by danah boyd (Microsoft Research)


1

It is easy to fall in love with technology. It is equally easy to fear it. In a setting like this Symposium, many of us fall in the passionate lovers camp, dreamily accounting for all of the wonderful things we’ve experienced through and because of technology. All too often, our conversations center on the need to get technology into the hands of learners, as though the gaps that we’re seeing can be explained away by issues of access. Push comes to shove, most of us know that there are problems with this model, but in a world filled with dichotomous rhetoric, it’s easy to get into the habit of being the proselytizer in the face of fear-mongering.


2

I want to push back against our utopian habits because I think that they’re doing us a disservice. Technology does not determine practice. How people embrace technology has less to do with the technology itself than with the social setting in which they are embedded. Those who are immersed in a techno-savvy, technophilic community are far more likely to embrace technology than those whose social world is shaped by other patterns of consumption and communication. People’s practices are also shaped by those around them. There are cluster effects to socio-technical engagement. In other words, people do what their friends do.


3

Rejecting technological determinism should be a mantra in our professional conversations. It’s really easy to get in the habit of seeing a new shiny piece of technology and just assume that we can dump it into an educational setting and !voila! miracles will happen. Yet, we also know that the field of dreams is merely that, a dream. Dumping laptops into a classroom does no good if a teacher doesn’t know how to leverage the technology for educational purposes. Building virtual worlds serves no educational purpose without curricula that connects a lesson plan with the affordances of the technology. Without educators, technology in the classroom is useless.


5

There are also no such things as “digital natives.” Just because many of today’s youth are growing up in a society dripping with technology does not mean that they inherently know how to use it. They don’t. Most of you have a better sense of how to get information from Google than the average youth. Most of you know how to navigate privacy settings of a social media tool better than the average teen. Understanding technology requires learning. Sure, there are countless youth engaged in informal learning every day when they go online. But what about all of the youth who lack access? Or who live in a community where learning how to use technology is not valued? Or who tries to engage alone? There’s an ever-increasing participation gap emerging between the haves and the have-nots. What distinguishes the groups is not just a question of access, although that is an issue; it’s also a question of community and education and opportunities for exploration. Youth learn through active participation, but phrases like “digital natives” obscure the considerable learning that occurs to enable some youth to be technologically fluent while others fail to engage.


4

Along the same lines, keep in mind that the technology that you adore may hold no interest for your students. They don’t use del.icio.us or Second Life or Ning or Twitter as a part of their everyday practices. And the ways that they use Facebook and MySpace and YouTube are quite different than the ways in which you do. We each approach technology based on our own needs and desires and we leverage it to do our bidding. In this way, we actively repurpose technology as a part of engagement such that rarely does one technology fit all. Yet, when we introduce technology in an educational setting, we often mistakenly assume that students will embrace the technology in the same way that we do. This never works out and can cause unexpected strife. Take social network sites as an example. You use this for professional networking; teens use it to socialize with their peers. Putting Facebook or MySpace into the classroom can create a severe cognitive collision as teens try to work out the shift in contexts. Most problematically, when teens are forced to navigate Friending in an educational setting, painful dramas occur because who you’re polite to in school may be very different than who you socialize with at home. Using technology that ruptures social norms in the classroom can be socially and educationally harmful.

As we talk about the wonderfulness of technology, please keep in mind the complexities involved. Technology is a wonderful tool but it is not a panacea. It cannot solve all societal ills just by its mere existence. To have relevance and power, it must be leveraged by people to meet needs. This requires all of us to push past what we hope might happen and focus on introducing technology in a context that makes sense.

    danah boyd is a researcher at Microsoft Research New England and a Fellow at the Harvard University Berkman Center for Internet and Society. She recently completed her PhD in the School of Information at the University of California-Berkeley.

    Dr. boyd’s dissertation “Taken Out of Context: American Teen Sociality in Networked Publics” focused on how American youth use networked publics for sociable purposes. She examined the role that social network sites like MySpace and Facebook play in everyday teen interactions and social relations. She was interested in how mediated environments alter the structural conditions in which teens operate, forcing them to manage complex dynamics like interacting before invisible audiences, managing context collisions, and negotiating the convergence of public and private life. This work was funded by the MacArthur Foundation as part of a broader grant on digital youth and informal learning.

