This article reports on a study of adult literacy and learning in a public computing center where people contend with the new literacy demands of online government and other automated technologies. The study asks, (1) What literacy and learning practices are associated with digital governance? (2) What pedagogies support people to navigate digital government and automated technologies? (3) What are the broader implications of digital government for the work of adult educators? Bringing together sociomaterial theories of learning and methodologies of ethnographic case study, the study maps the literacies and pedagogies of digital government in the context of Deleuze’s society of control, arguing that digital-era governance spurs new forms of cognitive labor, new digital literacies and new pedagogies that are reshaping adult learning and the work of adult literacy educators. The article considers potential openings to “more than human” research and pedagogies that reconfigure adult literacy research and practice as sites of resistance to the control society.
ACORN. (2016). Internet for all: Internet use and accessibility for low-income Canadians. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada: Author.
2.
AttarD. (2005). Dismay and disappointment: Perspectives of inexperienced adult learners on becoming webpage readers. International Journal of Educational Research, 43, 495-508.
3.
BaradK. (2003). Posthumanist performativity: Toward an understanding of how matter comes to matter. Signs, 28, 801-831.
4.
BaradK. (2007). Meeting the universe halfway: Quantum physics and the entanglement of matter and meaning. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
5.
BaradK.DolphijnR.van der TuinI. (2012). Matter feels, converses, suffers, desires, yearns and remembers. Interview with Karen Barad. In New materialism: Interviews & cartographies (pp. 48-70). Ann Arbor, MI: Open Humanities Press.
BélangerF.CarterL. (2009). The impact of the digital divide on e-government use. Communications of the ACM, 52(4), 132-135.
8.
BelzerA. (2006). What are they doing in there? Case studies of volunteer tutors and adult literacy learners. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 49(7), 560-572.
9.
BhattI.De RoockR. (2013). Capturing the sociomateriality of digital literacy events. Research in Learning Technology, 21(1), 1-19.
10.
BogardW. (2009). Deleuze and machines: A politics of technology? In PosterM.SavatD. (Eds.), Deleuze and new technology (pp. 15-31). Edinburgh, Scotland: Edinburgh University Press.
11.
BraidottiR. (2013). The posthuman. Cambridge, England: Polity Press.
12.
ComberB. (2014). Literacy, poverty and schooling: What matters in young people’s education?Literacy, 48(3), 115-123.
13.
DaviesB. (2014). Reading anger in early childhood intra-actions: A diffractive analysis. Qualitative Inquiry, 20, 734-741.
14.
DaviesB.GannonS. (2009). Pedagogic encounters. New York, NY: Peter Lang.
15.
de FreitasE.SinclairN. (2014). Mathematics and the body: Material entanglements in the classsroom. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
16.
de FreitasE.SinclairN. (2016). The cognitive labor of mathematics dis/ability: Neurocognitive approaches to number sense. International Journal of Educational Research, 79, 222-230.
DeleuzeG. (1992). Postscript on the societies of control. October, 59, 3-7.
19.
DeleuzeG.GuattariF. (2005). A thousand plateaus: Capitalism and schizophrenia (MassumiB., Trans.). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. (Original work published 1987)
20.
DeWaltK. M.DeWaltB. R. (2002). Participant observation: A guide for fieldworkers. Walnut Creek, CA: Alta Mira Press.
21.
EdwardsR. (2010). The end of lifelong learning: A post-human condition?Studies in the Education of Adults, 42(1), 5-17.
22.
EhretC.HollettT.JociusR. (2016). The matter of new media making: An intra-action analysis of adolescents making a digital book trailer. Journal of Literacy Research, 48, 346-377.
23.
EubanksV. (2018). Automating inequality. New York, NY: St. Martin’s Press/MacMillan.
24.
FenwickT.EdwardsR. (2013). Performative ontologies: Sociomaterial approaches to reaching adult education and lifelong learning. European Journal for Research on the Education and Learning of Adults, 4(1), 49-63.
25.
FoucaultM. (1995). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison (2nd ed., AlanSheridan, Trans.). New York, NY: Vintage Books.
26.
