull kids away from ICT’s in order to experience an unmediated world more often. Again, I realize this isn’t all or nothing: wanting a kid to get grass stains is not the same as wanting them unplugged 24/7. But it does set up a value-laden binary between the natural, physical world and the artificial, digital world.
How can we convince families to make room in the budget for broadband, to make sure their schools are spending money on ICT, when we’re also telling them that kids these days spend too much of their time online?
No answers here, just questions.
– Julia

I like the terminology, Information and Communication Technologies when we are discussing the idea of the “digital divide”. The term stresses the ubiquitous role technology plays in our society, not just for research or updates on our favourite movie star but really, for our participation in society. When some people within a society do not have access, their opportunities are limited. But so what, you might say? Noam Chomsky likens providing educational opportunities as investments- to “front end loading” in a democratic society. When we do not provide opportunities that are equitable to disadvantaged groups, as taxpayers, we pay in other ways. We pay for unnecessary visits to over-burdened healthcare. We pay if we are unable to change the cycle of dependence on government handouts if there are no other opportunities offered. And without opportunity, there is no hope and where there is no hope, crime flourishes. As taxpayers, we really pay then. Graffiti, broken windows, insurance rates, criminal justice infrastructure, and loss of personal safety are all consequences of not trying to give people opportunities to be contributing members of society. ICT’s are now a part of that societal participation. Without the internet, how does one go about finding a job? Rent an apartment? Without a telephone or the internet, how can you be available to respond to an employer? How do you access the bus schedule? Knowledge is also power. Knowing what politician supports your belief systems, what day the extra garbage is being collected for free and whether that bump on your child’s head is something to be concerned about all comes from connectivity and ultimately, ensures participation in society.
And what of the social role technology plays in a child’s life? Without facebook, they miss the pizza party. Without a cell-phone, they miss a safe ride home after a long rehearsal. People used to joke about how not allowing your child to watch tv left them out of the social loop. Without the internet, not only are they not able to converse or play in the digital realm but they are also left out of the common knowledge and communication of that society. If our society wasn’t dependant on ICT’s, we could return the focus of our conversation back to education, libraries, unemployment assistance and healthcare as the pillars needed for creating opportunities for an equitable society but now, reliable internet access and mobile communication devices figure prominently in that conversation.
Thoughts? Do you think it is our collective responsibility to fund internet and computer access to everyone in our society?

re: “Wired for Social Justice” speech

“As we think about civic engagement, we must recognize that the internet is a library. It’s a television.  It’s a telephone and a public square.” -Blair Levin

Some very important concerns are brought up in this rousing speech: civil rights, second-class citizenship, digital literacy, poverty, community…

Although many points in this speech do not particularly pertain to children specifically, I think it all applies – children and teens deserve access and connectivity opportunities just as much as any adult, and for the same civic-minded principles as brought up in this speech.

What I found particularly interesting about this speech is how Levin points out issues that are not just about who has access to broadband internet, but who is accessing broadband internet (many of those who may be able to procure it aren’t – why is that?). There is an adoption gap that should also be part of the conversation regarding the have’s and have-nots. Levin points out an aspect of this particular divide, that “unless the communities you care about are online, exchanging information and creating content, it is hard to feel the Internet is relevant.”

So I wonder (from the perspective of our field): shall we take up the cause for promoting this relevance? If we’re helping a 10-year old patron with their homework, finding valuable resources for them online, and their parent proudly states they do not wish to have internet (or even a computer) in their home, for whatever valid reason, is this cause for concern? Is it cause to start up a dialogue with this parent, on behalf of their child’s “well-being”? I don’t have an answer, or a solid stance on this, but I think it’s worth thinking about.

For your viewing pleasure, a 20 minute argument on why video games will make a better world: http://www.ted.com/talks/view/id/799
Granted, it is from the same game designer who gave us this – http://topsecret.ning.com/ – since “Studies show that two of the activities that bring the most pleasure to our brains are dancing with other people, and being humiliated”. Make of it what you will.

A little belated but this link is to an article and early trailer for the new Disney film, Tangled–which is really Rapunzel. Word is, they are trying to distance themselves from the princess thing and make the title appeal more to boys.

http://www.latinoreview.com/news/disney-s-tangled-leaks-online-9268

First, I am so into the Weber and Mitchell article.  It had some useful stuff for my paper (is anyone else using the Convergence Culture book?  I had never heard of that before reading the article.  Anyways, if you do have the book – I recalled it from you.  Sorry.  But there is an online copy that can sustain us as we inevitably recall it back and forth!) and a bunch of good discussion meat.  For the sake of brevity, I’ll just focus on one of my favourite points from the article, which will heretofore be known as the BME (Best Metaphor Ever).

On page 39, Weber and Mitchell talk about how constructing an identity online as a teen is not unlike playing with building blocks as a wee tot.  I won’t spend any more time summarizing, as you all read the article, or can scoot over to the PDF to read that one paragraph. However, I think this is the BME for two reasons:

1) It captures the sort of piecemeal, work-in-progress process of constructing an identity.  Identities, like block towers, are constantly built, torn down, and rebuilt.  As any Faceb0ok user can attest, a person is constantly adding, deleting, and modifying bits of their profile (pictures, applications, quiz results, etc.)  Too often, people talk about identity formation as if it just happens – as if teens just log on to Facebook and go on a crazy naked-picture-posting spree and then, BAM, their identity is in the gutter.

2) It brings up the issue of play, which we don’t really associate with adolescence.  Play kind of peters off our radar at about age 10 when we think of development, but, as the metaphor suggests, play is still happening in the teen years.  Building blocks have just been replaced with pictures and words.

