Participatory Culture: Benefits & Challenges

      As I read Clay Shirky’s (2010) novel “Cognitive Surplus:  Creativity and Generosity in a Connected Age,” I was excited to think of all of the benefits that are coming out of having a participatory culture that was employing the cognitive surplus it had generated.  However there are challenges also associated with a participatory culture.  This fairly new phenomenon has changed our culture, whereas in past centuries was mostly segregated cultures.  Shirky (2010) explains, “The atomization of social life in the twentieth century left us so far removed from participatory culture that when it came back, we needed the phrase ‘participatory culture’ to describe it” (p. 19).  Some people feel that it is only the young that are engaged in this ‘participatory culture’ and believe as Shirky (2010) states “participatory behavior among the young will go away when they grow up, because work will so exhaust them that they won’t be able to do anything with their free time but ‘slump in front of the TV” (p. 12).  I believe this is not true.  Young and old are increasing being connected by the internet, a movement that is only going to increase in size and scope.  We as a society should consider the challenges also associated with a participatory culture, so we are able to determine how to address these issues.  There are three challenges that seem to be of greatest concern:  educators’ new reality of working with students in a participatory age, media’s new mandate to be more than a one way communication tool, and understanding each person’s role and responsibility in a social network.

     We as educators are in a new world that we need to consider how living in a participatory culture, especially how our students live in this participatory culture impacts how we teach and how our students learn.  I earned my undergraduate degree fifteen years ago.  How I accessed research and learned was very different than how I am doing these same things in my Masters degree.  Attending Northern Michigan University, I spent hours at the library researching and reading textbooks for my classes.  I never thought that one day I could find an answer with just typing it into Google and almost instantaneous get the answer.  In addition, now there are online study groups that bring students together, not only at the school the person is attending, but students from schools from throughout the world.  Students have access to “cognitive surplus” of knowledge, but not truly understanding the answers that magically appear on her of his screen.  As Shirk (2010) explains the “ways of coming up with the right answer that involve simply asking other people, without internalizing the process, don’t actually educate the student” (p. 148).  In the novel, he explains the problem that arose with Ryerson College about this virtual study group.  Shirky (2010) found “The community at Ryerson (and indeed, at all educational institutions) has nothing left but to forge a new bargain, explaining to students which modes of sharing are okay and which aren’t” (p. 150). 

    

     Another example of this participatory learning is a friend of mine’s daughter’s experience as a freshman at a private university in Wisconsin.  Her daughter emailed her reflection paper for one of her classes to a friend, who ended up cutting and pasting a few of the thoughts on her own paper.  Needless to say, fifteen years ago that same student would have had to physically ‘cut and paste,’ which would have been easy to identify which person had the original thought and which person did not.  Both students were reprimanded by their teacher for plagiarism, because the professor could not determine who the author of the thought was.  Fortunately, the young women did confess that she was the person that took the information from her friend.  The amazing thing was that this student did not realize that using her friend’s “cognitive surplus” was wrong.  She agreed with her friends thoughts and believed she could use that information on her paper.  This is another example that we as educators need to be explicit in what sharing is allowed and what sharing it not.

     The media is also finding challenges in living in this participatory age.  The two greatest challenges to the media are no longer having a monopoly on who is or is not published and the public demands to have media have a two way communication with the viewer.  Before the internet and Web 2.0 tools, individuals were at the mercy of media to publish their thoughts.  As Shirky (2010) explains, “Publishing used to be something we had to ask permission to do; the people whose permission we had to ask were publishers.  Not anymore” (p. 46).  There is a concern as Shirky (2010) warns that “Increasing freedom to publish does diminish average quality” (p. 47).  One example of this is ‘Lolcat.’  Lolcat is a website that has a picture of a cat, in which people can put a witty (but unfortunately in most cases a stupid) caption over the cat’s head.  Shirky (2010) explained, “Formed quickly and with a minimum of craft, the average lolcat image has the social value of a whoopee cushion and the cultural life span of a mayfly” (p. 18).  However it is wrong to think that just because we have more outlets of thoughts that there is less quality.  Our society often equates scarcity with quality.  As Shirky (2010) explains, “Scarcity is easier to deal with than abundance, because when something becomes rare, we simply think it more valuable than it was before.”  He added, “When a resource is scarce, the people who manage it often regard it as valuable in itself, without stopping to consider how much of the value is tied to its scarcity” (p. 49-50).  There are differences between professional and amateur media, but we need to note that one is not better than the other, it is only different.  One difference is that professional media is focused on making money for the product, whereas amateur media is often not trying to earn money.  One concern is that there can be as Carr’s defines “digital sharecropping” as found in Shirky (2010).  It states, “With digital sharecropping, the platform owners get the money and the creators of the content don’t, a situation Carr regards as manifestly unfair” (p. 57).  An example found in Shirky (2010) of digital sharecropping is AOL.

