Technological Determinism: Love it, Hate it.

The pervasiveness of technology in the 21^st century has allowed the risk of technological determinism that has been embedded in most of us as we live in the digital age. In that, we fail to realize the wider implication that has bestowed upon us. This resonates along with how Thackara (2006) believes that there is no room for naiveté where we know new technologies have unforeseen outcomes. This presents an argument towards how technology may act as a double edged sword that most of us may be blinded to. The nature of this argument does not suggest the rejection of technology, but instead taking a step back to divulge in the very nature of technology.

The narrative behind extended self in the digital world presented by Belk (2014) exemplifies how technology drives digital consumption, ultimately impacting the nature of one self and nature of possessions. Dematerialization of possessions was one of the five changes in the digital world that he presented in his article. For instance, traditionally how we used to own music by buying CDs at the record store, while today, they are electronically downloaded (purchased) or even streamed through providers such as Spotify through a freemium model. This raises the question of ownership of such digital consumption objects (DCO) where they are merely binary which act as an intangible possession to oneself. This issue was brought to light by Bruce Willis’ attempt to allow his daughters to inherit his music collection on Apple’s iTunes (Child, 2012). Here, we are able to unlock the very nature of technology, in a sense that digital ownership may be questionable. This resonates along with other digital possessions that we may have such as photos, videos, messages etc. that may be stored in the cloud where we simply negate the wider implication that it may have.

The extension of this argument could be brought to the rise in the use of social media, where Belk (2014) presents this as part of Re-embodiment; the second change in the digital world. While traditionally, our identities only exist offline, the digital age has induced a challenge in maintaining multiple identities. From a personal experience, the author grew up in a conservative Muslim family, where restrictions of relationships are strictly adhered to. Therefore, (not so conservative) photos being posted online was kept private from family members until he decided to “clear” his pasts and share an “acceptable” persona to his family members and relatives. This was in parallel to how Odom et al. (2011 cited Belk, 2014) described one of the teenage informant’s reaction to his mother’s response to his photos and messages posted online. In that, we create multiple identities that serve different audiences. Belk (2014) argues the illusion of control of our multiple online identities extends the feeling of those identities being apart of us.

While it may seem trivial, the implication of this may be extended to our careers as well. It was reported that 60% of hiring managers screen their candidates online to ensure the “right” qualification of the job (Cain, 2016). This does not suggest that we should just privatize our presence online, but instead ensuring that our personas are maintained “clean”. This begs the question of authenticity of our true self, where Hood (2012 cited Belk, 2014, p.483) describes the “authorship of actions requires the illusion of a unified sense of self”. He further reiterates that this illusion brings us to please ourselves rather than the situation. In a sense, multiple identities are merely an illusion that we create to satisfy ourselves rather than please possible hiring managers. This raises ambiguity in such that we are blurring the lines between our offline and online personas as well. Again, this exemplifies the nature of technology in a way that we do not question how, in any way, would simply having a social media profile, could implicate our lives.

While evidently the nature of this argument may be skewed, the purpose of this narrative does not suggest the rejection of technology. There is certainly enough evidence to support the celebratory discourse of technology. For instance, on Saturday morning, in Southampton, United Kingdom (U.K.), at about 1000hrs, the author attended a wedding that was held in Singapore at 1800hrs from over 10,000km away. The author presented himself at the wedding through FaceTime and congratulate the newlyweds on their blissful marriage (see Figure 1).

Figure 1: The author’s presence in a wedding held in Singapore from Southampton, UK, through FaceTime

With the development of technology, it makes it possible for one to be at two places at once. It was only once upon a time in a science fiction movie (or novel) where this may seem impossible. But today, such developments may seem frivolous to us. While this may only be one in a million of evidences of the celebratory discourse of technology, the above critical discourse of the risk of technological determinism hope to question the true nature of technology.

References:

Belk, R.W., 2014. Extended Self in a Digital World. Journal of Consumer Research, 40(3), pp.477–500. Available at: http://jcr.oxfordjournals.org/content/40/3/477.abstract.

Cain, Á., 2016. 60% of hiring managers look up candidates online — here’s how to make sure your Facebook profile doesn’t cost you a job. Business Insider. Available at: http://uk.businessinsider.com/how-to-make-sure-your-social-media-accounts-dont-cost-you-a-job.

Child, B., 2012. Bruce Willis to fight Apple over right to leave iTunes library in will. The Guardian. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/film/2012/sep/03/bruce-willis-apple-itunes-library.

