My ideas for the scholarly project include use of the following questions:
- What is the untold story for traditional aged undergraduate students in online social networking sites?
- Does digital inclusion exist for traditional age undegraduate students in online social networks? Does it help or hinder social justice?
- Does cyberbullying exist through online social networks utilized by traditional aged undergraduate students?
- How do online social networks (e.g., Facebook, Myspace, etc.) embrace social justice and impact the campus environment towards social inclusion for traditional aged undergraduate students?
- How do online social networks (e.g., Facebook, Myspace, etc.) embrace social justice? How do online social networks create a socially inclusive campus environment for traditional aged undergraduate students?
The theories/readings I am considering utilizing:
The intersubjectivity of how the students interact online with each other. The way in which the interactions it empowers others towards action or hinders social justice.
- Dei, G. (1996). Chapter four: The intersections of race, class and gender in the anti-racism discourse. In Anti-racism education: theory and practice (pp. 55-74). Halifax, Nova Scotia: Fernwood Publishing.
- Dempsey, J. (2007). The internet at risk: The need for higher education advocacy. EDUCAUSE Review, vol. 42, no. 6 (November/December 2007): 72–83 Retrieved on February 27, 2008 from http://connect.educause.edu/Library/EDUCAUSE+Review/TheInternetatRiskTheNeedf/45224
- Lin, C. A., & Atkin, D. J. (2007). Communication technology and social change. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
- Lorenzo, G., Oblinger, D. & Dziuban, C. (2006). How choice, co-creation, and culture are changing what it means to be net savvy. Contributed by EDUCAUSE Learning Initiative, White Papers (2006) Retrieved on February 27, 2008 from http://www.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ELI3008.pdf
- Milne, A. (2007). Entering the interaction age: Implementing a future vision for campus learning spaces. EDUCAUSE Review, vol. 42, no. 1 (January/February 2007): 12–31. Retrieved on February 27, 2008 from http://connect.educause.edu/Library/EDUCAUSE+Review/EnteringtheInteractionAge/40680
- Mitrano, T. (2006). A Wider World: Youth, Privacy, and Social Networking Technologies. EDUCAUSE Review, vol. 41, no. 6 (November/December 2006): 16–29. Retrieved on February 27, 2008 from http://connect.educause.edu/Library/EDUCAUSE+Review/AWiderWorldYouthPrivacyan/40668.
- Ng, R. (2003). Toward an integrative approach to equity in education. In P. Trifonas (Ed.), Pedagogies of difference: Rethinking education for social change(pp. 206-213). New York: Routledge Falmer.
- Oblinger, D. & Hawkins, B. (2006). No one cares what you say online: The myth about putting information online. EDUCAUSE Review, vol. 41, no. 5 (September/October 2006): 14–15. Retrieved on February 27, 2008 from http://connect.educause.edu/Library/EDUCAUSE+Review/TheMythaboutPuttingInform/40654
- Oblinger, D.G. and Oblinger, J.L., Eds. (2005). Educating the net generation. Retrieved February 27, 2008 http://www.educause.edu/books/educatingthenetgen/5989
- Shiva, V. (1993). Monocultures of the mind. In Monocultures of the Mind: Perspectives on Biodiversity and Biotechnology (pp. 9-39). London: Zed Books.
- Trepagnier, B. (2007). Silent racism: How well-meaning white people perpetuate the racial divide. Virgina: Paradigm Publishers.
SPECIFICS WITH DEI:
Dei, G. (1996). Chapter four: The intersections of race, class and gender in the anti-racism discourse. In Anti-racism education: theory and practice (pp. 55-74). Halifax, Nova Scotia: Fernwood Publishing.
The conventional “identity politics” prioritized an essentialized, ahistorical and nonmaterialist identity (Fuss 1989). Train (1995) argues that “identity politics” eliminated the political by focusing too much on the personal. It is important for the distinction to be made between the “who am I?” and “what is to be done” (Bourne 1987: 1)? These two questions are connected. One needs to know the self in order to engage in political action. But change cannot happen simply by knowing oneself. We have to find answers to the questions, “what is to be done, and how?”
