Mobile Literacies

Crazy John's caught manipulating confusing contracts

2008-01-18T14:48:00.000+11:00

Mobile phone contracts are notoriously confusing and difficult to understand. Different carriers, different devices, different plans. Contract? Pre-paid? Free calls? Texts? 3G? Mobile TV? There has been a high degree of dispersed coverage throughout the media over the years commentating on the confusing nature of choosing mobile phone contracts.

Research conducted by Nina Weerakoddy of Deakin University associates "...inflexible mobile contracts, confusing and aggressive marketing strategies specifically aimed at the teenage market, and inadequate information provided to prospective subscribers..." (Kingston, p.1-2) with mobile cost blowouts resulting in financial pressures on teenagers. Simply, the fact that mobile phone contracts are so confusing is a contributing factor for teenage financial strife resulting from mobile phone use.

Weerakoddy's research builds on that conducted by Customer Experience Measurement company, Global Reviews. Findings released in 2006 suggest:

"Australia's largest mobile telephone companies are leaving customers confused and unsure of their options.... The study revealed that major telcos left many customers unable to identify a suitable mobile phone plan online, that large numbers of emails receive no response, and that many phone operators did not actively seek to help customers identify the right plan for them.... Websites were also found lacking, with only one of the four telcos offering and online tool that helps customers choose a suitable plan. Most companies offered plan and pricing options online, but made it complicated for customers to understand which of those options was most suitable." (Winzer)

The clear connotation behind the findings of this research is that the major mobile phone telcos are complicit - even intentional - in creating customer confusion. I may be a bit suspicious, but when the major responsibility of a private company is to their shareholders, customer confusion, resulting in larger bills being collected by the telco, may just contribute to higher profits. What incentive is there to provide higher quality service and aim for clarity and simplicity in mobile phone contracts, if confusion gives a greater pay-off?

Perhaps this is just personal bias, but as the old saying goes: just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean they're not after you! I have been thinking for a long time now about getting a new phone - a 3G - but have put off in a large part by the confusing complexity of the options available, not just in terms of the devices, but largely in terms of the contract options. So, it was with a smug sense of satisfaction that I read today of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) slapping a writ on Crazy John's (mobile phone provider) for misleading advertising.

The ACCC '...alleges the mobile phone dealer...engaged in "misleading and deceptive conduct" through its advertising. The ads offered handsets on its Crazy Phone Plans "free" of for "$0". But the ACCC alleges customers had to pay for the handsets through call rates that were higher than those available on comparable plans that did not include a handset. It says Crazy John's breached two sections of the Trade Practices Act." (Leyden, Jan 18, 2008, p.23)

No doubt Crazy John's will have a vigorous defence provided against this charge: that the ads are no longer running, that these plans are only a small percentage of their overall sales (10%), or perhaps that it has something to do with their use of the Vodafone network. Whatever the defence, and whether or not this mobile phone retailer is found guilty of false advertising, one thing is clear: the confusing nature of mobile communication options and contracts overall contributes to enabling manipulation of consumer perceptions of what is a 'good deal' when purchasing a phone.

A free phone no doubt sounds like a great deal, but with charges on mobile communications so varied across providers, how many consumers would really be able to tell if they were being charged to much for their use of the phone? Was it cheaper than any of the other providers? As the reserach of Weerakoddy and Global Reviews mentioned above points out, it frequently difficult to know.

References

Kingston, S. (June 27, 2007). Media Release. Deakin University. Retrieved on 18 January, 2008 from: http://www.deakin.edu.au/news/upload/A260620087Nina_phones_final.pdf

Leyden, F. (January 18, 2008). "Watchdog acts on phone ads." The Herald Sun, p.23.

Rennie, R. (January 17, 2008). "ACCC charges Crazy John's with false advertising." The Age.