    At the Berkman Center, danah co-directed the Internet Safety Technical Task Force to work with companies and non-profits to identify potential technical solutions for keeping children safe online. This Task Force was formed by the U.S. Attorneys General and MySpace and is being organized by the Berkman Center.

    Dr. boyd received a bachelor’s degree in computer science from Brown University and a master’s degree in sociable media from MIT Media Lab. She has worked as an ethnographer and social media researcher for various corporations, including Intel, Tribe.net, Google, and Yahoo! She also created and managed a large online community for V-Day, a non-profit organization working to end violence against women and girls worldwide. She has advised numerous other companies, sits on corporate, education, and non-profit advisory boards, and regularly speaks at industry conferences and events.

Posted by NMC on August 5, 2009
Tags: ideas

Total comments on this page: 28

How to read/write comments

Comments on specific paragraphs:

Click the icon to the right of a paragraph

  • If there are no prior comments there, a comment entry form will appear automatically
  • If there are already comments, you will see them and the form will be at the bottom of the thread

Comments on the page as a whole:

Click the icon to the right of the page title (works the same as paragraphs)

Comments

No comments yet.

Jim McDermott on whole page :

I completely agree with the premise that technology is but a tool and becomes constructive only in the proper setting. I would like to assert that our real challenge today is
not merely technology out of context, but the rate of change itself. Toefler and others have projected it, but now we must globally recognize our species has a limit for change which we are approaching to our peril.

August 18, 2009 7:19 pm
Keene Haywood :

Thanks Danah. This is a great reminder of what is really behind technology and what ultimately makes it “work” for education. Its people and teachers and those passionate about educating others. I find that often retreating to traditional forms of expression or communication such as concentrated time away from the wired world or face to face conversations or trips away from technology often are some of the most fruitful experiences which I then can bring back and apply to the tech world with fresh eyes and mind. Technology can makes us weary and our heads wobbly with too much information.
By the same token I am always amazed by our abilities to do a great deal with even the smallest amount of technology. Ultimately, along with our teaching, it is our humanity that gives life to the bits and bytes and inspires people. Its not necessarily the latest and greatest technology. Your essay reminds me of this. A single computer is just a computer without an internet connection. But with one, its an entire network helping us all learn from each other. And maybe that is the the best gift of technology.

August 31, 2009 6:24 pm
Pat Parslow on paragraph 5:

I think the link with generation for the concept of ‘digital natives’ is a little over blown. There do seem to be people who find digital technology use much easier than others, and having ready access to the technology appears to make this difference more obvious.
One of the main differences I have seen is that people who have grown up with the digital technology (and they are only just coming through the educational system) tend to be more prepared to try new tools. And they learn them by using them - perhaps they don’t leverage the full set of affordances they provide, but they find ways to do things with them. It would probably be beneficial to help them find ways to learn tools in an efficient way and explore them fully. Currently I don’t tend to see people pushing their knowledge of tools, using them, instead, for a limited set of functions which they are comfortable with.

August 19, 2009 3:36 am
George Roberts :

“Currently I don’t tend to see people pushing their knowledge of tools, using them, instead, for a limited set of functions which they are comfortable with.” Well, heck, that’s what we all do, in a way, isn’t it? Well, what I do. I sometimes get inspired to prod a tool a wee bit to see what it does. Often it takes an example from another person to inspire me.

August 19, 2009 4:05 am

True enough! And often we just don’t have time to explore tools very much, which is why I think it is sensible to encourage people to share the ways they push tools to the limits, both to help others learn how to get the best out of a tool and also so that the failing cases can then be used to drive the technology forwards.

August 19, 2009 4:10 am
George Roberts on paragraph 6:

Re technological determinism: “We each approach technology based on our own needs and desires and we leverage it to do our bidding”. Well, yes … and: technologies are actors, or at least have agentive force in actor networks, and biddings - not all our own - are leveraged through (and by?) them. We all have our individual networks which also belong to many others. Some of our networks are object-centred and we have very complex relationships with them. Think of our relationships with, say, supermarkets, or brands.