Thackara, J., 2006. In the Bubble: Designing a Complex World, MIT Press. Available at: https://books.google.com.sg/books?hl=en&lr=&id=yuM68Q8WJUIC&oi=fnd&pg=PR7&dq=in+the+Bubble:+designing+in+a+complex+world&ots=G4vISI6v11&sig=xufkCYC8SIEEOXJL-6F8pSngDEo#v=onepage&q=in the Bubble%3A designing in a complex world&f=false.

Digitization, the underlying factor

Interactive Web Visualisation by amattox mattox

“One of the most important properties is its openness” – Sir Tim Berners-Lee, the inventor of the World Wide Web

These were the exact words of the Internet pioneer when he addressed the first Knowledge Conference held in Dubai on 7^th December 2014 (The National 2014). As we immersed in the argument for and against “openness” of the Internet, these words by the inventor himself, held my thoughts as he addressed the audience, pleading to keep the Internet “open, free and accessible”.

The value of the argument is not intentionally degraded by introducing the address made by the Internet pioneer himself. However, it is imperative to understand that the whole concept behind the World Wide Web was to share the knowledge and embrace the cultural differences in the world (The National 2014).

From a content producer’s perspective, the argument is iterative. Weighing the advantages and disadvantages of having to produce materials freely available online is challenging. For instance, the argument for “open access” in academia is prevalent as they are bounded by the cost, quality control and sustainability of their work (Edanz 2013). This argument is parallel in the context of creative works as well. I believe that there are underlying factors that lead to the possible emergence of more “paywalls” in the future.

The growth of “digitization” is believed to be one of the reasons for the possible occurrence (The Drum 2013). BBC (2013) revealed that Robert Cailliau, the unheralded other half who invented the World Wide Web, mentioned that “the idea of dealing with the value of information” has been around for 20 years. From the interview, they revealed that he supported the idea of “pay-as-you-go” model for online content. This is a huge contrast to the prevailing view of the “other half” of the inventor of the World Wide Web.

Again, the tendency of “evading” the real value of the argument was not done purportedly. I believe the idea of “openness” of the Internet is contextual upon the content that is built. For instance, the media industry are building “new models” to compensate for the growth of “digitization” (BBC 2013) and therefore, it only make sense to charge for content that used to be offered through “prints”. In the context of academia or creative works, it is still subjective upon the producers’ belief of what they are trying to achieve ultimately.

References:

BBC, 2013. Are the days of free content on the net numbered? Available at: http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-24759239 [Accessed December 9, 2014].

Edanz, 2013. Advantages and Disadvantages of Open Access. Available at: http://www.edanzediting.com/blog/advantages_and_disadvantages_open_access#.VIbBaIsVdlI [Accessed December 9, 2014].

The Drum, 2013. 90% of online content to be held behind paywalls in three years media company survey suggests. Available at: http://www.thedrum.com/news/2013/04/12/90-online-content-be-held-behind-paywalls-three-years-media-company-survey-suggests [Accessed December 9, 2014].

The National, 2014. World Wide Web inventor makes plea to keep internet free and open. Available at: http://www.thenational.ae/uae/technology/world-wide-web-inventor-makes-plea-to-keep-internet-free-and-open [Accessed December 9, 2014].

Dear marketers and future employers…

The concept introduced by David S. White and Alison Le Cornu (2011), has sparked different views on how exactly it is defined as. Many of us embarked on the research of the concept and found some interesting pieces of information that were pretty insightful. I was able to relate some of the information that was posted by my course mates to our past modules such as HRM and Strategic Marketing Decisions.

This concept may be valuable in the marketing context where information may be relayed easily to those that “reside” in the digital world. What would pose as a challenge for Marketers are targeting the “visitors” who are wary of their “footprint” online. Even though the target audience of the web may be vast, “segments of one” (Capon & Hulbert 2007) is crucial in the industry. This point was raised indirectly from Ebrahim’s (2014) post on the vulnerabilities of digital “residents”.

Another key factor that was taken from this topic is the “learning” that takes place around the online environment. Yvonne (2014) raised a point: stating that human interaction may not be well received by students. I do agree to a certain extent in her point. However, I do believe that there is a need for students to be exposed to the online environment as the expectation of future employers on Millennials may lie in our “online network” (Forum 2014).

