Just understood as an interjection following discussion summarizing during our lunch time yesterday. I immediately reported about my impressions and lessons learned at thought fest to my colleagues yesterday. Points which resonated from the thought fest were the to discussions we had about digital identity and the session with Dave O. White and Josie Fraser, where we tried to explore the visitor’s and resident’s state of social media. I was just on my suggestions about the topic digital identity and the discussion took an radical change – so we didn’t reach the last point but there were some suggestions about this topic I’m really struggling with. As we were talking I got the following content told, which should be really be embedded in all the discussions:
First there should be acceptance on that somebody doesn’t want to get an digital idendity and really fears all its effects.
Second in the critical reflection of the topic DI it was expressed that some really feel it as a social pressure to be digitally expressed, in the sense of „you have to“, if you want to count.
Third it influences immediately on how you think to fill your DI on the tense on how you express yourselve. there were some examples told on people changing their DI the default settings in some applications tell a strange behaviour. So examples were told f.I. tryout to change your status of relationship on FB by taking out those information – visitors got the impression you finished your relationship ….. .
Those things make me think. First on the analytical level: I always try to share and deal the point of view DI is what delivers you a real set of tools you can use to offer remotely connected people the best you want to share and express, when you are willing to do so. IMHPO there should be like a preamble always the virtual exclamation mark to be addicted to those people to want to express themselve and doing so lowering the pressure in meaning of social pressure. Turning this scene around: I think the critical view is needed, but can not be used as an argue aiming to avaoid either the topic of digital literacy in schools or universities, nor the use of social media and/or PLE’s. It would strengthen the discussion about on how to get published best by learning from those examples and collecting them.
But taking the educators role of dealing with social media in class, means to take double responsability. It’s not only about demonstrating the best possible tool as an best possible blueprint of life. It’s not only about the challenge to get them as fast as possible „on“. It’s also about reflecting on what we are doing by doing it and resisting on a responsible, reflecting, and well argued way.
Taking the researchers view my recommendation would be: Not only taking visitors and residents view inside the heuristic framework. And this would be additional to the fixed results in the creative session. Also keeping the eye on those who doesn’t want to be digitally trapped. Also those who took the honest decision of digital disappearance. And the thirds who appear inside the environments as a result of social pressure – by following the former told social pressure. I think there is a need on reflecting the real arguments – kepping them in the discussion in a way, they are recognized valid and not been told as those from the years before yesterday. I am sure they had real argues.
As a note for me: The power of the methodical approach from the benefit and use point of view ends here before it could have started.
Any Suggestions?