August 19, 2009 3:37 am
Pat Parslow on paragraph 3:

I would be fascinated to know of a single case of a new technology not determining subsequent practice.
Culture, practice, tools and problems are all linked by feedback loops. Education seems to be a rather conservative field, possibly because changes which have been tried and pushed out on a national basis have often been found to fail with the benefit of hindsight.
It would be naive to suggest that just introducing new technology will improve education, certainly. You also need to change practice and culture. But can you change the practice and culture in preparation for the technological advancement? It is probably much easier to introduce the tools and see what affordances they give to allow the culture and practice to evolve to make best use of them. I suspect it is not only easier, but a better approach too - the rate of technological change should mean that if the tools need adjusting that they can be developed to match evolving needs of community and practice. However, if the technology is locked down by proprietary formats, patents or other ‘commercial interests’ this will not be the case, and the rate of progress will be slowed.

August 19, 2009 3:44 am
Pat Parslow on paragraph 6:

Teens in higher education also report using social networking for learning. They share resources, organise discussion groups and discuss things in them.
Most of the ‘painful dramas’ I have seen are because the staff involved are not as open to the exchange as the student group. These clashes of culture have always been present, of course, from before the advent of social networking. Culture changes as the new generation become the ones who ‘decide’ what is acceptable.
Although the problems associated with privacy settings and choosing what to share with whom may be large at the moment, the chances are that they will diminish over time as society becomes a lot more tolerant of the individuality expressed by people who use social networking tools.

Any education which doesn’t disrupt social norms to some extent is probably not achieving very much. Learning comes after confusion, and if the disruption can be kept to the class room, students are more likely to be able to safely learn what the benefits and risks are. If they are left to only use these technologies in the big bad world they are more likely to endure genuinely problematic disruptions.

August 19, 2009 3:51 am
Robin Heyden on paragraph 6:

What a breath of fresh air your essay is! You’ve given us lots to chew on here. The point you make in this paragraph feels very important to me. While I think that it is not only ok, it is necessary, to render discomfort and “rupture” in a classroom, it is vital that we fully understand the way our students perceive and use these tools. Fully appreciating their context for social networking tools, music & video sharing makes it possible for us to extend their reach and deepen their use.

August 19, 2009 5:33 am
George Roberts on paragraph 5:

Like with commentPress, here ;-)

August 19, 2009 8:22 am

[...] thoughts that might provoke conversation in preparation for the event. This is a re-posting of my Ideas for Thought. If you are an educator or involved in the world of learning, consider attending the symposium. [...]

August 20, 2009 11:15 am
Chris Lott on paragraph 4:

AB-SO-LUTELY. While the “don’t let technology lead” tune is easy to sing, putting the principle into practice is where things get (and remain) difficult. But at the heart of the whole problematic is technological determinism/somnambulism… as I fret and present about regularly…

August 20, 2009 11:16 am
Chris Lott on paragraph 5:

I agree with the sentiment, but the concept of the “digital native” owes its continued existence (beyond the egomaniacal ravings of Prensky) to the recognition that as technology has been insinuated into our culture there are people who demonstrate the characteristics attributed to the digital native, just not in the demographically consistent and predictable groups many would like to think. This significant group exists just as surely as the digital naives and the application-centric and the techno-phobic. As a general theory, it’s a fail, but knowing how to engage these kinds of learners is important and complicated…

August 20, 2009 11:21 am

[...] I’ve often wanted to have readers’ comments become a more dynamic part of web-page reading.  Below is a link of a Wordpress theme called CommentPress.  danah boyd’s recent talk is posted on the page.  Note the way in which comments are left and linger on the page (though boyd’s ideas are always worth a look too!): http://wp.nmc.org/future/ideas/danah-boyd [...]

August 20, 2009 1:48 pm

[...] dboyd for NMC Symposium for the Future » It is easy to fall in love with technology: http://wp.nmc.org/future/ideas/danah-boyd/ [...]

August 20, 2009 4:18 pm

[...] It is easy to fall in love with technology (alternate link) by danah boyd, researcher at Microsoft Research New England and Fellow at the Harvard University Berkman Center for Internet and Society “There are also no such things as “digital natives.” Just because many of today’s youth are growing up in a society dripping with technology does not mean that they inherently know how to use it. They don’t. Most of you have a better sense of how to get information from Google than the average youth. Most of you know how to navigate privacy settings of a social media tool better than the average teen. Understanding technology requires learning.” [...]

August 25, 2009 3:32 am

[...] boyd writes some of the most interesting pieces on technology today. Check out her “It’s easy to fall in love with technology…” article. I love that she attacks the notion “digital native”. Many of my students [...]