     Another problem the public had with the monopoly that the media had was having the ability to mass distribute what the author had created when the media chose it was not worthy of publication.  Shirky (2010) added, “In those days, anyone could produce a photograph, a piece of writing or a song, but they had no way to make it widely available.  Sending messages to the public wasn’t for the public to do, and lacking the ability to easily connect with one another, our motivation to create was subdued” (p. 61).  This new age provides us the ability to bypass the media and mass distribute our thoughts to not only a local or national audience, but a global audience.  There are numerous examples of mass distribution of individual’s creations including YouTube, Flickr and Blogs.  One question I have is YouTube going to have its own “Academy Awards” of the videos that are posted on its website?  This awards show would truly be the everyday man’s award show.  The event should be aired on the computer, not on television.  The trophy could be an old picture tube from a television, symbolizing the end of this media and the movement towards media viewing on the computer.

     Media is starting to understand that many viewers do not want a one way communication with what they are watching, but a two way communication.   The audience is demanding that as Shirky (2010) states “Media that’s targeted at you but doesn’t include you may not be worth sitting still for” (p. 213).  One television show that realized the power of engaging its viewership was “Lost.”  As Dan Hill explained in his essay found in Shirky (2010), “the viewers of that show weren’t just viewers—they collaboratively created a compendium of material related to that show called Lostpedia.  Even when they are engaged in watching TV, in other words, many members of the networked population are engaged with one another, and this engagement correlates with behavior other than passive consumption (p. 11).  YouTube is another example of this interactive media, whereas people can post their comments about the video and rank it.  In the future, it will be ever important for media to evolve from this one way communication medium to one that Shirky (2010) describes as “consuming, producing and sharing side by side, and that those possibilities are open to everyone” (p. 213).  

     The third challenge of living in a participatory culture is having all of the members of that culture understand their role and responsibilities attached to being part of this culture.  Social networking websites have numerous people with different motivations accessing the site.  It truly is a new age where people of common interests can connect not only with one another in their community, but people with common interest from throughout the world.  There are concerns that these specifically created venues need to consider.  Shirky (2010) warns “This ‘go public’ to find people who think like you strategy has created an unprecedented increase in the amount of material that is available to the public but not intended for the public - - its creators are looking not to reach some generic audience but rather to communicate with their soul mates, often within a sense of shared cultural norms that differ from those of the outside world” (p. 90).  These groups must be aware that not all of the participants have the same values as the core group.  There is also the problem of freeloading.  This is the problem of participants not sharing in the discussion, but just taking from the group’s cognitive surplus.  The reason this happens as found in Shirky (2010), “It’s easy to tell in an intimate setting who’s showing up to be part of the event, while in larger groups it’s much easier to be a looky-loo, consume without participating” (p.147). 

     These examples are why these social networking groups should have governance among its members to lessen the possibility of these problems arising in the first place.  Shirky (2010) concurs the value of governance, “unlike personal or communal value, public value requires not just a new opportunities for old motivations; it requires governance, which is to say ways of discouraging or preventing people from wrecking either the process or the product of the group (P. 177).  He adds that “There is no one-size-fits-all set of rules for governing groups that create public value” (p. 178).  EBAY is a good example of how an organization helped its community understand the value of governance by showing long-term value, in which people will continue to buy from that member, because of the establishment of a rating system of the quality of past transactions from consumers that bought from that member.  Surprisingly, it’s often the internal threats and not external threats that have the greatest impact on a social networking group.  The reason as found in Shirky (2010), “Because the biggest threat to group action is internal, voluntary groups need governance so that we can defend ourselves from ourselves; we need governance to create a space we can create in” (p. 179).  In developing these governance rules it is important to have self governance as one of the components.  Shirky (2010) explains “Public or civic value require commitment and hard work among the core group of participants” (p. 180).  Individuals in the community must understand their role and abide in the governance of the social network; if not there will surely be problems.

