Completed paper to be posted soon. Please see below for text of my semester 2 presentation.
My research question is as follows: Is generation the most important dimension to understanding how uses of digital technologies (ICTs) inform identities of workforce age people? (15-64 according to StatsCanada).
My approach: Preliminary research looked at texts such as:
• Formation of group norms/identity formation in online communities
• Effects of computer-mediated-
• Generations and diversity issues in the workplace with an emphasis on Gen Y, the under 30 group
• Interpersonal communication
• Definitions of digital divide. For the most part, I tended to exclude text on international digital divides and focused on intra-country divides.
The focus of my research is on what I call “aged-based classifications”, typically referred to as generations. I attempted to understand what informs the theory of generations as social phenomenon. I ultimately relied on Karl Mannheim’s text The Problem of Generations as well as discourse that both forwarded and criticized his theories. I also turned to sociological text by Pierre Bourdieu and his essay ‘Youth’ is just a word in which he outlines that the concept of youth is a social construct and the function this serves in society.
On the topic of the digital divide, I learned that:
1) the name suggests that it is a technological problem eschewing the importance of the many variables that actually inform the ‘digital divide’
2) The digital divide is better framed as a series of access issues, including motivation, material (physical) and skills access. Furthermore, addressing the digital divide is a recursive process.
My paper discusses the difference between access and use (including meaningful use) terms that seems to get conflated the way some key terms pertaining to generation discourse do.
Research also shows that non-cost barriers influence the various access issues, especially motivation and skills access.
The methodologies of researching the digital divide do not seem to take a relational account of subjective variables, such as, how ‘central’ one perceives ICTs to be in their life. For example, Loges, Associate Professors in New Media Comm’n and Sociology at Oregon State University and Jung, Associate Professor Media, Comm’n and Culture at International Christian University in Tokyo, call for the inclusion of play to be included as a measured variable of use of ICTs. Excluding differences in user goal-orientations tends to also exclude older adults (mostly in the retirement phase of their life). Admittedly, this age group falls outside of my age range of interest but I do agree with the importance of recognizing user-driven indicators as a measure of meaningful use of ICTs.
I think to ignore user goal orientation is to perpetuate a bias in the research methods, in favour of the younger ages.
Instead, quantifiable indicators, such as the hours spent online and the number of access points to the Internet are correlated with classifying one’s level of dis/enfranchisement in the digital realm. This is inherently biased, in my opinion, because data shows that people with higher levels of education or from higher social-economic backgrounds etc. tend to have more access points.
Furthermore, people of high school and post-secondary age (15-24) rank the highest in terms of Internet use saturation. In 2003 this group had reached 94% Internet-use saturation versus 55-64 year olds who had only reached 55% in the same year.
One could argue that people aged 15-24 use the Internet more frequently because they have more access points due of circumstance and their environments. For example, they likely have access to computers at school, work or home, and work/school roles may demand higher use of the Internet. This says nothing of people’s preference or quality of use. In other words, these statistics cannot necessarily be correlated to issues of centrality, goal orientation or even digital literacy skills.
My research shows that the generation and digital divide theories have flaws that are mutually reinforcing the notion of age-based digital ability while largely ignoring other factors of skills, literacy, motivation and centrality.