August 25, 2009 3:35 pm
Suzanne Aurilio on paragraph 4:

Determinism also creates vacuums in our rhetoric. I’d like have conversations in which we’re able to constructively critique the ideas on which our technology euphoria is premised. One that comes to mind is the way we effectively gloss over the materiality of “time.”

When my peers (in their 40s and 50s) say something like, “I don’t want to spend the time with X-technology, I’ve got lots of other things I could and should be doing,” they’re saying something important about their materiality and socio-political context. Women still do the bulk of the emotional labor in our society (regardless of socio-economic class) and the majority of the middle class in the United States work ever more hours for ever lower standards of living.
Let’s not even consider what time looks like for the working poor and the poor.

I work with faculty on teaching and learning issues and when they say, “It took me way longer to do X with the technology than I had planned,” they too are saying something important, in this case, about the changing landscape of the labor of teaching in academia.

Determinist thinking normalizes, standardizes or conceals “time spent,” and in doing so marginalizes a great many people for whom spending time with technology is neither possible nor desirable.

August 27, 2009 4:58 pm
Kevin Ashford-Rowe on whole page :

I am very much in agreement with the views expressed by the author, and as an educator believe that the affordances of technology can be best realised within a supported environment in which the educational institution has properly reflected upon the paradigms inherent in its pedagogical/androgogical approach, therey seeking to ensure that it uses technologies that enhance the education experience Further, to this it must have sought to ensure that the students who are expected to access their content via these means have been provided opportunities to learn the literacies that will enable them to engage. Give them wings (literacy/not technology) and they will fly.

August 28, 2009 4:02 pm
Shelley McLaughlin :

I agree, “Give them wings (literacy) and they will fly.” Yet, I wonder about the rates of illiteracy among those who are in the position to teach and make decisions.
Students and teachers alike have the potential to become “meaning makers,” but this warrants a change (i.e. from teacher-centered to student-centered pedagogy).
I wonder about and worry about this quite a bit. If we teach the way we learn, how long is this going to take? When will the term “disruptive” leave our shared lexicon around technology?

September 8, 2009 11:38 am
Love Hurts on whole page :

[...] danah boyd reminds us not to fall in love with technology, not to expect miracles from it, not to assume people will automatically adopt it. “How people embrace technology has less to do with the technology itself than with the social setting in which they are embedded.” [...]

August 31, 2009 6:11 am
Alec Couros on paragraph 4:

I understand your premise here, but technological determinism is much bigger than the hardware dumping & “community” building that you speak of here. “We shape our tools and in turn they shape us” goes well beyond these examples, and thus an outright rejection of technological determinism is more likely to do damage through our inability to heed the effects of technology on society.

Now beginning with curriculum and the importance of teachers, I agree, but that’s a whole other discussion.

August 31, 2009 6:10 pm
Alec Couros on paragraph 3:

I’m with Pat on this one. If technology does not determine practice, it certainly does influence it to an incredible degree. And, I am not sure that distinction is significant.

August 31, 2009 6:13 pm
Alan Levine on paragraph 2:

While acknowledged in the last sentence, I wonder about how easy it is in our field to make complex things, ones that are truly on a spectrum– so binary, either/or. Can we love and fear at the same time?

Perhaps this is the start of an “interesting” time as the access issues are maybe becoming less of a focus as technology creeps more into daily lives, that it is not some strange add-on, but in our pocket, and a thing we reach for.

Passion with focus, reflection, criticism is powerful; you are warning against blind passion?

September 2, 2009 9:53 am
Peter Whitehouse on whole page :

Hi, Our Intergenerational School (www.tisonline.org) is thinking of submitting a proposal with an ecological modeling and a digital cities social networking folks. As a school we think multiage thinking and valuing about ecology, particularly water, can be powerful pedagogically and wish to enhance this by using computer models and digital social networks. Do you have any advice for the proposal? Specifically about engaging youths and elders who can be in quite different places about the technology. We would plan to run it like a consultation workshop. Whereas I agree with your caution about technology I think it can help us learn to think better about systems and about long-term issues.
Thanks, Peter

September 9, 2009 6:05 am
Anne-Marie Armstrong on paragraph 6:

Agree that some of the technology and sites you mention can be problematic between generations. However, during the course of instruction, a good teacher will have reasons and strategies for using certain technology. Students should follow the strategies and give feedback to the instructor. There are some technologies that will probably be less of a collision than others.

October 26, 2009 1:45 pm
Name (required)
E-mail (required - never shown publicly)
URI