Distinctions, real and conceptual, in being “online” or “offline” have featured heavily in the ways educational researchers have understood and approached research into the lives and practices of young people. Even as we argued that bridges must be built between “on” and “off,” our research has reflected a set of deeply entrenched metaphors about the Internet.
Focus of Study
This article takes a qualitative approach, using semistructured interviews and object ethnographies within a postphenomenological theoretical frame to explore how contemporary young people understand and experience “the Internet” and “online–offline” alongside their engagement with ubiquitous smartphones. Here, the article positions itself in the emerging new materialism studies alongside speculative realism and posthumanism, but with a particular focus on where the philosophy of technology known as postphenomenology can lead us in our thinking.
Research Design
The interviews described here were conducted in English and form part of a larger ongoing research project focused on understanding the impacts of mobile digital technologies on young people, including tracking shifts in the metaphors used to explain their everyday lives with digital media. To date, the project includes 41 surveys and a dozen semistructured interviews conducted in person in the United Kingdom and Europe, or, where necessary, via Skype and/or email. The interviews described here were conducted in person in 2015 in England. Analysis was conducted via critical discourse analysis and metaphor analysis.
Conclusions
The article demonstrates that our dated metaphors of online/offline are no longer fit for purpose when speaking about the activities, practices, beliefs, and priorities of these young women. The views of these young women are illuminating and challenging, and they pave the way for how we might usefully theorize the practices with text and technologies that they carry across different presences.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AkrichM. (1992). The de-scription of technological objects. In BijkerW., & LawJ. (Eds.), Shaping technology/building society: Studies in sociotechnical change (pp. 205–224)). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
2.
AlvermannD. (2008). Why bother theorizing adolescents' online literacies for classroom practice and research?Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 52(1), 8–19).
3.
AlvermannD. (Ed.). (2010). Adolescents' online literacies: Connecting classrooms, digital media, and popular culture. New York, NY: Peter Lang.
4.
AndersonB. (2006). Imagined communities: Reflections on origin and spread of nationalism (Rev. ed.). New York, NY: Verso.
ApplinS., & FischerM. (2011a, February). A cultural perspective on mixed, dual and blended reality. Paper presented at the IUI Workshop on Location Awareness for Mixed and Dual Reality, LAMDa'11, Palo Alto, CA. Retrieved from http://www.dfki.de/LAMDa/accepted/ACulturalPerspective.pdf
BaradK. (2003). Posthumanist performativity: Toward an understanding of how matter comes to matter. Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 28(3), 801–831).
9.
BaumanZ. (2001). The individualized society. London, England: Polity Press.
10.
BeckU., & Beck-GernsheimE. (2001). Individualization: Institutionalized individualism and its social and political consequences. London, England: Sage.
11.
BlackR., KorobkovaK., & EplerA. (2014). Barbie girls and Xtractaurs: Discourse and identity in virtual worlds for young children. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 14(2), 265–285).
12.
boydd. (2015). It's complicated: The social lives of networked teens. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
13.
BraidottiR. (2013). The posthuman. Cambridge, MA: Polity Press.
CarringtonV. (2008). “I'm Dylan and I'm not going to say my last name”: Some thoughts on childhood, text and new technologies. British Educational Research Journal, 34(2), 151–166).
16.
CarringtonV. (2012). “There's no going back.” Roxie's iPhone: An object ethnography. Language and Literacy, 14(2), 27–40).
17.
CarringtonV. (2013). An argument for assemblage theory: Integrated spaces, mobility and polycentricity. In BurkeA., & MarshJ. (Eds.), Children's virtual play worlds: Culture, learning, and participation (pp. 200–216)). New York, NY: Peter Lang.
18.
CarringtonV. (2015). “It's changed my life”: iPhone as technological artefact. In JonesR., HafnerC., & ChikA. (Eds.), Discourse and digital practices: Doing discourse analysis in the digital age (pp.158–174)). London, England: Routledge.
19.
CarringtonV., & DowdallC. (2013). The stuff of literacies: Constructing an object ethnography of global media cultures and young people's everyday lives. In HallC., CreminT., ComberB., & MollL. (Eds.), International handbook of research in children's literacy, learning and culture (pp. 96–107)). London, England: Wiley-Blackwell.
20.
CastellsM. (2012). Networks of outrage and hope: Social movements in the internet age. New York, NY: Polity Press.
DaviesJ. (2006). Escaping to the borderlands: Exploration of the Internet as a cultural space for teenaged Wiccan girls. In PahlK., & RowsellJ. (Eds.), Travel notes from the new literacy studies (pp. 57–71)). New York, NY: Multilingual Matters.
23.
DaviesJ. (2007). Display, identity and the everyday: Self-presentation through digital image sharing. Discourse, Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 28(4), 549–564).
24.
GeeJ. (2003). What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
25.
HarmanG. (2005). Guerrilla metaphysics: Phenomenology and the carpentry of things. Peru, IL: Carus.
26.
HarmanG. (2010). Towards speculative realism: Essays and lectures. New York, NY: Zero Books.
27.
HeideggerM. (1978). Being and time. London, England: Wiley Blackwell. (Original work published 1927)
HineC. (2015). Ethnography for the Internet. London, England: Bloombury.
30.
IhdeD. (1995). Postphenomenology: Essays in the postmodern context. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.
31.