Of course, the stakes are higher in play when you’re an adolescent.  Like I just said, instead of playing with blocks, you might be playing with pictures of yourself doing stupid stuff.  Or stuff that you don’t know is stupid yet.  In any event, I think it is a very interesting lens through which to view some of the behaviour around new media.   Play does not just happen in a virtual world mini game – it happens in all sorts of programs (like Facebook) that us adults night use for other reasons (i.e. – communication).

Since we’re sort of on the topic of social networking and privacy issues, I thought I’d post a link to a very short NY Times article about Facebook privacy settings. It lists three settings everyone who is concerned about their privacy should make sure their profile is set to, especially if you haven’t paid any attention to your settings since Facebook changed the rules a few months ago.

Here’s the link: http://www.nytimes.com/external/readwriteweb/2010/01/20/20readwriteweb-the-3-facebook-settings-every-user-should-c-29287.html?src=me&ref=technology

–Heidi S.

I would argue that a person’s social identity is actually linked to personal identity more with the use of new media than without it. And here’s why:

Creating social identity through new media, ie social networking sites like Facebook, requires more deliberation, thoughtfullness and creativity than traditional, analogue forms of identity expression, and in this way becomes more of a reflection of personal identity. Using Facebook, especially (as opposed to MySpace) often forces people to express themselves through concepts and ideas via status updates, comments and personal information, rather than through pure image, such as clothes, hairstyles and images of celebreties they associate themselves with pinned to a locker or bedroom wall.

Facebok requires more thought about what you want to say to the world, rather than what you look like to the world, which can be liberating for those of us who, in high school, felt a great deal of pressure to look a certain way.

Of course, in the oldendays, identity could have been developed with concepts and ideas through social/verbal interaction, as well. What you said and how you said it and with whom you were speaking to played into your social identity. But for anyone who was uncomfortable in face-to-face social interactions, there was little oportunity to reveal your identity in this way, or at least not with the same articulation that writing and posting on Facebook allows. (And I don’t know about you, but I remember MOST high school students having some sort of social awkwardness, if not pure social anxiety, especially around kids from different cliques).

Facebook is a sort of antidote to this, where shy or shy-ish teens can express themselves and their interests through writing and sharing ideas, shaping their identity in a way that is true to who they are, but doesn’t require face-to-face social savvy.

–Heidi S.

Gender & gaming
A quick thought on gender & gaming.
I question how often playing games as a different gendered character actually involves any earnest gender or identity exploration. The Marshall article (p.500)cites a small study which found that only 1 in 5 played as a different gender for such reasons. The majority did so because of a perceived gameplay advantage, such as the idea that female characters make smaller targets, or that other players may be more likely to help female characters, or misjudge their abilities as players. It isn’t enough to say that because male gamers are playing as female characters they are in some way exploring facets of their identity any more than it would be to say that a man who donned a wig and dress in order to board a life-raft under the “women and children first” rule was taking part in gender exploration. Instead, they are exploiting gender expectations to gain advantage, but the fact that they appear to be the opposite gender may be of very little importance to them in terms of self-exploration.

Another possible reason for picking a female avatar is that, as a gamer, outside of first person games at least, you spend most of your time looking at your character. All things being equal, a player might simply select a female avatar because this is what they would rather see on screen, what they would rather look at, or follow around from behind. There are certainly specific gaming examples (check out console games BMX XXX, Outlaw Volleyball, or Rumble Roses, for instance) that seem to hinge on players playing as female avatars for largely voyeuristic reasons.

Trying to sort of the earnest gender exploration from these other possibilities seems like a potentially daunting task. Does anyone know of other studies like the Wright study cited by Marshall that discuss this phenomenon?

Gender performance is one of the things that so interests me about the internet and a lot of these communities we’ve been discussing!  I’ve always been interested in messing around with gender and my online personae tend to be very gender ambiguous.  I enjoy interacting with people without gender playing any particular role, or when gender is acknowledged as a role, to be altered at will or convenience.  The best role-players I know are those who can take on a male or female persona without stereotyping, and make it believable.  I’ve never been put off or bothered by ambiguity at all.  Heck, one of my favorite series from when I was a kid starred a girl who cross-dressed successfully for eight years because she wanted to be a knight and girls weren’t allowed.  Breaking gender boundaries and challenging the concepts of femininity and masculinity is terribly interesting and the internet is a great place to do that.

Virtual worlds that segregate or typify gender, especially in kid-directed virtual worlds, bother me to some extent.  One of the few complaints I have about Pixie Hollow (which has awesome games and a really attractive interface, by the way) is that it all of the avatars are specifically female.  They give you some leeway when it comes to hairstyle and lifestyle – one of mine is a Tinker fairy, who specifically works with machines and building furniture – but I have yet to locate a store that will sell me pants rather than a skirt for my carefully gathered raspberries or dandelion fluffs or maple leaves.  The gendered aspects of the game are not as blatant and aggressive as it sounds like BarbieGirls.com is, of course, and for the most part, I see their interpretations as fairly benign.  Fairies get rewards for exploring, making things, solving puzzles, collecting various bits of natural detritus and making friends.

I haven’t yet come to any conclusions about Club Penguin, though.  It does seem to offer a lot more range in gender expression, which is cool.  I did meet up with some very aggressively-gendered penguins, but they did not seem to be the norm.  Interestingly, all of the extremely gender-indicative items are fancy, members-only things like suits, hairstyles, jerseys, fancy dresses, etc.  (I do have a lovely mental image of a little boy with an outrageously-coiffed Marilyn-Monroe-esque penguin…but that’s just me.)  Especially since the rest of the community can only see the clothes your penguin is wearing right now out of your entire wardrobe, there may be room for gender play…