What we think

The death of the Digital Native

You’ve probably heard the term ‘digital native’ before, it’s a phrase that’s been chucked about liberally in our line of work but apparently it’s out of date.

Back in 2001 Marc Prensky described the difference between Digital Natives and Digital Immigrants as those who have grown up with digital technology in every aspect of their life, whose brains (he argued) are wired differently as a result, and an older generation who struggle to ‘get it’ and are distinguished by their behaviours (he calls them ‘accents’, things like going to the internet second as a research tool).

The focus of his work was on learning and he described how educators would struggle to reach this new type of student – he said that education needed to be reinvented from the ground up. It was a powerful argument and the ‘Native’ has gone on to pop up in design thinking and future gazing ever since.

But the Natives/Immigrants metaphor is now 10 years old. At the time it was published there was no Myspace, Facebook, Youtube or Twitter. Mobile phones looked like this

So instead of this blunt typology, David S White and Alison Le Cornu last year proposed a continuum of behaviour between ‘Resident’ and ‘Visitor’.

They’re based on the two extreme metaphors of the web as a ‘tool’ to get things done and as a ‘place/space’, where people hang out in an area common to them, projecting aspects of their identity, and the massive difference in motivations between the two uses.

I particularly like the assertion that for the residents, UI designers are like town planners and architects:

Just as physical, geographical places have architectural characteristics and town planners can make a real–life city more, or less, user–friendly to navigate, so software designers are responsible for the navigability of platforms, and Facebook users are familiar with the frustration of suddenly ‘losing their way’ when the platform is upgraded and changed.

White and Le Cornu say that people are on a continuum somewhere between the two extremes of ‘Visitor’ and ‘Resident’.

Visitors are on the utilitarian end of the spectrum, they use the web as a tool to get stuff done:

We propose that Visitors understand the Web as akin to an untidy garden tool shed. They have defined a goal or task and go into the shed to select an appropriate tool which they use to attain their goal. Task over, the tool is returned to the shed. It may not have been perfect for the task, but they are happy to make do so long as some progress is made.

They add that in the extreme, the visitor is worried about privacy, wary of setting up a Facebook page etc.

Residents assess the value of their time online as much through the relationships they gain as much as knowledge:

Residents, on the other hand, see the Web as a place, perhaps like a park or a building in which there are clusters of friends and colleagues whom they can approach and with whom they can share information about their life and work. A proportion of their lives is actually lived out online where the distinction between online and off–line is increasingly blurred. 

The simple thing that makes this so much more useful than other metaphors for online engagement, is that it’s a continuum (not a binary distinction between two extremes, or a subset of clearly defined types), that we all sit on and may move along.

It recognises that, like all of our behaviour, we are slightly different people depending on where we are, what context we’re operating in (e.g. professional vs personal) and what we’re expecting to get from being there – that there’s a spectrum between visitor and resident that we operate in, that may be completely divorced from age or technical skill.

Thanks to Aleks Krotoski’s great Digital Human radio doc for the tip off. If you didn’t catch it, I recommend doing a listen again, and tuning into the next one.

[Quick note: I first put this post up (a rougher version) on my personal blog, but a chat with Ross and few others made it clear that the Resident-Visitor thinking has interesting implications for loads of aspects of social business, from customer services to adoption of internal social tools. Hope you find it interesting.]

This post was filed under Social business and tagged , , . Join the conversation - leave a comment.

8 Comments

  1. Maggie

    Although the visitor-resident continuum is an appealing alternative, I don’t feel comfortable with the notion that continual interaction is a defining characteristic of a “digital resident”. I feel that it’s possible to be perfectly comfortable residing in the online world without wanting to continually interact with other inhabitants.

    Posted 8th May 2012 at 8:48 pm | Permalink
  2. Thanks for your comment Maggie.

    Interesting point – I guess that’s a result of the model being built around behaviour exhibited online and therefore measurable levels of *engagement* – which makes interaction (or not) with others so core.

    I’d be really interested to know if you have any ideas on how to incorporate non-interaction?

