What is ‘digital literacy’?
Download 7.07 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- Productive ambiguity
- Summing up
- Chapter 6: Methodology
Creative ambiguityTerms defined in such a way so as to be part of the continuum identified as ‘Creative ambiguity’ are less ambiguous than those within Generative ambiguity. Definitions within the Creative ambiguity part of the continuum are more readily-understandable and applicable to contexts other than the very narrow one often used in definitions within Generative Ambiguity. Creative ambiguity covers Empson’s third and fourth types of ambiguity, those which Abbott names ‘Durational ambiguity’ and ‘Syntactic ambiguity’ respectively. The fourth type of ambiguity, the more ambiguous of the two ambiguities within the Creative part of the continuum, Abbott names Durational ambiguity. This arises as a result of the unknown temporal extent of observed indicators, Abbott giving the example of attitudes specific to a certain group, class or community not acquired ‘in a moment... [but] only after a substantial period’ (Abbott, 1997, p.363). This is an ambiguity that can be seen readily with the concept of ‘digital natives’ fitting, as it does, so neatly into the nature/nurture debate; ‘native’ is not only a term relating to natural ‘ability’ but to status. It also explains the ambiguity caused by the elision of ‘digital’ as sophisticated and ‘native’ as primitive. Empson explains that an ambiguity of the fourth type happens when ‘two or more meanings of a statement do not agree among themselves, but combine to make clear a more complicated state of mind in the author’ (Empson, 1930:2004, p.133). It is ‘the most important aspect of a thing, not the most complicated’ of which we are conscious, he continues, as ‘the subsidiary complexities, once they have been understood, merely leave an impression in the mind’ (Empson, 1930:2004, p.133). Take, for example Microsoft’s Digital Literacy Curriculum. It states that the goal of digital literacy is: ‘to teach and assess basic computer concepts and skills so that people can use computer technology in everyday life to develop new social and economic opportunities for themselves, their families, and their communities.’ (Microsoft, no date) This, to use Empson’s phrase, ‘leaves an impression in the mind’ without the move from ‘basic computer concepts’ to ‘social and economic opportunities’ being made explicit. It is close to what Robinson calls ‘sliding ambiguity’ and which I will consider presently. Within the part of the continuum identified as ‘Creative ambiguity’ one aspect of the ambiguous term is fixed, much in the way a plank of wood nailed to a wall would have 360-degrees of movement around a single point. This point of reference allows others to co-construct meaning and the term to enter a wider community for discussion and debate. As Empson suggests, if the term is re-formulated in a way that is slightly less ambiguous than the fourth type, then this becomes an example of the third type of ambiguity: ‘two ideas, which are connected only by being both relevant in the context, can be given in one word simultaneously’ (Empson, 1930:2004, p.102). The ambiguity persists due to the tension caused by ‘the sharpness of distinction between the two meanings’ (ibid.). This could cause individuals and communities to ‘talk past one another’ if, for example, one used ‘digital’ as a substitute for ‘digital lifestyle’ whilst another used ‘digital’ as shorthand for ‘digital hardware and software’. Syntactic ambiguity, the name Robinson gives to the third type of ambiguity, is a favourite of politicians as it enables them to extract themselves from potentially-awkward situations. Syntactic ambiguity, explains Robinson, arises from ‘changing causal contexts [which] create an implicit ambiguity on the level of indicators’ (1997, p.363). To put this more clearly, if a term may reasonably be interpreted in more than one way then it displays ‘syntactic ambiguity’. This is an extremely common form of ambiguity, occurring due to the relationship created between words when writers are short of space. Amusing examples of this type are referred to as ‘crash blossoms’ (Zimmer, 2010) after a Japanese headline that read, ambiguously, ‘Violinist Linked to JAL Crash Blossoms’. The author, Zimmer, believed that the word ‘blossoms’ pertained to ‘crash’ rather than the violinist. Other examples, of which there are many, include ‘I’m glad I’m a man, and so is Lola’ (from The Kinks song, Lola). Whilst the definition of digital literacy by Erstad we saw earlier fits into the Generative phase of ambiguity, the portmanteau term ‘Electracy’ (Erstad, 2003) fits here within Productive ambiguity as an example of different contexts - in this case between Norway and the English-speaking world - creating ‘an implicit ambiguity on the level of indicators’. As with relational univocity, there is a boundary between the parts of the ambiguity continuum marked out as Creative ambiguity and Productive ambiguity. In this case the term is what Robinson (1941) names Sliding ambiguity. This occurs when a term covers a wide area and refers alternately to larger and smaller arts of that area. Such a term embraces a complex of conceptions, put together under one word because we feel them to be somehow connected, or because we have not clearly distinguished them (Robinson, 1941, p.142). The earlier example of Microsoft’s Digital Literacy Curriculum could equally be seen as an example of the third type of ambiguity, and therefore a candidate for Robinson’s Sliding ambiguity, as the macro (societal change) and the micro (basic computer skills) are considered simultaneously. Whilst a level of consensus can exist for a given community within the Creative ambiguity part of the continuum, it nevertheless remains highly contextual. It is dependent, to a great extent, upon what is left unsaid - especially upon the unspoken assumptions about the ‘subsidiary complexities’ that exist at the level of impression. The unknown element in the ambiguity (for example, time, area, or context) means that the term cannot ordinarily yet be operationalised within contexts other than communities who share prior understandings and unspoken assumptions.
