Next Stop Design

The crowdsourcing bus stop project is up and running with a few kinks. Right now, users can go to the site, nextstopdesign.com, register, and write on the discussion board as well as rate or submit designs for a new bus stop on the business loop at the University of Utah. So far, one design has been submitted - though the design image is not loading on the site due to some minor "technical problems" which will hopefully be ironed out this weekend.

Only image files can be uploaded - JPEG preferred. My suggestion: be patient. Users can also post ideas about what they would like to see in bus stops - which is really useful for designers.

I look forward to seeing how this process unfolds, how the crowd sifts through the designs and ideas and what works and what doesn't. Ultimately this is a small step in a much larger picture, but any step to get people more involved in their community and surroundings is positive in my mind.

The Colbert Space Station Wing?

Apparently NASA decided to dabble in crowdsourcing to name their new wing, and the results were somewhat startling. A new wing is being built on the NASA space station, and instead of naming it themselves, they opened their doors to the public to submit and vote on names for the wing. Stephen Cobert, from The Colbert Report - who has repeatedly asked his fans to vote for him in similar venues (on the ballot in South Carolina, named a Hungarian Bridge, and repeatedly messes with Wikipedia) won this time. According to CNN.com, "Colbert" pulled in 230,539 of the more than 1.1 million submissions in the contest, according to NASA spokesman John Yembrick.

So - his name should be on the wing, however, NASA maintains control of deciding to use the name or not and they haven't made a decision yet. The name that came in second and nearly 40,000 votes behind was "Serenity". Apparently, "the contest rules say NASA reserves the right to "ultimately select a name in accordance with the best interests of the agency. ... Such name may not necessarily be one which is on the list of voted-on candidate names."

This bridges back to Jenkins and how companies are working with new media and the producer/consumer relationship. It seems that NASA is trying to embrace this new model of interaction and inclusivity - yet is really unwilling to relinquish control to "the crowd". What complicates this even further is that NASA is publicly funded - and the tax dollars that are being used to pay for the space station wing come from people who may not necessarily love "The Colbert Report". Even more complicating is the fact that Colbert is a media personality and able to amplify his voice over others - so how democratic is the process when his role as a media personality has so much to do with the votes? So, what should NASA do, and even more importantly - what does this tell us about embracing the new relationship of prosumers? Is this really a crowdsourcing model if NASA maintains control - or is this crowdslapping as we have seen in the Chevy Tahoe ads?

It seems that the model is not as democratic as once touted, specifically since mass media still have a hand in setting the agenda.

Facebook and community

So over the past week I decided to track my facebook use along with the students I assigned the task to. It was interesting to hear their responses to their tracking and compare it to my own experiences. Several students keep facebook open while they are at work, most use the status updates and chat functions and it is really a tool that extends their social networks. I have found these experiences to be similar to my own. Over the past seven days I spent a grand total of 4 hours and 40 minutes on facebook. Most of my use is in 10-15 minute increments, or the occasional 30 minutes when I happen to catch up with an old friend and IM, or rat hole on pictures of old friends, their new babies, and the occasional update on ex's (pretend like you don't do it).

For the most part, I agree with the quantitative study "The benefits of facebook 'friends'". I believe social networking sites are used to increase social capital and can act as extensions to empower our relational selves. On the other hand, however, I have to ask how authentic these relationships on facebook really are. I have gotten into the habit of simply reading my friends' status updates, profiles, and posted pictures and feel like I am "maintaining our relationship" by simply keeping up with what is going on in their life through facebook. So, are these relationships authentic?

I suppose it is helpful to understand what exactly authenticity is and more importantly, how it works in interpersonal relationships. Authenticity in interpersonal relationships is often equated with genuine care, kinship, and "realness". So, how real are relationships that require less interaction and depend more on the avowed self than on shared and lived experiences. Furthermore, are authentic relationships even possible when consciousness is split between online and face to face interaction. As Bugeja notes, our identity and consciousness is split between two places therefore never allowing us to be fully present in one or the other. For example, as I sit here writing this blog, I am also watching television, texting a friend, and I have facebook open to read random comments and status updates. Is authenticity contingent on being "present"? Or are the makeup of relationships changing to the point where it is expected that you will be divided between "worlds"?

Ultimately, my biggest question is in how this dual consciousness influences community involvement. If I am split consciously between spaces - which communities should I identify with, and how connected can I ultimately be to one or the other?

