Worried About the Wrong Things Read online

  “Interest-driven practices,” however, refers to interests and practices that “youth describe as the domain of the geeks, freaks, musicians, artists, and dorks—the kids who are identified as smart, different, or creative, who generally exist at the margins of teen social worlds” (Ito et al. 2010, p. 17). Teens certainly develop friendships through interest-driven participation; but whereas with friendship-driven practices the friendships come first, with interest-driven participation a recognition of mutual interests typically precedes the development of friendships. These genres can be contextualized within a broader notion of learning known as situated learning. Situated learning posits that learning is not so much an individualized and isolated process, but rather occurs as part of a shared cultural system and collective social action (Lave and Wenger 1991). Thus, in order to understand how and what students learn through their participation in digital media culture and creation, it is important to recognize the broader social setting and structures motivating participation and engagement. Ito et al.’s friendship-driven and interest-driven genres of participation provide a useful conceptual framework for approaching young people’s expectations of digital media, as well as the motivations for participation, media production, and learning.

  Not All Kinds of Participation Are Created Equal

  It is also important is to recognize that not all media and learning ecologies are created equal. As was previously indicated, I am concerned about the inequitable opportunities for participation that have the potential to exacerbate social inequities. In the early days of the dissemination and adoption of the Internet, scholars were rightfully concerned about digital divides—that is, unequal access to technology. Early users of the Internet were primarily male, white, educated, urban, and middle-class (Perrin and Duggan 2015; Roberts et al. 1999). However, as technology and the Internet have become more affordable, and as a result of policies and institutions aimed at providing affordable and accessible technology to all populations (e.g., public libraries), the gap between those who do and do not have access to the Internet has closed considerably. By 2012, 95 percent of teens in the United States were online (Teens Fact Sheet 2012). The mobile phone, once considered a luxury of the middle and upper classes, has become an essential tool for closing digital divides. In 2015, 88 percent of US teens had access to a mobile phone, 73 percent had access to a smartphone, and 71 percent had an account on at least one social media platform (Lenhart 2015). The mobile phone—often less expensive than a home computer, and with pay-as-you-go plans that do not require monthly contracts or credit checks (both of which are barriers to access for low-income populations)—has become a valuable resource for low-income populations. In fact, 25 percent of teens report that their mobile phone is their primary means of Internet access, and teens in lower socioeconomic groups are more likely to rely on their mobile phone as a primary access point than are middle-class teens (Pew Research Center 2013). From a purely quantitative perspective of who has access and who doesn’t, the digital divide appears to have been essentially eradicated in the United States.

  However, scholars have productively expanded their focus beyond the binary perspective of access to consider the quality of access and modes of participation. Not all access is created equal, which is why we must continue to conduct empirical research into the distinct practices of youth on the margins of society—what S. Craig Watkins refers to as “the digital edge.” According to Watkins (2012, p. 2), “investigations of the digital lives of black and Latino youth must focus less on the access gap and more on the ‘participation gap.’ Whereas the former defines the issues of technology and social inequality largely as a matter of access to computers and the Internet, the latter considers the different skills, competencies, knowledge, practices, and forms of capital that different populations bring to their engagement with networked media.” Although digital media provide opportunities for youth to participate in networked publics and create, access, and share media relevant to their unique identities and cultures, we must consider who is afforded such opportunities. Just because teens have access to media does not mean they are all provided the same opportunities to fully participate in the creation and distribution of media content.

  Research indicates that relying primarily on free access at a public library hinders one’s ability to learn digital skills.7 Likewise, accessing digital media via a mobile phone has many limitations, such as improperly formatted content that lags or cannot load8 or large files and streaming services that require more bandwidth than the user can access. However, from the perspective of digital equity, we must also consider how a reliance on mobile devices hinders full participation in online communities and content creation. While mostly sufficient for consuming information, mobile media present many barriers to the creation of media content. I would face severe challenges in writing this book utilizing only my mobile phone or even a tablet. Similarly, video production and editing, remixing music, designing a website, and other creatively generative media practices are still best suited to desktop and laptop computers. Mobile apps such as Vine, Snapchat, Instagram, and Periscope are increasingly facilitating easier modes of content creation, yet still pose limitations in terms of length, editing functions, and collaboration.