GourlayL. (2015). Posthuman texts: Nonhuman actors, mediators and the digital university. Social Semiotics, 25, 484-500.
HamiltonM. (2016). Imagining literacy: A sociomaterial approach. In YasukawaK.BlackS. (Eds.), Beyond economic interests: Critical perspectives on adult literacy and numeracy in a globalised world (pp. 3-18). Rotterdam, Netherlands: Sense.
30.
HaylesK. (2012). How we think: Digital media and contemporary technogenesis. London, England: University of Chicago Press.
31.
HultmanK.Lenz TaguchiH. (2010). Challenging anthropocentric analysis of visual data: A relational materialist methodological approach to educational research. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 23(5), 525-542.
32.
Industry Canada. (2015). Digital Canada 150. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada: Author.
33.
IngoldT. (2011). Being alive: Essays on movement, knowledge and description. London, England: Routledge.
34.
IngoldT. (2013). Making: Anthropology, archaeology, art and architecture. London, England: Routledge.
35.
IrvingC. J.EnglishL. M. (2011). Community in cyberspace: Gender, social movement learning, and the internet. Adult Education Quarterly, 61, 262-278.
36.
JacksonA. Y. (2010). Deleuze and the girl. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 23, 579-587.
37.
JohriA. (2011). The socio-materiality of learning practices and implications for the field of learning technology. Research in Learning Technology, 19, 207-217.
38.
JonesK. (2000). Becoming just another alpha-numeric code: Farmers encounters with the literacy and discourse practices of the agricultural bureaucracy at the livestock auction. In HamiltonM.BartonD.IvanikR. (Eds.), Situated literacies: Reading and writing in context (pp. 67-86). London, England: Routledge.
39.
KubyC. R. (2017). Why a paradigm shift of “more than human ontologies” is needed: Putting to work poststructural and posthuman theories in writers’ studio. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 30, 877-896.
40.
LatourB. (2004). Why has critique run out of steam? From matters of fact to matters of concern. Critical Inquiry, 30, 225-248.
41.
LeanderK.BoldtG. (2013). Rereading “A Pedagogy of Multiliteracies”: Bodies, texts, and emergence. Journal of Literacy Research, 45(1), 22–46.
42.
MacLureM. (2013). Researching without representation? Language and materiality in post-qualitative methodology. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 26, 658-667.
43.
MangenA. (2008). Hypertext fiction reading: Haptics and immersion. Journal of Research in Reading, 31, 404-419.
44.
MargettsH.DunleavyP. (2013). The second wave of digital-era governance: A quasi-paradigm for government on the Web. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A, 371, 20120382.
45.
MatzatU.SadowskiB. (2012). Does the “do-it-yourself approach” reduce digital inequality? Evidence of self-learning of digital skills. Information Society, 28(1), 1-12.
46.
NeumanS. (2009). Politics in the age of control. In PosterM.SavatD. (Eds.), Deleuze and new technology (pp. 104-122). Edinburgh, Scotland: Edinburgh University Press.
47.
O’BrienR. (Producer), &LoachK. (Director). (2016). I, Daniel Blake [Motion picture]. United Kingdom: Sixteen Films and Why Not Productions.
48.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2012). Literacy, numeracy and problem-solving in technology-rich environments: Framework for the OECD Survey of Adult Skills. Paris, France: Author.
RieucauG. (2015). Getting a low-paid job in French and UK supermarkets: From walk-in to online application?Employee Relations, 37(1), 141-156.
51.
SavatD. (2013). Uncoding the digital: Technology, subjectivity and action in the control society. New York, NY: Palgrave MacMillan.
52.
SmytheS.BreshearsB. (2017). Complicating access: Digital inequality and adult learning in a public access computing space. Canadian Journal for Studies in Adult Education, 28(2), 67-81.
53.
SmytheS.HillC.MacDonaldM.DagenaisD.SinclairN.TooheyK. (2017). Disrupting boundaries in education and research. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
54.
TaylorD. (1996). Toxic literacies: Exposing the injustice of bureaucratic texts. Portsmouth, NH: Hiennemann.
55.
TooheyK. (2018). Learning English at school: Identity, socio-material relations and classroom practice. Bristol, England: Multilingual Matters.