Ideas for blog topics

So, I have noticed that the slacker factor has taken affect for about half of the class on getting these blog posts up and going so I thought I would post a few ideas that might help encourage the thought process. I also want to remind everyone that blogging is a public space and ask the question of what responsibilities we have when posting ideas in a public sphere? As we have discussed stereotypes in race and gender, the idea of language and how we use language is a constant concern for communication scholars. As you contribute in these spaces you are socially constructing and reifying ideas, identities, and relationships. Be reflective about what you are posting and how you are using language to construct your reality and how that reality can be constructed for others.

Now...IDEAS!

1. Create an avatar on second life and spend a little time in the virtual environment - then reflect on how that process fits with your theme. How is your virtual identity similar to or different than your own? Do these realities enable or disengage citizenship and public participation? How might virtual environments create and divide communities. This week is a virtual world week - so doing this might be of interest.

2. Track your ICT (Information Communication Technologies) use for a 24 hour period - make a log and reflect on your results. How long are you on your cell phone, the internet, playing a video game, watching digital TV and DVD's? How does the time you spend doing these things relate to your theme? Does it enhance or disrupt your friendships/romance? Who is part of your community and who is not based on your use of ICT's? How "aware" are you of political issues and how does your use of ICT's interrupt or enhance that? How much of your own identity is wrapped up in your use of ICT's? Are you an I-phone or blackberry person, do you prefer console video games to MMOG's?

3. Do some research of your own on any of the following topics in relation to your theme - then write about it:
1. Goldfarming/Leveling
2. Crowdsourcing
3. Digital divide - in relation to a particular community
4. Massively Multiplayer online games
Look at youtube videos, blogs, news articles or academic research to learn more about these areas and see how well they connect/disconnect from what you have already read in class.

4. What is going on in the news when it comes to new media? Twitter has been popular this week - Barack got to keep his Blackberry - The white house does a weekly podcast - Utah downloads the most porn - Google maps track those who contributed to prop 8 - facebook changed their user agreement, then changed it back - Facebook is being used to market "The People's Bribe". Read the news and write about it in relation to some of the things we have read/talked about.

I hope some of these ideas can help you all get started. The blogs need to start coming for you to post and respond in the time allotted, form groups, and present final presentations. Remember blogs need to synthesize your outside research, your experience, and readings from class with your ideas. They should be equivalent to 2-3 written pages. I look forward to your ideas!

Digital Divisions

After revisiting Warschauer's article this week - I wanted to reflect on the different areas that I see as most relevant when it comes to digital divisions. We have seen how one laptop per child has lacked vision and inclusivity by placing responsibility of digital participation on having the hardware. This plan did not account for social inequity between students at home and differing educational needs. Though well intended, the technologically deterministic assumption that having the technology will "fix" inequity was problematic, because it only pays attention to one dimension of a multi-dimensional problem. Having access to the hardware is only one piece of the puzzle. An ignorance to inequities in education, language, social value, cultural acceptance, accessibility, total cost of ownership, and time all need to be considered for a real solution to be proposed. Even bigger than "fixing" the digital divide is coming to understand it as a symptom of larger systemic problems, than a problem in and of itself.

As I continue to focus on new media literacy as a plausible solution, there are several areas that need to follow suit. First, public education needs to be valued again in this country. With the average K-12 teacher lasting less than 5 years at an average salary in Utah of $28,000 - how can we ever expect teachers to get students prepared to compete in a global economy? The saying, "those who can't do...teach" only echoes the ignorance and unvalued work that teachers actually do. Most people have no idea how high the workload and time commitment is to teach, as well as the emotional investment. Teachers are criticized for the work they don't do,and unacknowledged for the work they produce. Most people (university students included) have no idea how the educational system works, which only amplifies the lack of investment in our communities, children and future.

The idea of "buying out" of public education with vouchers guised as "opportunity" has only continued to amplify white flight in areas where schools are "failing" according to NCLB (No Child Left Behind). Whatever happened to buying in to the idea that children need more than hardware to be successful - they need community support that isn't just derived from the immediate parents, but from locals who commit time and energy to their support. It is so easy to say that education is the key - yet no one wants to invest in that venture because the rhetoric tells us that the return is solely based on the individual. Why pay for a system when success is entirely up the individual? Unfortunately, it is a combination of both - and until we start talking about education as OUR problem - instead of "Theirs" we will continue to be far away from closing the gaps between who can and who can't - who has access and who doesn't - who has a voice, and who has been silenced.