ItoM., AntinJ., FinnM., LawA., & ManionA. (2013). Hanging out, messing around, and geeking out: Kids living and learning with new media. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
LakoffG., & JohnsonM. (2008). Metaphors we live by. London, England: University of Chicago Press.
34.
LammersJ., MagnificoA., & CurwoodJ. (2014). Exploring tools, places, and ways of being: Audience matters for developing writers. In PytashK., & FerdigR. (Eds.), Exploring technology for writing and writing instruction (pp. 186–201)). New York, NY: IGI Global.
35.
LankshearC., & KnobelM. (2002). Do we have your attention? New literacies, digital technologies, and the education of adolescents. In AlvermannD.E. (Ed.), Adolescents and literacies in a digital world (pp. 19–39)). New York, NY: Peter Lang.
36.
LankshearC., & KnobelM. (2006). Digital literacies: Policy, pedagogy and research considerations for education. Nordic Journal of Digital Literacy, 1(1), 12–24).
37.
LatourB. (1992). Where are the missing masses? The sociology of a few mundane artifacts. In BijkerW.E., & LawJ. (Eds.), Shaping technology/building society (pp. 225–258)). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
38.
LatourB. (2007). Reassembling the social: An introduction to actor network theory. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
39.
LawJ. (2004). After method: Mess in social science research. London, England: Routledge.
40.
LeanderK. M., & McKimK. K. (2003). Tracing the everyday “sitings” of adolescents on the Internet: A strategic adaptation of ethnography across online and offline spaces. Education, Communication, & Information, 3(2), 211–240).
41.
LivingstoneS. (2011). Internet, children and youth. In ConsalvoM., & EssC. (Eds.), The handbook of Internet studies (pp. 348–368)). Oxford, England: Wiley-Blackwell.
42.
LivingstoneS., HaddonL., GörzigA., & ÓlafssonK. (2010). Risks and safety on the Internet: The perspective of European children. Full findings and policy implications from the E Kids Online survey of 9-16 year olds and their parents in 25 countries. The London School of Economics and Political Science. (ISSN 2045-256X)
43.
LivingstoneS., HaddonL., VincentJ., MascheroniG., & ÓlafssonK. (2014). Net children go mobile: The UK report. London, England: London School of Economics and Political Science.
44.
MarkhamA. (2003, October). Metaphors reflecting and shaping the reality of the Internet: Tool, place, way of being. Paper presented at the conference of the International Association of Internet Researchers, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. Retrieved from http://markham.internetinquiry.org/writing/MarkhamTPW.pdf
45.
MarshJ. (2004). The techno-literacy practices of young children. Journal of Early Childhood Research, 2(1), 51–66).
46.
MasseyD. (1994). Space, place and gender. Cambridge, England: Polity Press.
47.
MasseyD. (2005). For space. London, England: Sage.
48.
MerchantG. (2009). Literacy in virtual worlds. Journal of Research in Reading, 32(1), 38–56).
49.
MerchantG. (2014). Moving with the times: How mobile digital literacies are changing childhood. In DuckworthV., & Ade-OjoG. (Eds.), Landscapes of specific literacies in contemporary society: Exploring a social model of literacy (pp. 103–116)). London, England: Routledge.
50.
PahlK., & RowsellJ. (2010). Artifactual literacies: Every object tells a story. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
51.
Santa AnaO. (2013). Juan in a hundred: The representation of Latinos on network news. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.
52.
ShaviroS. (2014). The universe of things: On speculative realism. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
53.
SicartM. (2013). Beyond choices: The design of ethical gameplay. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
54.
SojaE. (1996). Thirdspace. Cambridge, England: Oxford University Press.
55.
SpeedC. (2011). Kissing and making up: Time, space and locative media. Digital Creativity, 22(4), 235–246).
56.
ThomasA. (2007). Youth online: Identity and literacy in the digital age. New York, NY: Peter Lang.
57.
TuenY-F. (2001). Space and place: The perspective of experience. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
58.
VerbeekP. (2005). What things do: Philosophical reflections on technology, agency, and design. State College, PA: Penn State University Press.
59.
VerbeekP. (2006a). Acting artifacts: The technological mediation of action. In VerbeekP., & SlobA. (Eds.), User behaviour and technology development (pp. 53–60)). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.
60.
VerbeekP. (2006b). Materializing morality: Design ethics and technological mediation. Science, Technology and Human Values, 31(3), 361–380).
61.
VerbeekP. (2008). Morality in design, design ethics and the morality of technological artefacts. In VermassP., & KrossP. (Eds.), Philosophy and design: From engineering to architecture (Vol. 1, pp. 93–103)). London, England: Springer.
62.
VerbeekP. (2009). Cultivating humanity: Toward a non-humanist ethics of technology. In Kyrre BergJ., FriisO., SelingerE., & RiisS. (Eds.), New waves in philosophy of technology (pp. 241–266)), London, England: Palgrave Macmillan.
63.
VerbeekP., & KockelkorenP. (1998). The things that matter. Design Issues, 14(3), 23–42).
64.
VerhoeffN. (2014). Mobile screens: The visual regime of navigation. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Amsterdam University Press.
65.
WintersK., & VratulisV. (2012). Authored assemblages in a digital world: Illustrations of a child's online, social, critical, and semiotic meaning making. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 13(4), 529–554).
66.
WolfeC. (2009). What is posthumanism?Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
