What’s missing in the digital world? Access, digital literacy and digital citizenship

Citation

Gorman, G.E. (2015), "What’s missing in the digital world? Access, digital literacy and digital citizenship", Online Information Review, Vol. 39 No. 2. https://doi.org/10.1108/OIR-02-2015-0053

What’s missing in the digital world? Access, digital literacy and digital citizenship

Article Type: Editorial From: Online Information Review, Volume 39, Issue 2

One of the long-trumpeted glories of the web is its democratisation of access to information and the freedom of anyone to be heard. No one would dispute this benefit, except when democratisation leads to a kind of anarchy.

As if to reaffirm belief in democratisation on the web, Tara Thomson (2014) recently reported on “her experience attending a participant-driven ‘unconference’ for digital humanities students and researchers”. In her report Thomson states that the Manifesto of Digital Humanities 2.0 “[…] affirms the value of the open, the infinite, the expansive, the university/museum/archive/library without walls, the democratization of culture and scholarship […]”. One might not argue about the democratisation of culture and scholarship, but the university, museum, archive and library without walls is another matter, as it assumes access to these institutions “without walls” on the web.

Thomson recognizes this when she states that:

Those of us who have access to digital technologies can easily forget that access does not come so easily to some, and digital development is uneven across the world.

We cannot write on paper without a pen or pencil; we cannot participate in web-based information democracy if we lack the necessary ICT or access to that ICT. In our developed parts of the world we tend to forget this unless we are regularly involved in work that takes us to places like Fiji, Sri Lanka, Vietnam, etc. For instance, in a recent visit to the University of the South Pacific (USP) in Fiji, it was exciting to learn of the University’s vision for a Knowledge Hub that would enable equal access to University services in all 22 member countries. According to Professor Rajesh Chandra, USP Vice Chancellor, “A Knowledge Hub exists already in terms of the concentration of knowledge, infrastructure to make it available online, and the ability to create content as well as help the region” (Chandra, 2013).

This statement is significant in that it reveals the criteria for a Knowledge Hub and for access to that Hub:

• concentration of knowledge (institutional framework);

• online infrastructure (ICT/IT network); and

• content creation (activity).

It is perhaps fair to say that in most places (certainly not all) there will be an institutional framework (government ministry, school, university, library) for facilitating access to information, and that this institutional framework does allow for the creation of content. But all of this is thwarted by lack of a viable online infrastructure; in the Fiji example high-speed broadband does not yet exist between the main USP campus and its 22 regional centres, which means that access is not a reality, that knowledge remains concentrated in Fiji and a few of the major centres.

This is just one example of “talking the talk” not being matched by “walking the walk”; the same situation exists in the Middle East, many parts of Africa, many countries in Asia and the Pacific. If digital development is uneven across the world, then there are millions who cannot benefit from the digital world and therefore will remain disadvantaged. This should be patently obvious to anyone, but then governments and aid agencies can be stunningly oblivious to the obvious.

Or is there something more sinister at play here? As Thomson (2014) has opined, “As democratising as digital technology seems, there is great risk of preserving existing power structures through uneven access”; these power structures are well aware of this, and also aware that access bestows power on others. Therefore, will the more paranoid governments (Russia, China, Malaysia, Vietnam and so on – a very long list indeed) ever want to facilitate access, and open access at that, to information?

But even if access were improved and idealistic governments were to facilitate the rollout of network infrastructures, this does not solve the problem of digital literacy/illiteracy. Some years ago Ameen and Gorman (2009) noted this as a major issue in a developing country’s higher education system, where digital literacy was neither taught nor practised. Excessive emphasis on ICT infrastructure was not matched by any sense of urgency regarding the training of citizens to be digital literates, and we still see examples of this in both developed and developing countries in 2015.

What do we mean by “digital literacy”, and how is this reflected in “digital citizenship”? With regard to the first term, we “[…] communicate through a variety of media, each of which presents unique advantages and challenges” (Waikato Diocesan School for Girls, 2015). This requires that we go beyond simple information literacy, which focuses on the information being accessed and its quality, and understand the medium transmitting the information and the enabling ICTs. We have reached a point in the digital world where the new digital literacy is an overarching concept that encompasses all forms of literacy, including information literacy, media literacies and technological literacy.

In other words, learning to surf the web, to find desired information, to understand and interpret the information and to critically evaluate online information are no longer enough. Equally important is knowing how to contribute in an online environment:

How a child composes an email, YouTube video, web page or social networking profile is impacted by the choices she makes about the information, media and technology she’ll use. In turn, those choices greatly influence how other individuals will perceive her message and the meaning they will make from it (Waikato Diocesan School for Girls, 2015).

In short, it is essential that people understand how to utilise content and technologies, create content and otherwise fully participate in the digital world – these skills form the core of digital citizenship. The combination of technical and social skills in digital citizenship enables the “digirati” to be confident and active contributors in the digital world.

In recent years New Zealand has developed a sound definition of “digital citizen” which bears study in other countries for its clarity and comprehensiveness. A digital citizen:

• is a confident and capable user of ICT;

• uses technologies to participate in educational, cultural and economic activities;

• uses and develops critical thinking skills in cyberspace;

• is literate in the language, symbols, and texts of digital technologies;

• is aware of ICT challenges and can manage them effectively;

• uses ICT to relate to others in positive, meaningful ways;

• demonstrates honesty and integrity and ethical behaviour in their use of ICT;

• respects the concepts of privacy and freedom of speech in a digital world; and

• contributes and actively promotes the values of digital citizenship (Waikato Diocesan School for Girls, 2015).

Can we honestly say that we know any digital citizens who meet all of these criteria? I think not.

We are letting down both existing and new generations of “digirati” by not educating them in the requirements of digital citizenship, by not providing them with effective digital literacy skills tailored to this new and growing environment and by not prioritising the rollout of appropriate ICT technologies where they are most needed.

A note on the content of this issue

This is the first issue of OIR in which we introduce a new set of viewpoints by Drs David Stuart (King’s College London) and Katrin Weller (GESIS – Leibniz Institute for the Social Sciences). In his first viewpoint around the theme of “Taming Metrics”, David Stuart writes on “Finding Good Enough Metrics”, challenging the review assessment status quo by suggesting that “a battery of non-robust metrics selected by higher education institutions could support a greatly reduced peer-reviewed exercise”. In the next issue of OIR (No. 3) Katrin Weller lights her “Spotlight on Social Media Research”.

G.E. Gorman

References

Ameen, K. and Gorman, G.E. (2009), “Information and digital literacy: a stumbling block to development? A Pakistan perspective”, Library Management, Vol. 39 Nos 1/2, pp. 99-112, available at: www.emeraldinsight.com/toc/lm/30/1%2F2 (accessed 28 January 2015).

Chandra, R. (2013), “Education and research networks: the case of USPNET”, presentation to the Pacific Islands Research and Education Networking Workshop, 18 January, available at: nsrc.org/nsf-pacific/raw-attachment/…/Rajesh-Chandra_USP.pptx (accessed 28 January 2015)

Thomson, T. (2014), “Why do digital humanists love an unconference?”, IAD4LEARN, 18 December, available at: https://iad4learnteach.wordpress.com/2014/12/18/why-do-digital-humanists-love-an-unconference/ (accessed 28 January 2015)

Waikato Diocesan School for Girls (2015), “Digital citizenship”, available at: https://ultranet.waikatodiocesan.school.nz/WebSpace/7421/ (accessed 28 January 2015)