So - how do we create a more equitable system in a democratic capitalistic society? Where are the opportunities and what needs to change? Before we can educate, we need to decide what the goals are. Before I teach a class, I have to sit down and decide what the learning goals are, and the material, assessment and evaluation criteria we will need to get there. Back to basics people - what are the goals of public education? To continue our workforce..... Where is the workforce headed digitally and what do we need to continue to produce and maintain growth? What we need to begin to grow again has been successfully devalued and taught out of us - CREATIVITY

Check out this video from Sir Ken Robinson on creativity and education - it's long, but inspiring!

I propose that we start to look at digital divisions for what they really are. Instead of being "new problems" we should be thinking about how they are "new symptoms" of a system that is no longer serving the best interests of newer generations.

Crowdsourcing Policy on Facebook?

Last week facebook tried to pull a fast one on it's users and changed the end license user agreement to include that once content is posted to the site, it belongs to facebook - even after one ends their relationship with the site and takes down their profile. As if facebook's licensing agreement wasn't already problematic enough - this added insult to injury and the public reacted in a fierce way. The site instantly "took it back" due to public pressure.

Today I logged on to facebook for a little socializing "light" and found this at the top:

Terms of Use Update

Today we announced new opportunities for users to play a meaningful role in determining the policies governing our site. We released the first proposals subject to these procedures – The Facebook Principles, a set of values that will guide the development of the service, and Statement of Rights and Responsibilities that governs Facebook’s operations. Users will have the opportunity to review, comment and vote on these documents over the coming weeks and, if they are approved, other future policy changes. We’ve posted the documents in separate groups and invite you to offer comments and suggestions. For more information and links to the two groups, check out the Facebook Blog.

HMMMM.....

So, what I am trying to figure out is if this format fits Brabham's crowdsourcing model? Instead of forcing policy on the users, they are using their site as a medium to encourage public participation in their policy making. Awesome! The main difference I see between this and other crowdsourcing models such as Threadless is that facebook is posing the problem, yet they are also posing solutions as opposed to Threadless who asks for the T-shirt designs, then the crowd submits, critiques and votes on those designs. Of course, policy issues need to be more narrowly tailored, but I wonder if the policies they are proposing will disengage users from participating. In retrospect, I am pretty sure this isn't crowdsourcing, but it is transparency which is a new thing for profit making business. I wonder if this is the kind of transparency Obama is working toward?

What if it works? If this model for deciding facebook policy - where the company posts the policy then users are asked to critique and vote on the different policies works, how can it be translated to making government more transparent and public policy more fluid, equitable, and fair? Furthermore, I wonder who will actually participate in this facebook venture and who will just go along with whatever the majority decides. After looking at the actual blog, it is clear to me that this is more of a top-down controlled policy making move. Still though - asking the users to participate is a move in the right direction. I wonder who will actually participate.

If you were to submit your own proposal for their privacy policy what would it look like? Should we, as users, have a cut of the advertising profit? If that was proposed would it be posted by facebook as an option to vote on, or would they ignore the request. How much and how little control should Facebook exercise to empower users yet still maintain control over their site. If they ignore user requests will they get the same response as when they changed the agreement, or is the facade of transparency enough to keep people feeling good about the site?

Convergence Culture

This week is the beginning of the complexities of technological convergence on culture. As Jenkins notes, technological convergence is about more than just the technology. There are serious cultural, economic, political, and social implications to convergence and we are standing at the brink of how these elements will play out. Will the public continue to value capitalistic consolidation of cultural production and control, or is this an opportunity for individuals and communities to use technology as a means for empowerment? In keeping with my theme this semester, I have to ask how convergence divides and connects community. The main area that is most fascinating to me is how the "prosumer" can gain voice by subverting dominant cultural norms. More important, is understanding how policy and education are working toward and against this kind of empowerment.