  Barriers that limit media production are typically referred to as indications of a participation gap or a lack of digital inclusion. Scholars have begun to pay greater attention to the ways online practices are differentiated even when access is considered equitable (Jenkins et al. 2009). Through extensive quantitative data, Hargittai and Walejko (2008, p. 252) found that creating and sharing creative content online was linked to socioeconomic status: “While it may be that digital media are levelling the playing field when it comes to exposure to content, engaging in creative pursuits remains unequally distributed by social background.” They argue that understanding such differentiated uses is imperative for closing participation gaps, gaps that inhibit more equitable opportunities for upward mobility via the acquisition of social, cultural, and economic capital. This necessitates a deliberate effort to foster equitable digital literacies so that all populations can participate and benefit from mediated participatory cultures.9 As Watkins (2012, p. 9) poignantly contends,

  One of the most urgent challenges regarding technology, diversity, and equity is the need to expand digital literacy; that is, the development of young people’s capacity not only to access and use digital media but to use digital media in ways that create more enhanced and more empowered expressions of learning, creative expression, and civic engagement. The emphasis on digital literacy shifts the focus from access to the skills and expertise that establish more robust and more meaningful learning outcomes. The divide that deserves increasing attention from educators, media researchers, and practitioners is the “digital literacy divide.”

  Through an analysis of risk discourse, I map out the ways historical fears related to teens and technology work alongside harm-driven expectations to hinder the creation of more equitable learning environments for youth on the digital edge (see chapters 5 and 7). Participation gaps and digital literacy divides reveal the extent to which young people’s digital media opportunities are reflective of other inequalities (Jenkins 2006). I argue that risk discourse serves to limit opportunities for marginalized youth by hindering and controlling their learning ecologies. Young people’s practices, identities, and values are further marginalized in the name of “protection,” but in actuality policies and practices aimed at minimizing risk often have the unintended outcome of also expanding gaps in equity and opportunities for participation.

  Methodologies and Approaches

  This book benefits from many different methodologies and fields of research, including media studies, critical studies, sociology, history, law and policy, psychology, journalism, feminism, and education.10 It largely draws from a media studies and critical cultural approach for discursively analyzing and deconstructing popular culture and media. Methods include the conte
xtualization, historicization, and discursive analysis of popular culture texts, policies, and young people’s own mediated practices and perspectives.

  In order to better analyze and asses the ways in which harm-driven and opportunity-driven expectations and discourses of risk function in the everyday lives of young people, the book also relies on ethnographic research conducted with teens. The research includes ethnographic data collected as part of “The Digital Edge” research project led by S. Craig Watkins.11 With a team of researchers, I spent almost nine months in after-school digital media and film clubs at Freeway High, a large public high school in central Texas. The project involved conducting weekly one-on-one semi-structured interviews with nineteen high school students from diverse ethnic and class backgrounds and with varied digital media interests and skills. Interviews were also conducted with several of their teachers at school. A minimum of one in-home interview was conducted with a parent or guardian of each participant (several participants did not live with a biological parent at the time of the study). The project also gathered observational data from attending classes, after-school clubs, football games, film screenings, and student assemblies. In addition to one-on-one interviews, the project conducted focus groups with several students, analyzed school and school district policies and curriculum requirements, and conducted textual analysis of students’ media productions and online interactions.

  I have made an effort to include young people’s thoughts and words in the write up of this research. I incorporate many direct quotations from young people in order to convey their experiences and attitudes in their own language and to provide them with a voice in the analysis. I attempt to preserve the intent and integrity of their words and would like to call attention to the fact that their words were spoken in conversation, often in informal and relaxed environments. Although transcribed, the quotes are taken from oral conversations wherein participants used colloquial and conversational tones; their grammar and their slang should not be misattributed to a lack of written communication skills. I have changed the quotations only where it seemed necessary in order to clarify something (such as a reference to an earlier conversation) or to protect confidentiality and privacy.

  The Site: Freeway High School

  The school I will call by the pseudonym “Freeway High” is located off a highway in a mid-size Texas town. Access to the school is difficult, particularly for students without access to personal transportation. The school is ethnically diverse (the majority of the students are members of ethnic minorities), economically challenged (more than half of the students qualify for free lunches), and academically struggling (the majority of the students are seeking employment after graduation, rather than attending college). While at the school, I observed two after-school clubs on a regular basis: the Digital Media Club and the Cinematic Arts Project.

  The after-school Digital Media Club was started as a joint venture between the students and the Tech Apps teacher, Mr. Lopez. The students met after school in a well-equipped computer lab to work on personal projects, collaborate with other students, or work on assignments for other classes or from the Tech Apps classes. Several of the students were interested in film production and used the time to work on scripts, shoot and edit footage, or work on musical scores. Other students were interested in photography and came to the club to learn how to edit photos or create online portfolios.

  The Cinematic Arts Project was a film project in its second year at Freeway. As a club, the students wrote, shot, produced, edited, and directed a short narrative film, which they submitted to an international film festival. Individual students and groups of friends also worked on their personal projects as part of the film club. The club met several times a week for many hours at a time, as well as on weekends, in order to finish the films in time to submit to local and international festivals. The mentors’ and the teachers’ connections within the local film community enabled students to gain access to resources and expertise.