In order for an ambiguous term to be operationalised, in order for it to be able to ‘do some work’ and make a difference, it must be redefined in such a way as to enter the Productive ambiguity part of the continuum. This is the least ambiguous part of the continuum, an area in which more familiar types of ambiguity such as metaphor are used (either consciously or unconsciously) in definitions. Empson defines the second type of ambiguity, for example, as occurring when ‘two or more meanings are resolved into one’ (Empson, 1930:2004, p.48). This second type of ambiguity (which Abbott calls Ambiguity of locus) is the most commonly-observable example of ambiguity, believes Empson. Examples tend to exhibit a directness of feeling whilst the concept behind the feeling is ambiguous. The concept may exhibit either psychological or logical complexity (or both) but this is masked by the seemingly-intuitive nature of the term. Abbott explains that this type of ambiguity springs from one thing being taken as indicating something about another. He gives the example of divorce rates being taken to indicate something about the status of ‘the family,’ or the erosion of ‘community stability,’ for example. ‘The ambiguity about the meaning of the indicator arises in part through the inclusion of families within communities’ (Abbott, 1997, p.362); in other words, one ambiguous term is situated within another. This second type of ambiguity can be seen in many definitions of ‘digital literacy’ including that given by the European Commission. They stress the importance of using Information and Communications Technologies (ICTs) in everyday life, going on to state (as we saw in Chapter 2):
(Europe's Information Society Thematic Portal, 2007) Digital literacy is couched here within a wider ambiguous term - that of the ‘Information Society’. The ambiguity about the meaning of digital literacy arises in part through the inclusion of literacy within a discussion of society. This second type ambiguity (Abbott’s Ambiguity of locus) would also help explain the concept of ‘digital natives’ moving from the Creative ambiguity part of the continuum of ambiguity to Productive part. Once Marc Prensky defined a ‘digital native’ as someone who was born after 1980 and is adept in using and communicating with digital devices, the converse of this, the ‘digital immigrant’, was easy to identify. However, as Abbott’s work helps explain, this is one thing being taken to indicate something about another. An uncontentious observation that children are more likely to be immersed in digital environments is writ large (and more contentiously) as being some kind of ‘societal step-change’. Prensky’s dichotomous terms enter the Productive part of the continuum of ambiguity despite, in effect, being one ambiguous term (‘digital immigrant’) within another (‘digital native’). Bennett, Maton & Kervin believe the widespread acceptance and adoption of the ‘digital native/immigrant’ dichotomy as saying more about society rather than the young people it attempts to describe. They believe it to be ‘an academic form of moral panic’ as ‘arguments are often couched in dramatic language… and pronounce stark generational differences’ (Bennett, Maton & Kervin, 2008, p.782). Prensky’s hyperbolic statement that we have reached a ‘singularity’ from which we can never go back, they believe, ‘close[s} down debate, and in doing so allow[s] unevidenced claims to proliferate’ (p.783). Certainly, the ‘dawn of the digital native’ has been used to explain everything from declining literacy levels to the rise in identified cases of Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (Johnson, 2008). The very least ambiguous type of ambiguity in the continuum is Empson’s first type. It is straight metaphor, something Empson calls ‘the fundamental situation’ whereby ‘a word or a grammatical structure is effective in several ways at once’ (Empson, 1930:2004, p.2). The term, continues Empson, is not stressed in relation to the rest of the sentence ‘but as if to fill out the sentence... signal[ling] to the reader what he is meant to take for granted’ (Empson, 1930:2004, p.3). Robinson names this Naive ambiguity, citing Plato’s Socratic dialogues as an example: ‘The early dialogues frequently represent Socrates as seeking for definitions of terms. Now, before we seek to define a term we should make sure that it has only one sense, or at least which of its senses we are trying to define. But Socrates never does this in the Platonic dialogues. In every case he puts the question and proceeds to look for an answer with the most perfect coincidence that the word means the same thing every time it is used.’ (Robinson, 1941, p.140) This is the same type of ambiguity that Abbott names Semantic ambiguity, arising from the assumption that one thing ‘means’ another and that this meaning is stable. In a similar way to Socrates, ambiguity surrounding the meaning of terms is seen as a bad thing, as something to be avoided. Instead, Abbott presents Semantic ambiguity, the first type of ambiguity, as a fact of life. Years in school, for example, can ‘mean’ education ‘in the sense that... time spent in school results in more or less monotonic increase in education’. At the same time, however, years in school also ‘means’ ‘exposure to popular culture [and] bureaucracy’ as well as ‘reduced time available for criminal activity’ (Abbott, 1997, p.361). It is a ‘simple type of multiple meaning... a situation where one fact means several things at once without those things resolving into any one meaning’ (ibid.). An example of this duality of meaning is evident in Lanham’s early definition of Digital Literacy: ‘[Digital Literacy is] being skilled at deciphering complex images and sounds as well as the syntactical subtleties of words.’ (Lanham, 1995, quoted in Lankshear & Knobel, 2008a, p.198) Although this definition sounds reasonable, upon further inspection it is far from clear that ‘deciphering complex images and sounds’ is a skill that can be grouped together with ‘deciphering words’ without further explanation. When within the Productive part of the continuum of ambiguities terms have a stronger denotative element than in the Creative and Generative phases. Stability is achieved through alignment, often due to the pronouncement of an authoritative voice or outlet. This can take the form of a well-respected individual in a given field, government policy, or mass-media convergence on the meaning of a term. Such alignment allows a greater deal of specificity, with rules, laws, formal processes and guidelines created as a result of the term’s operationalisation. As I have argued in Chapter 4, and will return to again in Chapter 9, this can be achieved through the contextualisation of a core matrix of configurable ‘elements’ of digital literacies. Movement through the whole continuum of ambiguity is akin to a substance moving through the states of gas, liquid and solid. Generative ambiguity is akin to the ‘gaseous‘ phase, whilst Creative ambiguity is more of a ‘liquid‘ phase. The move to the ‘solid’ phase of Productive ambiguity comes through a process akin to when a liquid ‘sets’. Ambiguous terms can, and often do, fall out of the continuum of ambiguity becoming, to use Rorty’s imagery, like a coral reef, ‘a platform and foil for new metaphors’ (Rorty, 1989, p.118).
Where do current definitions of ‘digital literacy’ reside on this continuum? Have definitions, much like definitions of ‘digital native’ been formulated in progressively less ambiguous ways, moving from Generative ambiguity through Creative ambiguity and into Productive ambiguity? It would appear that this is not the case. Whereas Prensky’s ‘digital native/immigrant’ is akin to what Richard Rorty would define as ‘dead metaphor’ (formulaic and unproductive), the term ‘digital literacy’ continues to be defined and re-defined in new and innovative ways. The early ‘academic’ writing about the concept of ‘digital natives’ was not peer-reviewed, often appearing in magazines for teachers and librarians and featuring a journalistic or even hyperbolic style:
(Gaston, 2006, p.12) More recent peer-reviewed papers, such as the work of Bennett, Maton & Kervin cited above, have pointed out the lack of an evidence base for Prensky’s claims. Given the devastating critique of the use of ‘digital native’ being equivalent to a ‘moral panic’, the term is a Rortyian dead metaphor in the world of serious academia. It remains, however, a widely-cited term in magazines for teachers and librarians. ‘Digital literacy’ is also a term with different usage depending on the community within which it is used. The difference here, however, is that it is a term that originated in academic research and has filtered through to practitioners and other interested parties. It is a term that is used in various ways depending upon context: some definitions equate ‘digital literacy’ with computer skills, whilst others see it involving the kind of criticality more usually ascribed to ‘media literacy.’ The world of academia may be slow-moving, but there is a lag beyond this in terms of research filtering down to practitioners. Many teachers, for instance, still believe in some notion of fixed ‘learning styles’, despite the concept being widely discredited in the academic literature even before the ‘digital native/immigrant’ dichotomy. In this chapter, towards the centre point of the thesis, we have seen that ambiguous terms can be placed on a continuum of ambiguity informed by the work of Empson, Robinson and Abbott. Using ‘digital literacy’ as the main example, and the concept of the ‘digital native’ by way of contrast, the various ways in which such terms can be ambiguous have been illustrated. Dividing the continuum of ambiguities into three parts, I have identified ‘Generative ambiguity’ as the part of the continuum that includes definitions of terms involving strongly-connotative elements. Those definitions of ambiguous terms that are more ‘balanced’ between the connotative and denotative elements fit, I believe, within the ‘Creative ambiguity’ part of the continuum of ambiguities. Those with strongly-denotative elements fit within the part of the continuum of ambiguities I have named ‘Productive ambiguity’. In passing, I touched upon Rorty’s idea of the ‘dead metaphor’ and suggested that definitions of ambiguous terms may tend, through constant reformulation and redefinition, towards Productive ambiguity. Finally, it is worth noting Empson’s reminder that ambiguity is itself an ambiguous term: ‘Ambiguity itself can mean an indecision as to what you mean, an intention to mean several things, a probability that one or other or both of two things has been meant [or] the fact that a statement has several meanings.’ (Empson, 1930:2004, p.5-6) In this chapter I have made the case for a ‘continuum of ambiguities’ within which various definitions of ‘digital literacy’ reside. Such definitions, depending as they do upon changes in technology and shifting use of language, may move between different parts of the continuum. They may, indeed, cease to be part of the continuum, descend into cliché and become a ‘dead metaphor’ (perhaps to be revived later). The important insight in this chapter, believe, is that because of its necessarily-ambiguous nature, ‘digital literacy’ can only be understood in an ‘ideological’ way. That is to say, in opposition to a more ‘autonomous’ understanding of the term, I would agree with Colin Lankshear in rejecting a single ‘essential literacy lying behind actual social practices involving texts’ (Lankshear, 1999, no page). Literacy does not have an objective, unchanging nature, but ‘consists in the forms textual engagement takes within specific material contexts of human practice’ (ibid.). As ambiguity when defining terms such as ‘digital literacy’ cannot be avoided it would be best to acknowledge, understand and, indeed, embrace it. Chapter 6: Methodology
‘By convention sweet, by convention bitter, by convention hot, by convention cold, by convention colour: but in reality atoms and void.’ (Democritus) As mentioned in my introduction, this is a non-empirical thesis submitted towards a ‘vocational’ doctorate. In that regard, it requires a suitable methodology, a way of going about things to achieve the desired result. This chapter, situated midway in the thesis, serves as a pivot, a lynchpin, a way of joining the problems of literacy and digital literacies with potential solutions. Although methodology sections traditionally appear towards the start of a doctoral thesis, doing so seemed not to sit well with the nature of this particular research. One of the original contributions to knowledge I have identified is the use of Pragmatism as a new kind of lens to solve some of the problems that seem to plague the research area. In order not to ‘beg the question’ I therefore have attempted to critique current approaches using existing conceptual tools, before approaching the field in a different way. The question most pertinent for this section, therefore, is what constitutes both a suitable research design and platform for action. Following on from my comments at the end of the previous chapter, I will argue that the Pragmatist approach is the most suitable methodology or ‘rationale’ for this thesis. In addition, applying a Pragmatic methodology or rationale is a logical extension of my educational history thus far. Given my first degree was in Philosophy and my MA thesis concentrated on a history of Victorian educational ideas, Pragmatism allows me to simultaneously focus on digital and new literacies from a conceptual point of view and concentrate on the utility of such a conceptualization. As Mende points out, research is ‘a process of producing new knowledge’ with researchers needing ‘knowledge of different types of research processes and knowledge products’ (Mende, 2005, p.190). Such knowledge about knowledge Mende calls ‘meta-knowledge’. Without a method of structuring this meta-knowledge, a way of devising a theoretical framework, researchers would find it difficult to operate effectively. And without a sound research basis, educators would be ‘rudderless’ in a sea of opinion and rhetoric. This thesis operates a meta-level. It is not based upon direct empirical results, nor specifically on analysis of the empirical results of others. Nevertheless, it is important to be clear and rigorous when it comes to the methodology employed in order not only to avoid irrelevant digression but to provide a platform for action. A methodology, therefore, needs to:
Be recognised and respected as sound. Be well-suited to the research area and aims of the thesis. Allow for results that will make a difference to a research area. a. This thesis will employ a Pragmatic methodology, for reasons that shall become clear. In this chapter I outline some candidate methodologies and approaches, explaining why they fail the three tests I have outlined above. Following this I settle upon Pragmatism as an appropriate methodology, coming up with ’Ten Pragmatic principles’ from the work of a range of Pragmatist philosophers. Download 7.07 Mb. Share with your friends:
|