Integrative anti-racism is a critical analysis of how current understandings of the dynamics of social difference relate to issues of identity and subjectivity.
Integrative anti-racism does not see the self as that which other is not. Human experiences are dialectically shaped by questions of social difference, by history and by socio-political contexts. The existence of multiple identities has some significance for how individuals live their lives and relate to each other in society, and how individuals come to understand society and work collectively for change.
Both authors call for self-reflective critique and validation of personal experiences of the relational aspects of difference as part of the process of creating theoretical and practical knowledge for social transformation. Individuals must be able to articulate and critically reflect upon their own experiences and their accumulated personal knowledge about the workings of the inner self and questions of identity, in order to work collectively for change (see also hooks 1993, 1994).
the third issue concerns developing an understanding of how differential power and privilege work in society. The study of dynamics of social difference is also a study of differential power relations. Power relations are embedded in social relations of difference. Thus, an understanding of the intersections of difference is more than a preparedness to hear each other out.
For change to take place, integrative anti-racism discourse and practice must be grounded in people’s actual material conditions. The political, communicative and educational practices of integrative anti-racism call for people to work together to develop a “community of differences”; that is, a community in which our differences help to strengthen us collectively to develop some degree of a shared commitment to justice and social transformation. Social transformation is possible when solidarity is understood to mean constructing coalitions among and between difference, and coalitions come to openly defined terms of relations of power (see Joyve 1995b). Without a doubt, struggles against race, class, gender, and sexuality discrimination generate distinct versions of what justice should look like (see Troyna and Vincent 1995). But the goal of coalition building is to educate each other so that there is, or can be, a common view of justice. The struggle against injustice implies a struggle for justice. We cannot, as a society, choose to ignore injustice.
… there is always the temptation to prioritize race and overlook the embedded inequalities which flow from class, ethnicity, culture, gender, sexuality and religious and language disparities, many of which are refracted through the official and hidden curriculum of the school and society.
IN Lin, C. A., & Atkin, D. J. (2007). Communication technology and social change. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Social Change Implications
“With so many positive and negative findings, and with so many research programs and theoretical explanations still evolving, it is difficult to make affirmative generalizations about the impact of the Internet on society much less what theories explain that impact. Scholarly work (e.g., LaRose & Eastin, 2002) suggests that the social change implications for online entertainment content are as multifaceted as the Internet medium and can be summarized as both positive and negative. The internet’s primary impact is to offer access to information and entertainment as well as goods and services at any location where people can go online.”
“Previous studies have shown that Internet use is affected by many factors such as social and demographic characteristics, individuals’ attitudes toward the Internet, and their support groups such as family or peers (Atkin et al., 1998; Lin, 1998; Rogers, 1995; Rhee & Kim, 2004; Zhu & He, 2002). Until more research like this is done, conclusions about how or why the Internet seems to have an impact will not be possible.”
“Third, there is a lack of clear theory, which results in a need for research development. Sawhey (1997), reviewing a book on infotainment technologies, concluded that, “Although the chapter … are individually insightful, they do not coalesce into a meta-framework of any sort. this lack of coherence, however, is understandable as this area of research is still underdeveloped and these studies are first steps in a new direction (p. 443). Moreover, it is also unlikely that there could be a theory that is sufficiently comprehensive in scope to explain– as well as predict–the vast array of potential behavioral outcomes and social impacts stemming from Internet use.”
“Fourth, there is a need to study to study these impacts related to other technologies. Many suggest that we cannot study the Internet in isolation because people’s uses both lead to and depend on the use of other technologies (e.g., Lin, 2002a). By considering the present chapter’s observations in the context of others in this volume, we can hopefully begin the process of contextualizing Internet use in the context of broader set of converging media domains.”
p. 285 ****
“As computer-mediated communication can serve as a tool for facilitating personal expressions in social interaction, it can also help serve as a window to the world for the younger members of our society and play a role in their socialization process. According to Kremar and Strizhakova (chap. 4, this volume), social effects conceptions of the relations between children and interactive communication technologies are still evolving.”
p. 285 ****
“At the other end of the spectrum, children’s use of interactive media technologies also purportedly enhances their cognitive learning in formal as well as informal settings.”