With that being said, I do see a huge potential in how this concept may be brought forward. Is it just digital “visitors” and “residents” that Marketers or future employers should be concerned of? Many of us do not realize that sometimes, it is not even a choice for us whether to leave a “footprint”. A swipe of a card at any stores would simply mean, “signing off” our personal information to companies!

References:

Capon, N. & Hulbert, J.M., 2007. Managing Marketing in the 21st Century: Developing and Implementing the Market Strategy, Wessex Incorporated. Available at: http://books.google.com.sg/books/about/Managing_Marketing_in_the_21st_Century.html?id=RQFticcBQRwC&pgis=1 [Accessed November 28, 2014].

Forum, W.E., 2014. Five way Talent Management must change. World Econmic Forum. Available at: http://forumblog.org/2014/10/don-tapscott-talent-management-millennials/ [Accessed November 27, 2014].

Loh, Y., 2014. A new age of “Digital Residents”? Available at: http://yvonneblogs.wordpress.com/2014/11/27/digital-visitors-and-residents/#respond [Accessed November 28, 2014].

Shakir, E., 2014. The World Online. Available at: https://ebrahimshakir.wordpress.com/2014/11/27/the-world-online/.
[Accessed November 28, 2014].

White, D.S. & Cornu, A. Le, 2011. Visitors and Residents: A new typology for online engagement. First Monday, 16(9). Available at: http://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/3171/3049 [Accessed November 27, 2014].

Comments made on:

Loh, Y., 2014. A new age of “Digital Residents”? Available at: http://yvonneblogs.wordpress.com/2014/11/27/digital-visitors-and-residents/#respond [Accessed November 28, 2014].

Shakir, E., 2014. The World Online. Available at: https://ebrahimshakir.wordpress.com/2014/11/27/the-world-online/.
[Accessed November 28, 2014].

A new typology, or a modernized concept of the old?

The concept of digital “visitors” and “residents” is believed to be an update of the concept of “digital natives and immigrants” introduced by Prensky (2001). A ‘replacement’ as described by David S. White and Alison Le Cornu (2011), would very much suggest that Prensky’s work was absolutely redundant. Although the much-criticized work by Prensky was even questioned by Prensky himself in 2009, there is some validity in his work, to be more precised, at his point of time. As the study was done more than 10 years ago, a more updated concept of the typology was introduced as digital “visitors” and “residents”.

As I ventured upon the concept, I realized I was pretty much trying to put myself on the ends of the continuum:

Figure 1: Visitor-Resident continuum (White & Cornu 2011)

However, the concept became much clearer when I came across videos and articles by JISC. To explain this concept further, I was introduced to a ‘mapping process’ (JISCinfonet 2014) and created my own V&R map:

Figure 2: My personal V&R Mapping

As how we were once ‘boxed up’ or categorized as digital “natives” or “immigrants”, the expectation of the digital “natives” were to be more au fait with anything and everything that has to do with technology. And “immigrants” to have to learn it like a “second language”. But how true is that today? That is where the concept of a Visitor-Resident continuum came about.

Age and generation does not constitute to whether one is a “visitor” or a “resident”. It is not even a mutually exclusive category where we may classify ourselves. It is merely a continuum where we perceive ourselves to be. And most of the time, we lie somewhere in the middle. “Context” would define where we would lie in the continuum. To prove my point, I do believe some of us were very much inclined in creating a separate Twitter account for this particular module. And that would suggest that there is a fine line drawn between personal and institutional/work life. Prof. Edgar Meyer briefly introduced this concept when he asked, “would you add your boss on Facebook?” The debate sparked many different views on how our engagement online may create implications. That debate would probably explain why the bottom right quadrant, would always be empty for most people.

Whether I myself, am a “visitor” or a “resident”, is a question I would very much want to know at the end of this module!

References:

JISCinfonet, 2014. Evaluating digital services: a Visitors and Residents approach. Available at: http://www.jiscinfonet.ac.uk/infokits/evaluating-services/ [Accessed November 27, 2014].

Prensky, B.M., 2001. Digital Natives , Digital Immigrants. , pp.1–6. Available at: http://www.marcprensky.com/writing/Prensky – Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants – Part1.pdf.

White, D.S., 2014. Visitors and Residents, UK. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sPOG3iThmRI&list=PLgO50IKGkqyaX21RaPiSpCKsf87O8S0Yv.

White, D.S. & Cornu, A. Le, 2011. Visitors and Residents: A new typology for online engagement. First Monday, 16(9). Available at: http://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/3171/3049 [Accessed November 27, 2014].