  Defining Terms

  Digital and Social Media

  The terms information communication technologies (ICTs), social media, digital media, media technology, Internet, new media, Web 2.0, and social network sites are often loosely applied to encompass many different platforms, hardware, software, and applications. In discussing my research, I use the term digital media in its broadest and most inclusive senses, encompassing web-enabled or mobile-enabled games, applications, networks, software, platforms, devices, and communication. Though sometimes it is productive to separate content and platforms from the material devices and hardware, I use the term digital media broadly to encompass both content and technological devices. When a distinction is necessary, I am specific about which platform, service, or physical device I am referencing.

  Social media is another encompassing term that is used as part of everyday vernacular. An oft-cited definition of social media comes from Kaplan and Haenlein 2010: “a group of Internet-based applications that build on the ideological and technological foundations of Web 2.0, and that allow the creation and exchange of user-generated content.” This definition has been criticized for overemphasizing the affordances of Web 2.0 and ignoring the history of earlier participatory and user-generated spaces that existed before Web 2.0 (sometimes referred to as Web 1.0). Earlier participatory platforms such as chat rooms, bulletin boards, blogs, and instant messaging applications also facilitated interaction via the creation and sharing of user-generated content, but are often erased from the history of participatory media that supposedly began with the development of Web 2.0 (Hanna, Rohm, and Crittenden 2011; O’Reilly 2005).12 Notably, many of these earlier participatory spaces privileged sociality above economic gain or commercial exploitation; Web 2.0, then, is typically a business term and marks a turning point in the commercial aspects of participatory media (Scholz 2008). Web 2.0 ushered in not only an era of enhanced sociality and user-generated participation, but also the capacity for commercial institutions to capitalize on users’ participation within these spaces (Hanna, Rohm, and Crittenden 2011; van Dijck 2013) (a point I address in chapters 3 and 6).

  Another oft-cited definition within scholarship is boyd and Ellison’s (2007) approach to social network sites. They define online social network sites13 as “web-based services that allow individuals to (1) construct a public or semi-public profile within a bounded system, (2) articulate a list of other users with whom they share a connection, and (3) view and traverse their list of connections and those made by others within the system” (p. 211). The 2007 definition is probably the most frequently cited definition at the time of writing, yet in 2013— recognizing the evolution of the technical affordances and social norms of these spaces—Ellison and boyd offered an updated definition that is more encompassing. Their updated definition of social network sites states that “a social network site is a networked communication platform in which participants 1) have uniquely identifiable profiles that consist of user-supplied content, content provided by other users, and and/or system-provided data; 2) can publicly articulate connections that can be viewed and traversed by others; and 3) can consume, produce, and/or interact with streams of user-generated content provided by their connections on the site” (Ellison and boyd 2013, p. 158). This definition focuses on the capacity of the site to facilitate public interactions via the visibility of the network and is thus quite useful, particularly in analyzing publics and privacy. It often is misused in scholarship as an all-encompassing definition for social media more broadly, but the original definition is limited to sites that function as social networks more specifically—it is not intended to be interchangeable with the term social media.

  I use social media as a broader umbrella term that encompasses social network sites and other online participatory spaces that do not necessarily fit the limited definition of social network sites. For example, at the time of writing Snapchat does not provide a public articulation of users’ connections or a personalized user profile; similarly, the neigh
borhood-based app and website Nextdoor14 automatically connects residents of a neighborhood in a public space (similar to a bulletin board), but does not allow for public user-to-user connections. Neither site fits the definition of a social network site according to Ellison and boyd’s description, yet each of them is considered to be part of social media as a broader classification. Daniel Miller’s characterization of social media is useful for incorporating sites such as Snapchat:

  Social media helps draw attention to the development of a series of practices of communication which lie between traditionally dyadic forms such as the phone call or indeed most webcam conversations, and on the other hand public broadcasting as in most traditional media. Social media could imply that the communication is social in the sense of going to a larger group, but social also in that it helps create and maintain relationships rather than the one-way communication of broadcast media. … An orientation to the social as opposed to merely the personal seems to keep us close to the intuitive semantics of these words. (Miller 2013)

  Similarly, I define social media in the broadest sense: as (1) participatory media spaces whether web platforms or mobile apps that (2) facilitate communication beyond the interpersonal (i.e., one-to-one), to include options for two-way communication of one-to-many and/or many-to-many, and (3) facilitate the creation and sharing of user-generated content in a semi-public or public space; this does not have to be exclusive; user-generated content can exist alongside the creation and sharing of commercial media that is generated by more traditional corporate and institutionalized organizations. This definition includes, but is not limited to, social network sites, and offers a broader inclusion of online participatory media spaces in the absence of user profiles and public connections. Throughout the book, wherever it is necessary and appropriate, I identify specific content platforms, websites, apps, and sites in order to clarify my references, descriptions, and arguments.