“As children spend more time with interactive media technologies and engage in more frequent computer-mediated communication, they also tend to spend less time with their family and become more intertwined with their own social network (Kraut, Patterson, Lundmark, Keilser, Mukopadhyay, & Scherlis, 1998; Kundamis, 2003). The social network usually revolves around Internet technology — which includes a web of instant messaging, e- mailing, blogging, pdcasting, and chatting channels — as well as wireless communication devices such as cellular phones and other smart-phone devices. Staying connected to the peer group culture with the help of interactive communication technologies suggests neither a positive nor negative social outcome, as the social outcomes are instead a result of “how” these technologies are used, not whether they are used. A number of real-life incidents, which profiled how popular teen web sites (e.g., Myspace.com) provide a neutral outlet for teens to express themselves, demonstrate how they could also be abused by willing teen victims attracted by sex offenders (Bucy & Newhagen, 2004).”
As Lievrouv and Livingstone (2002) note, “The social contexts and uses of the new media are as important as the technologies themselves” (p. 11). By integrating the social change implications synthesized from the different social settings described earlier, a social change typology is proposed here to broadly capture how communication and information technologies function to help shape the pros and cons of social changes in society.
A. Surveillance Function
Pros: Enable individuals to meet their self-preservation needs and to exercise control their environment via 24/7 surveillance tools.
Cons: Widen the information gap and challenge information-privacy boundaries between those who are surveillance-minded and those who are not.
B. Knowledge Function
Pros: Enable individuals to meet their cognitive stimu
lation and intellectual growth needs, with abundant and diversified knowledge resources, which help develop information works for a knowledge-based economy.
Cons: Broaden the knowledge gap and increase knowledge fragmentation between individuals who have greater substantive breadth and depth in their channel repertoire and those who do not.
C. Communication Function
Pros: Enable individuals, groups, and institutions to meet their social interaction, social support, and/or organizational communication needs through a web of borderless open-architecture networks.
Cons: Disinhibit individuals from engaging in precarious social interaction and create a venue for individuals to become obsessed with or addicted to pseudosocial ad parasocial interactions.
D. Entertainment Function
Pros: Enable individuals to meet their affective release and stimulation needs by pursuing an abundant and diversified set of leisure modalities in a private and home setting.
Cons: Further the audience, information and knowledge fragmentation as well as create venues for individuals to become obsessed with or addicted to such entertainment fare as videogaming, gambling, and pornography.
E. Commerce Function
Pros: Provide outlets for individuals to meet their utilitarian and hedonistic consumption needs as well as create offline and online marketing synergy.
Cons: Challenge the intellectual-property piracy boundaries and create venues for individuals to become obsessed with or addictive to compulsive consumption.”
“In conclusion, computer-mediated social interactions technologies have facilitated significant changes in how people relate to members of their personal and professional social networks. For example, physical distance or proximity between network members is becoming increasingly less important. Thus, as Meyerowitz (1995) observes, “Where one is has less and less to do with what one knows and experiences. Electronic media have altered the significance of time and space for social interactions” (p. viii). These changes in social interaction channels also create new challenges for parents. Growing concerns about children children’s safety online, for example, stem from the increasingly permeable physical boundaries thaht once separated families from the larger community. Meyerowitz (1985) notes that “the walls of the family home, for example, are no longer effective barriers that wholly isolate the family from the larger community and society. the family home is now a less bounded and unique environment” (p. viii).
“As computer-mediated social interaction becomes more widespread, we can expect that physical location will become an increasingly less salient predictator of with whom we interact. Hampton and Wellman (2000) make a similar point, observing that “whatever happens, new communications technologies are driving out the traditional belief that community can be found locally” (p. 195). Clearly, communications scholars will need to adapt communication theories to evolving technologies and changing contexts in order to understand the uses of effects of computer-mediated social interaction technologies.”
Social capitol online
Heteronormativity (1995, p. 8), Bloom, p. 127
Self-education and empowerment: