I ran across an interesting blog the other day (emoderation station) which had a number of interesting and thought provoking posts. The first I will consider is that of Digital Tribes, which presents the idea that Digital Users (i.e. those who use and partake of digital content) are a continuum of differing groups.
Digital tribes
http://www.emoderationskills.com/?p=475
The Digital Anthropology Report of 2009 from the University of Kent is based on the analysis of around 2000 UK-based users of technology. It identifies six ‘digital tribes’ who use technology and the Internet in fundamentally different ways. What are these tribes, and who belongs to them?
Digital extroverts (9 %): Unsurprisingly, these are the early adopters, or advanced users of technology
Timid technophobes (23%): People with limited technology skills who are generally suspicious of all things digital
Social secretaries (13%): Those who use technology particularly for social means and ends
First lifers (12%): Those who are neither for nor against technology per se, and will only use a few applications that they find particularly useful
E-ager beavers (29%): Those who use technology a lot, but are less confident in creating digital artifacts than the digital extroverts
Web boomers (8%): An older group of Internet users who mainly use the Internet to access information online
For me, the idea that there is a continuum of users, who have wildly differing expectations, backgrounds, and abilities is one which needs to be considered. On one hand this is a way to consider ‘us’…that is, as digital consumers, is something which needs more understanding and more coverage. On the other hand previous quote from the study the author of the post is alluding to, feels (to me) to be a bit arbitrary in where these different ‘groups’ begin and another ends…
There are certainly some who life the digital life further out on the edge than I am, and other who are a bit less adventurous. In that most of this is based upon a social phenomenon which is (in most cases) only a decade or two old, and that there is still a lot of flux and change taking place regarding these sorts of labels leads me to consider that while presenting this idea (as an idea instead of a list of ‘types’) is quite worthwhile, any value in these sorts of categorizations are likely to be as much about who coins the terms first as to whether they are that valid…
The Author of this post (Nicky Hockly) has another post which relates to some other implicit ideas in this study…this is where things get interesting.
Digital dissenters
http://www.emoderationskills.com/?p=488
It´s 2030, technology is ubiquitous. Robots clean your house and make your food. Social robots look after your aged parents, teach your children in school, and play with them after school. You yourself can don an artificial limb to do any heavy lifting work around the house. The Internet is 3D and permanently displayed on the walls of your home. You simple reach out to interact with it. And you no longer need to learn a foreign language. A chip implanted in your throat means you can speak in your mother tongue, and have it instantly verbalized in another. Sound like Blade Runner 2? It´s not, most of this is currently possible
One conclusion of the report struck me particularly. In the future, a new class of the ´digitally excluded´ will arise. These will not be like today’s excluded, who either fear technology, or have limited skills, or little or no access to technology. Technology will be so ubiquitous that it will be difficult or impossible to avoid. The digital dissenters or refuseniks of the future will not be those who are unfamiliar with or scared of technology, or non-users. They will be those who reject technology from a moral or lifestyle standpoint, as a conscious and informed choice. I imagine these digital dissenters hiding out in the woods, but of course they will be just like you and I, just less wired up. In fact, you or I may well become one of them.
At this point, I am more impressed with the author of this post than with some university study (which she covered in her earlier post). The idea that there may be some sort of backlash against the continuing intrusion and loss of control in what much of this new technology represents is quite an interesting idea…imagine, Neo-luddites!
There are plenty of related ideas to this premise. I can see this notion taking hold in any number of different social groups (or very different reasons). For instance, people who are digital have-nots by virtue of location, age, vocation, and interests are just as likely to become aligned with these ideas as anyone who already espouses a philosophical or political revulsion to these increasing amounts of ‘digital’ incursions into life.
Another idea implied by the study in the first post from Ms. Hockly is that it only covers ‘digital users’, I am left presuming that this relates to what I would call ‘end users’ that is…consumers. So, is this only a vestige of some of the negative feelings many people have about being cast as mere consumers?
In any case, I have added this blog to my Google Reader, in that it is refreshing to see someone can theorize about modern life (i.e. ‘digital life’) as an inspired outsider…