     I thought the question posed by Dr. Kim on “Will technology lead us to cultural uniformity or diversity” was an interesting question.  I believe that technology will lead us to diversity of thought and not cultural uniformity.  As was noted previously in this reflection paper, the media had a monopoly on thought.  Only what it deemed worthy of mass publication was shared with the public.  As Shirky (2010) states “if you were a citizen of that world, and you had something you needed to say in public, you couldn’t.  Period” (p. 61).  We are now hearing voices from a multitude of people from down the street to around the world that would never have before had the opportunity to communicate their thoughts to the masses.  I believe Shirky (2010) stated it well that “The use of tools that support public expression has gone from narrow to broad in the space of a decade.  What seemed a new channel for traditional media is actually changing it; what seemed threaten cultural uniformity is actually creating diversity” (p. 190).  It is our responsibility to utilize these tools to make our voice known.  One warning, it is also important to check the validity of what is being said, before believing it is truth at face value.  In the past, we had editors that would verify what was published was factual, in many cases we do not have this “fact-checker” on what is being published.  It is important that we as educators explain this to our students that just because it’s on the internet does not mean that it is true.  There are numerous examples on Wikipedia that have included inaccurate information and students have believed it to be true.  Overall, this new age of bringing diverse thoughts is of value to our society; however we do need to be wary of what is being said is in fact true.

     In conclusion, I believe that the connectiveness afforded by technology will lead to expanding consciousness.  Each human being has a need to be connected to other people.  In the past, we often used TV as a means of connecting us with others, namely the reason why soap operas were so popular.  Needless to say, TV is not a true one-on-one connection.  Shirky (2010) explains “We want to be connected to one another, a desire that the social surrogate of television deflects, but one that our use of social media actually engages” (p. 14).  I agree with Shirky’s (2010) novel that “Media is the connective tissue of society” (p. 54).  We want to feel needed and online communities help us feel a part of something bigger than ourselves and broaden our consciousness.  As found in Shirky (2010) “To participate is to act as if your presence matters, as if, when you see something or hear something, your response is part of the event” (p. 21).  The cognitive surplus of knowledge will grow our consciousness as Shirky (2010) found “Knowledge is the most combinable thing we human have, but taking advantage of it requires special conditions” (p. 140).  We are in the dawn of a new age where these conditions are right to increase knowledge as Dominique Foray discussed as found in Shirky (2010) “size of the community, the cost of sharing that knowledge, the clarity of what gets shared, and the cultural norms of the recipients” (p. 140).  In the end as Shirky (2010) explained, “we can now turn massive aggregations of small contributions into things of lasting value” (p. 161).  It truly is an exciting time to be alive and increase our consciousness and knowledge of the world around us. 

Trying not to be "Shallow"

As I started to read Nicholas Carr’s (2010) book, “The Shallows:  What the Internet is doing to our brains,” I was a little concerned that I would have the time needed to read the entire book and write my reflection paper by Sunday.  There was a time, a few years ago, that I was a voracious reader.  Now, reading seems to be more a chore than a luxury.  After I read Carr’s prologue, I realized I wasn’t alone.  Carr (2010) surmised “And what the Net seems to be doing is chipping away my capacity for concentration and contemplation” (p. 6).  It was liberating to learn that others are also experiencing the same problem as I am in immersing oneself into a book.  Carr’s novel helped explain this phenomenon of how the digital age is changing how we are assembling knowledge.      