    Max

    Posted 10th May 2012 at 2:55 pm | Permalink
  3. Maggie

    I shared my ideas with our postgraduate research students in our department and they agreed that dichotomies are unhelpful. One person shared a link to a more nuanced paper by colleagues in Bradford: http://www.elp.ac.uk/downloads/Defining%20Generation%20Y%20Bradford.pdf. Have a look and see what you think of this…

    Posted 10th May 2012 at 3:20 pm | Permalink
  4. Thanks Maggie, I’ll have a read.

    Posted 10th May 2012 at 5:02 pm | Permalink
  5. Marc Prensky’s opinions are just that, unfound, unresearched invention that proper academic research has shown to be bunkum. There are NO gender or age differences when it comes to the use of the Internet, it is a scare mongering myth. Try reading his book on the subject, it isa pieceof fiction that quotes Star Trek as a source!

    Posted 15th May 2012 at 6:24 am | Permalink
  6. Caroline

    I’m a 61 year old female and I’ve been using computers since the end of the 70s because my ex husband built one from a kit so I suppose I could be classified as a “Digital Native” in that I think of computers and the internet to be like a part of me rather than something external. I’ve now lived alone for 17 years and, although I have a good real world social life with plenty of friends, I also have a thriving social life online through various online games and forum groups. I sat and cried all through Aleks Krotoski’s programme about love online because a really close online friend has just died. We met in 2003 on a science-based internet forum group, met in person only 5 times in all those years because he was in the US and I’m in the UK and neither of us had much money but we talked over Yahoo IM almost every night and built up a really close relationship based on mutual intellectual and cultural interests. I was actually over in the States last month staying with him when he was rushed into hospital and I sat with his sister by his hospital bedside for hours at a time till he died a week later. I know people will scoff, but it’s exactly like losing a husband because it was exactly like being married – without all the bad bits! He and I belonged to another internet forum group as well and they rallied around and supported me by taking me out and generally phoning me up and asking how I was because I had to stay over there on my own in his house for the next two and a half weeks as I couldn’t afford to change my flight and his sister didn’t have the space to have me to stay with her. I’m now seeing a bereavement counsellor who – fortunately – understands completely and doesn’t dismiss it out of hand.

    Posted 31st May 2012 at 5:08 pm | Permalink
  7. Hi Caroline – thank you so much for sharing your story.

    It’s clear that the internet’s changed so many people’s lives, in fundamental ways, regardless of all the weak stereotypes out there around age or social situation.

    I’m deeply sorry to hear about the death of your close friend, but it says something that you had developed such a strong relationship through mainly talking online and that your other forum friends were there for you when you really needed support.

    Again, thanks for sharing – I learned alot.

    Max

    Posted 31st May 2012 at 9:32 pm | Permalink
  8. Caroline

    Hi Max,

    Indeed, the internet literally opened up the entire world to both my friend and me. Without it I wouldn’t have met him, gone over 4 times to his home in Los Angeles to stay with him and met all the other people who helped me over there when he died. Neither would he have come over here last year to see me so both of us would have missed out on life-changing experiences. I have online friends in a variety of countries and I hope some day to be able to go and see a few of them. I got extremely angry recently when I was talking to someone who said that “the internet is evil” and she didn’t want anything to do with it. The internet is what you make of it. It’s neutral in itself but you have to be careful in the same way you have to be careful when walking in a strange place on your own at night (or in some places during the day as well). For me the benefits have far outweighed the disadvantages. I have a voluntary job teaching basic computing to senior citizens in a local community centre and it depresses me that they all seem to believe that “computers are for young people”. No they are NOT! Most of the “young people” I know only use computers for a narrow range of activities and certainly don’t get all they could out of them. I usually point out to my students that they can drive and they should try and remember how they felt when they got into a car for their first lesson. I can’t drive and I would FAR rather use a computer than learn to drive nowadays!

    Posted 4th June 2012 at 10:56 pm | Permalink

One Trackback

  1. [...] Aleks Krotoski’s latest programme on Radio 4 ‘The Digital Human‘ refers also to this idea, picked up in this blog. [...]

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared. Required fields are marked *

*
*

Notify me of followup comments via e-mail.
You can also subscribe without commenting.