It would be a huge mistake to treat converging technologies as another cycle of new media innovation. The advent of web 2.0 has enabled easier access to displaying identity, creating user generated content, and as Levy would note harnessing the "collective intelligence". Where before media innovation has served to distribute cultural content to the public - we are now in an era where we can seek out and find information that serves our individual interests, interact with, create and distribute our own opinions, thoughts and knowledge to the public. Where those in power were representing to us what "others" experiences were - now those "others" have the opportunity to represent themselves. Of course, the voices are not as loud or big as the massive media conglomerates - but is the sheer act of producing our own content empowering in and of itself - or does it need to be percieved by others to truly be empowering. Furthermore, what are some of the costs of this process of mediated individual expression?

Jenkins asks some of the most important questions about this time - by pointing to major tensions that exist in the way we have constructed our cultural producing economy and how convergence can rock those assumptions. Some of the more relevant questions he has asked for me include:

Re-negotiating relations between consumers and producers
*it is amazing how hard corporations will fight to allow people to buy their products/yet will equally discourage the appropriation of those products. We are now in a read-write culture, how will this be embraced or resisted and what is the most democratizing system?

Re-engaging citizens
Can consumption actually spur political activism? Interesting idea.....how are the lines between consumption and citizenship crossed and does consumption distract or focus our attention on relations of political power that can and do govern our lives.

and redefining intellectual property rights
What is the RIGHT kind of copyright. Should knowledge be made freely available for people to build upon, or should we be able to safeguard and prosper from our innovations? What motivates innovation?

These three questions raise issue with how we as a national and international entity will continue to understand and perpetuate the relationships between media, consumption, ownership and political power. I am underwhelmed by the apathetic responses to media and representation, but even more so as to how media confer political power. My hope is that as the process of convergence flattens the process of participation and allows entry into the political arena, that political power and marginalized voices are empowered, transformed and mobilized. Is this idealistic? Maybe. Could it be a reality? I have no idea. The promise of new technology has a way of blinding some of the realities. The democratizing rhetoric tends to override the inequities that web 2.0 can reproduce - and the removal of physical, visible labor has a way of rationalizing what some may call unequal labor distribution and exploitation.

Why are we so willing to trade ethics for profit?

Representation in New Media

Tomorrow will mark one of the most challenging and important days of the semester. We are discussing race, gender, values and representation in new media. One of the first reactions that tends to happen during this particular class is that the white men in the room feel personally attacked and silenced by the topic. Often this is because they individualize the concept of racism, instead of moving the problem of racism to a larger macro-level. In the same sense, non-white students can be harmed severely by the conversation, and asked to speak for their race, or experience (which I would never do). This is the symptom of a dominant culture not understanding the experiences of people who are not part of the dominating group.

Racism and sexism are systemic problems which are echoed and reinforced in a multitude of ways. In more concrete terms, the inequalities attached to race are clear in our justice system. According to Mauer & King, "African Americans are incarcerated (5.6) nearly 6 times the rate of whites, and hispanics are incarcerated at (1.6) double that rate" (2007) These numbers are grossly out of proportion with the demographics. Possible causes identified by The Innocence project are eyewitness misidentification, jury makeup, and unjust detective work. The higher rates of incarceration cannot be linked to just one individual instance - but rates of conviction, incarceration, and levels of punishment are systems within systems that continue to reinforce one another.

Mediated representations of race and gender create and sustain stereotypes which can and do have a vital role in how people are percieved and treated. Though the idea of each person being judged on their own merits sounds good - the reality is that there are far to many institutionalized inequalities at play to pin blame on individual actions. The act of doing so is derived from a privileged position - where systemic inequity serves those in power to continue to blame circumstances on individuals as opposed to looking at the systems that serve to disenfranchise and underscore achievement. Inequality manifests itself in many ways and representation reinforces what is acceptable and normal and what is not.

The idea of systemic racism can be more clearly understood and seen when boiled down to the unacknowledged privileges white skin enables. Peggy McIntosh's "White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack" looks to deconstruct the way white privilege reconstitutes and centers itself by making a list of privileges that she is endowed by her skin color. It is by understanding race in this way - as a system of privilege and oppression that it can be more clearly understood - and white guilt (hopefully) avoided.

Selections from McIntosh's list of invisible white privilege:
5. I can turn on the television or open to the front page of the paper and see people of my race widely represented
7. I can be sure that my children will be given curricular materials that testify to the existence of their race
14. I can do well in a challenging situation without being called a credit to my race.
15. I am never asked to speak for all the people of my racial group
22. I can take a job with an affirmative action employer without having coworkers on the job suspect that I got it because of my race.
26. I can choose blemish cover or bandages in "flesh" cover and have them more or less match my skin.