      When I consider how knowledge is assembled in the digital age, I realize how very different it is compared to how we learned less than ten years ago.  A study reported in Carr (2010) done with students in 2008 by nGenera found “They don’t necessarily read a page from left to right and from top to bottom.  They might instead skip around, scanning for pertinent information of interest” (p.9).  I know that I am similar to these students.  I am in my last semester for my Master’s degree in Educational Leadership, over the last two years I have spent countless hours researching on the internet for my courses.  As I reflect back, I realize how often I was like Carr’s (2010) “skilled hunter” going through trying to find information; not reading from top to bottom, but scanning for key words and themes.  I agree with Phillip Davis as he surmised in Carr’s (2010) novel, “The internet may have made me a less patient reader, but I think that in many ways, it has made me smarter.  More connections to documents, artifacts, and people means more external influence on my thinking and thus on my writing” (p. 8).  It is amazing how much information can be accessed by only “clicking.”  The ease of obtaining these external sources encourages one to explore more deeply the thoughts of many divergent thoughts.  It wasn’t that long ago that research was done in the library using microfiche and card catalog files; the laborious process deterred one from researching deeply into subject manner.  The library is still the holding house of information; however it is evolving to have more computers available to access information outside the walls of the library instead of only what is inside.  Carr (2010) explained, “The predominant sound in the modern library is the tapping of keys, not the turning of pages” (p. 97).  One does  not have to limit their research to time spent in the library, but with access to a computer and the internet one can do all of the research they need in their pajamas and slippers in their home.

No longer is our knowledge assembled in a linear thought process.  The internet is a dynamic, sidetracking and multisensory experience of learning.  The old way of learning as found in Carr (2010) was “Calm, focused, undistracted, the linear mind is being pushed aside by a new kind of mind that wants and needs to take in and dole out information in short, disjointed, often overlapping bursts the faster the better” (p.10). 

The discussion on hyperlinks in Carr’s book was especially insightful to me.  I know I have spent countless hours doing research and clicking hyperlink after hyperlink.  It always amazes me that it seems like I have only spent an hour doing research, but when I look at the clock hours have gone by.  I have no relation to time when I am clicking from one link to another.  As Carr states, “Links don’t just point us to related or supplemental works; they propel us toward them” (p. 90).  We no longer are engaged into the body of the work that we are reading for a sustained amount of time, but are innumerably diverted from the original text to supporting material that are hyperlinked to the text.  I wonder how often people read an entire article on the internet, without clicking on one of the hyperlinks until after finishing the article?  I know that I often click on a hyperlink when I come to it, if I feel it will add value to what I am researching or reading.  Carr (2010) is correct when he says “hyperlinks are designed to grab our attention” (p. 90).  The problem is as Carr (2010) explains “By combining many different kinds of information on a single screen, the multimedia Net further fragments content and disrupts our concentration” (p. 91).  Another study also found the problems inherent with hypertext.  The findings of the study as found in Carr (2010) report “hypertext readers took longer to read the story, yet in subsequent interviews they also reported more confusion and uncertainty about what they had read” (p. 127).  In fact, “Three-quarters of them said that they had difficulty following the text, while only one in ten of the linear-text readers reported such problems” (p. 127).  Another troubling study by Zhu found that “comprehension declined as the number of links increased” (p. 128).

It is amazing at how the internet is shaping how knowledge is assembled in all different types of mediums.  These medium are changing its format to more closely align with the web.  Articles in newspapers and magazines are shorter.  Even television and movies are modifying its content to add web content.  Authors are also modifying how they write as Carr (2010) found, “Changes in reading style will also bring changes in writing style, as authors and their publishers adapt to readers’ new habits and expectations” (p.104). 

There are new skills needed in living in the digital age.  Thankfully our brains are able to adapt to these new skills.  Carr explains how neuroplasticity is helping us make these changes.  Before reading Carr’s book, I was not aware of “neuroplasticity.”  In Carr’s Chapter Two Vital Paths illustrates the evidence for plasticity.  Carr (2010) explains “Extensive, perpetual plasticity has been documented in healthy, normally functioning nervous systems, leading neuroscientists to conclude that our brains are always in flux, adapting to even small shifts in our circumstances and behavior” (p. 31).  Carr (2010) adds “Our brains are constantly changing in response to our experiences and our behavior, reworking their circuitry with ‘each sensory input, motor act, association, reward signal, action plan and shift of awareness” (p. 31).  There is one problem with neuroplasticity is as Carr (2010) states the “mental flexibility it grants us, it can end up locking us into rigid behaviors” (p. 34).  Being aware of this issue can help us from being stuck in these behaviors. 

      One of the new skills needed in living in the digital ages is the ability to do multi-tasking.  Multi-tasking is in; as Carr (2010) found “we have rejected the intellectual tradition of solitary, single-minded concentration, the ethic that the book bestowed on us.  We have cast our lot with the juggler” (p. 114).  In processing information in the digital age we are on information overload with multiple messages on a single computer screen.  In addition to what is on the web page we are viewing are other multiple distractions.  As Carr (2010) explained “we are plugged into an ‘ecosystem of interruption technologies’ coined by Cory Doctorow. (p. 91) - - Facebook, Twitter, text messages, etc.

      Another critical skill we need to develop in the digital age is lessening the impact as Carr (2010) contends “The web is a technology of forgetfulness” (p. 193).  There are several reasons why the web instills forgetfulness in what we are reading on the computer.  The main reason for this problem of forgetfulness is we are not processing the information into our long-term memory.  As Carr (2010) found “ “We’re able to transfer only a small portion of the information to long-term memory, and what we do transfer is a jumble of drops from different faucets, not a continuous, coherent stream from one source” (p. 125). As we click back and forth from hyperlink to clicking on an ad on the webpage to clicking on an email alert on the page we are reading, we are not allowing our brain to process a linear flow of content.  We are overloading information to our brains.  As Carr (2010) explains “The influx of competing messages that we receive whenever we go online not only overloads our working memory; it makes it much harder for our frontal lobes to concentrate our attention on any one thing” (p. 194). 

The overload in our brains is due to two main sources, according to Sweller, as found in Carr (2010) are ‘extraneous problem-solving and divided attention.  Those also happen to be two of the central features of the Net as an informational medium.” (p. 125).  As we process information we must as Kandel writes as found in Carr (2010), “For a memory to persist the incoming information must be thoroughly and deeply processed” (p. 193).  We as learners must as Wallace stated in Carr (2010), “It means being conscious and aware enough to choose what you pay attention to and to choose how you construct meaning from experience” (p. 195).  We must realize that plasticity impacts how our brain works.  As Carr (2010) explains “Thanks once again to plasticity of our neuronal pathways, the more we use the Web, the more we train our brain to be distracted—to process information very quickly and very efficiently but without sustained attention” (p. 194).  Needless to say we cannot stop this information overload as we use the internet.  We can control how we utilize the content on the web in order to have a greater long-term understanding of what we learned.  If we take the time to read the entire content of the article we are reading and then use the hyperlinks for additional learning, will facilitate a better understanding of the original content.  If we do not allow ourselves to be drawn away from the content we are reading when we get a new Facebook or email alert, we can remain focused on the content at hand.  I believe Carr’s analogy of the clock is appropriate for the internet.  He contends that once the public started using clocks it dictated to us “In deciding when to eat, to work, to sleep, to wake up, we stopped listening to our senses and started obeying the clock” (p. 211).  The internet has also done this by being our all in all in.  As Carr (2010) explains “The electronic revolution is approaching its culmination as the computer—desktop, laptop, handheld—becomes our constant companion and the Internet becomes our medium of choice for storing, processing, and sharing information in all forms, including text” (p.76).  We are never far from it and feel lost if it is not near.  We need to be mindful that we do not let our technology control us.

One last thought.  The internet is an incredible resource that we are privilege to use.  However, I work with the Bay Area Workforce Development Board (BAWDB).  The BAWDB is a non-profit organization that receives federal tax dollars to fund training for job seekers, along with staffing the job centers in ten counties in northeast Wisconsin.  One of its greatest challenges is to help job seekers who are in their 40s or older learn how to utilize the computer and internet.  Many employers are having all their job listings posted on their webpage.  In order to apply for a position, the job seeker must fill out an online form.  Many of these job seekers are not skilled in even turning on a computer, let alone surf the web and fill out an online job application.  The government needs to consider how to help all of the public be not only reading and math literate, but also computer literate.  Training dollars need to be invested to help all people be able to navigate the technological age that we now live in.  If not, there will be many people left behind that are valuable members of society, but cannot function in this new technological age.