Blog #3

It is clear that the surveys conducted for this paper (in 2004/2005 as noted by the author) were carried out before the advent or global popularity of the iPhone. Stald (2008) states, “Games and the mobile Internet are not popular possibilities among the young people we studied—the most common argument being that the mobile phone user has a much better computer a few minutes away at home, at work, at school or college. In this context the mobile must be seen as one of a broader ensemble of media” (p. 148). In fact, the iPhone has radically changed the ‘low quality and high price’ reasons recorded by Stald for youth not using the Internet on their mobiles. The iPhone is a media ensemble on its own – allowing users to access the Internet (free in Wi-Fi areas), up-to-the-minute e-mail, news, social networking messages and podcasts, record notes and audio, along with enabling users to read texts, listen to music, take pictures, and play advanced and engaging games. All these features are now available in a visual format, speed, and storage space that competes with the average PC.

    

One of the themes of Stald`s chapter is the indispensable tool that is the mobile phone. Had the study been conducted post iPhone popularity (and Research in Motion`s Blackberry, which followed suite), the degree to which adolescents would admit their reliance on it would surely be more significant. More features, speed, reliance, and storage capabilities translates into the ability to broadcast and receive various forms of information that shape adolescent ideas and, hence, their identities. This latter point of Stald is one I contemplated quite a bit on. That is, that the mobility and accessibility of the mobile phone has made it possible for youth to negotiate and co-construct meaning of the world around them: ”Exchange between friends is an important part of the development of identity, because it supports the testing of cultural, social, and individual codes and makes ongoing, mutual reciprocity possible. In this context, being movable, agile and ready to march means being ready to move as a person, too” (p.146). In the upcoming years, as these mobile devices increase in advanced communication features (e.g. Skype camera enabled iPhones), I suspect we will continue to see studies like Stald`s, and conclusions which point to the power of digital devices in molding youth identities.

Reference

Stald, G. (2008). Mobile identity: Youth, identity and mobile communication media. In D. Buckingham (Ed.), Youth identity and digital media (pp. 119-142). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

Blog #2

Boyd’s chapter “Why Youth Social Network Sites: The Role of Networked Publics in Teenage Social Life" in Youth, Identity, and Digital Media (2008) was an enlightening read into the effects of digital literacy on – primarily – the Millennial generation. The author states that the motivation behind her study is “simply to unveil some of the common ways in which teenagers now experience social life online” (p. 121). The study provides a powerful look at the formidable effects a social network site such as MySpace has on the personal lives of our youth. Trilling and Fadel’s (2009) ideas advocate digital literacy as a critical skill school systems ought to develop as part of a 21^st century education sure to secure global competiveness and economic prosperity in the nation. Boyd’s chapter provides insight, a troublesome one at that, not into the economic contributions of digital literacy – but the social impact of technology on the social interactions, identity “construction,” of our children. Who precisely has forged this path? Who has so widely opened this media channel for thirteen to eighteen year olds to navigate through? In a capitalist society, perhaps I ought to ask: Whose market research has profited from this “service”?

I did some digging and came upon an interview on a Canadian program (the Canadian Broadcasting Channel’s “The Hour”) with the founder of MySpace, Tom Anderson:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-yWpnto-hqQ&feature=fvw  . It is a fascinating watch, sure to provide a back stage look at the site Boyd based her research on.

When asked why he created the social networking site, Anderson stated ‘to compete with a pre-existing site.’ Asked if his development team foresaw interests in their venture by media corporations, he answered: “Yeah, we thought that a media company would come and buy it someday. And we wanted the big money injection to help grow it, make it international, and to pay for all the equipment in the beginning. That was sort of the plan.” News Corp, both the study and the video indicate, bought the site, and so capitalized on the riches 175 million users would surely bring. This, apparently, is not unusual. Boyd states, “Microsoft, Yahoo!, AOL, and Wal-Mart have all created social network sites, but these have not been particularly successful. In 2005, Fox Interactive Media (a division of Murdoch’s News Corporation) purchased MySpace for US $580 million” (p. 121).

Put together with Trilling and Fadel’s contentions, Boyd’s study says a sad lot about the corporate influence on the means of our educational system, and the intended goals of education itself.

We will surely see research into the disastrous impact of such control grow.

Samah