My own addition: I can walk into any department store and get makeup in my skin tone

Tomorrow we will be discussing the ways race and gender are represented through video games. Gendered stratification means that not only women are portrayed in unequal ways - but the hyper-masculine male is another image that penetrates and centers what it means to be man. Representation victimizes everyone. There are several layers to this.

First, is understanding the argument in regard to colorblind vs. color-conscious ideology. This is directly related to whiteness - white is a color and often by not referring to white as a color, it is centered as normative, and people who are not white - Othered. Second - the idea that gender is problematized only by the way women are represented. Gender is not just about women!

Another layer to this article is the relevance and impact of video game representation vs. other mediated forms and those possible reprocussions. Video games are interactive virtual realities. As such, should we have a more or less heightened response to representation since it enables interaction, in a lot of circumstances - violent/gratuitous interaction? What is the difference between playing games and watching a movie? Who has the privilege to say that "it's just a game" and who gets hurt by these representations? How are systems of subordination and domination naturalized - and ultimately, the biggest question is "WHY ARE WE SO OK WITH THESE REPRESENTATIONS?"

Technology and Democracy

It was interesting watching student's unravel Winner's "Do Artifacts Have Politics" article the other day. We tend to rest on our own socially constructed versions of reality, creating concrete ideas of what is real and what isn't, and how objective reality works. It isn't often that an idea comes along that challenges our beliefs and makes us reconsider the world around us.

After reading Winner for the first time, my intertwined reality with technology became so much more complicated. By teaching the article, I was able to dive in to the theoretical underpinnings and implications in new and different ways. By far, the most provocative idea that Winner posits is that choosing particular technologies also subordinates our existence to certain types of political organization. He uses the ship example where by choosing to use the ship to fish, transport goods, and for war a heirarchical and authoritarian political structure is necessitated. The ship would not run the way it needs to run if it was operated in a decentralized, egalitarian way. Order and authority are direct political results that are required by adopting the technology of the ship.

I have been trying to pin down technologies that enable egalitarian and democratizing political systems. I suppose it depends on how you understand democracy - I think of it in terms of its roots - one person, one vote and the radical idea that the will of the people governs and can genuinely change systemic inequities. So - what do new technologies do? For example, what political system is inherent to the adoption of the internet and world wide web? I suppose that initially it was designed in a way for egalitarian principles to take hold. Tim Berners Lee chose to keep the web free and did not "register" it as intellectual property to gain a profit. The "freeness" of the internet was intended to make it available to everyone - however: inequities in knowledge, access, and finances have really allowed those who have the means and the will to dominate this medium. So, is this a democratizing medium?

A segment on KSL last night highlighted a USU student who heard about the $30 million budget cuts in Utah public higher education and started a facebook page to organize a rally at the capital and sign petitions. This, to me, seems to be democracy. The will of the people to speak to their government and let the government know what they want. The ability to organize through facebook is one way that it has been used to "level the playing field". This coupled with the reporters belief in the amazing and influential abilities of the internet play into our ideas of how we need to continue to keep up with the technologies that dictate our world. So - these college students were able to organize a rally - they have the knowledge, access and ability to use these systems in ways that empower their specific group. I have to ask, however, what about the hispanic community on the West Side of Salt Lake who does not have the same level of access, knowledge or finance to use these technologies to their advantage?

According to Fox & Livingstone from the Pew Internet and American Life project,

Latinos comprise 14% of the U.S. adult population and about half of this growing group
(56%) goes online. By comparison, 71% of non-Hispanic whites and 60% of non-
Hispanic blacks use the internet. Several socio-economic characteristics that are often
intertwined, such as low levels of education and limited English ability, largely explain
the gap in internet use between Hispanics and non-Hispanics.

So, is there equal access to political power if the primary language on the internet is English, if poor neighborhoods don't get the same access and exposure to computers, and if students only get to use these tools at school? Their voice is not as loud, yet their resources are in jeopardy and they are much more needed just to get to the place that the USU students are at.

So, is this a democratizing technology or another way for those who are already in power to sustain power?

The everday-ness of duality

This article spawned my reflection today:
http://www.nypost.com/seven/01112009/news/nationalnews/this_kids_a_text_maniac_149614.htm

In class today, two things became quite clear to me and addressing them through this blog is my first hope at learning more about how to better manage "connection" in class. Jenkins notes that one of the traits of the new media landscape is the idea that media are "everyday". This is to say that ICT's have become entrenched in our daily interactions, so much so that there are no clear cues or signals as to when to turn it off. They have become an extension of ourselves, and as such challenging to turn off or disengage.

I watched four students today accept and return text messages on their cellular phones. I also witnessed three instant message conversations and became aware of the internet being down for some in class - as students tried furiously to reconnect (to no avail) until the end of class. The idea of dual consciousness (Bugeja) is an astounding reality in everyday interactions. Interpersonal communication is interrupted by ringing, downloads, and simple thinking about what one said to the other in that email, text, or Instant message. It is even more impending when people are distracted by thinking about what message or phone call they might be getting next. Yet, when we are connected - how involved and "present" are we in that communication. Can an instant message be engaged when you are trying to hide your IM from the teacher circling the room? Can we effectively communicate in both realities simultaneously?

I suppose my challenge is in understanding and thinking about how classroom dynamics can, do and will take place when students are pulled in multiple directions by being connected. Have they learned how to be present in both realities and my impression of duality is the result of antiquated ideas of what it means to "pay attention"? It isn't my responsibility to make people learn - however, I do take partial responsibility for the classroom environment. How likely are people to contribute if no one is listening? Or, is this a generational difference and people have grown accustomed to others not listening to them speak?

Are cellular phones and text messages the new media of "passing notes" in class (distracting, yet engaged)? I suppose the difference I see between texting and note passing is that those who passed notes did it with one another in the same class. In a way, this helps form student cohesion. What is the onus for students to meet, get to know each other in class, discuss and debate ideas when they can maintain their relationships and conversations with their already immediate circle?

How is a communal class discussion supposed to take place when student's realities are split between the virtual and the "real"? To complicate this even further - what should my role as the instructor be as far as embracing ICT's in the classroom, when the class is about living the E-Life? There is something emergent about letting minor communications take place during class - it's something that happens in everyday interactions - so why not have it be part of class. My concern is how those minor communications have a long term effect on the classroom dynamic. As an instructor, I am forced to "be present" in class. I have to wonder what would happen if I answered my phone, Instant messaged, or accepted and returned a text message while a student was speaking.

I think I should attempt to find out.....

New ICT's in an "identity crisis"

In class today we discussed the diffusion of innovation theory and ways that media are studied and discussed (risk or opportunity), but I am still ringing my hands about the identity crisis of media - and how new/not new these conversations are in comparison with older media innovations. Through innovation immediacy is increased - but how do we start to think about these "tools" in more socially conscious and viable ways? The first step, I believe, is in acknowledging the social and economic crafting that is behind their ultimate production and dissemination. Requiring technology to have a history in relation to other media, but beyond that media and into more complex ground. Who designs these technologies and for what purpose? Who is consciously and unconsciously left out of the design process? What are the specific and relevant elements that require deeper study?


Technology has always acted as a connector and divider - it is the speed at which those things happen that merely quickens the process. For example, the television was new at one point. First adopted by wealthy and innovative households with only three channels - these channels carried messages and created shared experiences for people within 100 miles. Then, the speed and frequency were able to carry more, and the price of the television decreased - and more people were included in these experiences. The evening news was a media event in and of itself. Pilots knew the news had ended, as they flew over head and watched house lights go out simultaneously. Now, news is at our fingertips and our experiences are based on what we choose to expose ourselves to - not necessarily what is brought to us.

Are we taking part in less shared experiences, or are there more opportunities for shared experiences that just take place at different times? What is considered a shared experience anymore? Is it that we do the same things or we do things together? Who gets to participate in these experiences, and with increasing advances - who doesn't?

Welcome to Living the E-Life

Hello Everyone -

This is an ongoing journal about the E-life class I will be teaching this fall. I will post my questions about the readings, reflections on the course, and important local lectures and current events that are related to the weekly topic. As I have asked students in the course to blog about their own media use and critically think about how their use is related to our course readings, I will do the same. My hope is to learn from students in the same contextual manner that they might learn from me.

My primary interest is in the way that new technologies divide and bring together people and communities and how new media literacy can act as an agent of empowerment.

Critical consumption and responsible production will be the guiding theme of this blog.