Winzer, J. (May 10, 2006). "Mobile Telcos Not Helping Confused Customers." Global Reviews. Retrieved on 18 January, 2008 from: http://www.globalreviews.com/images/press10052006.pdf

Mobile Phones: from everyday to emergency

2008-01-09T15:14:00.001+11:00

Much research demonstrates that a major motivation for having a mobile phone is for safety and security reasons. This is particularly evident in parental attitudes towards their children having mobile phones. The following two quotes come from separate – and very recent – reports conducted by the Australian Government’s Australian Communications and Media Authority:

“Parents…talked about the added security benefits that a mobile phone provided and how they relied on it to keep in touch with their children.” (2007a, p.10)

“Benefits arising from children’s mobile phone use are described in terms of including children’s safety and security, keeping in touch with family and friends, having the ability to make a phone call in an emergency and peace of mind for parents.” (2007b, p.31)

No doubt we can extend this belief in the comfort of always being connected, and the supposed safety and security this brings, to other individuals; that is, beyond simple parental concern for children. Certainly, children are not the only ones who find themselves in situations where their safety or security is threatened, situations where a mobile phone would come in handy.Recently in Australia there have been a number of instances where mobile phones have played a key role not just in individual safety and security, but in the resolution of emergencies that seem to transcend the everyday banality of their use. Three events drew my attention in recent months/weeks:

- miners caught underground during a Ballarat mine collapse in regional Victoria were able to contact authorities and rescuers on the surface using mobile phones. (Nov 19, 2007)

- recently two bushwalkers became lost in bushland. This was resolved largely with the use of mobile phones and the cameras on them: the lost bushwalkers were able to MMS images of surrounding topological features to authorities, facilitating a successful rescue. (Jan 3, 2008)

I would argue that mobile phones played a successful role in the resolution of the emergencies not because of their ‘special nature’ of being portable devices (of course this is important), but primarily due to their increasing banality! It is the very fact that they are found everywhere – in students’ pockets, in women’s handbags, in the briefcases and on boardroom tables – that meant they were actually present when needed in an emergency. It is the human element – remembering to use the capabilities of mobile technologies – that is the most innovative in these situations. In both cases, the people involved used these devices in such extreme situations only because they were such a part of their everyday life that they had them on their person. It is doubtful that the individuals involved actually thought in depth about how they their phones might be useful in such circumstances (though it may have crossed their minds), but rather, simply had the devices with them as part of contemporary everyday attire. It is not the devices themselves that are the exciting part, but the change in human behaviours.

We may frown at interruptions caused by mobile phones ringing at inappropriate times, but obviously, it is not the fault of the phones, but of the user: appropriate use of phones is a matter of individual behaviour. After all, these devices do not function all by themselves, but only through human interaction. The increasing capabilities of mobile devices are thus being utilized in a range of innovative circumstances: emergencies and life-threatening situations merely bring this more overtly to the attention of the media. But the use of mobile technologies in extreme situations is not wholly new, as was demonstrated by the use of ‘smartphones’ by embedded journalists during the Iraqi invasion of 2003.

Paul Levinson, in his text "Cellphone: the story of the world's most mobile medium and how it has transformed everything!" devotes a whole chapter of his text to the use of cellphones in warzones, pointing out how they change the way war is not only reported, but perceived by the media, and therefore, how the wider public understands such events.

It seems that the more these technologies become everyday and disappear into the fabric of social practice, the more likely they are to arise as tools of ‘salvation’ – or controversy (as depicted by the filming or articulation of crimes, such as during the Cronulla riots.). News reporting organisations no longer simply wait for something to happen involving mobile technologies, but actively solicit viewers to send in their own recorded footage of newsworthy events.

References

Australian Communications and Media Authority (Australian Government) (November, 2007a). Telecommunications today: Consumer attitudes to take-up and use. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia.

Australian Communications and Media Authority (Australian Government) (December, 2007b). Media and Communications in Australian Families 2007: Report of the Media and Society Research Project. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia.

Levinson, P. (2004). Cellphone: the story of the world’s most mobile medium and how it has transformed everything! Houndmills, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.

Litras, P (Nov 19, 2007). “Trapped Ballarat miners rescued.” The Sydney Morning Herald.

“Phone photos save bushwalkers.” The Australian, January 3, 2008. Retrieved on 10 January from: www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23002494-2702,00.html

Oh Warnie, Warnie, Warnie...what nxt?

2007-09-25T11:08:00.000+10:00

"Warne caught cheating by text, says wife" (The Age, Melbourne, Sept 24, 2007)

What next for Shane Warne, famous Australian cricket spin-king, and infamous mobile phone text addict? His wife/ex-wife Simone, accuses him of ending their marriage reconciliation by having yet another SMS-maintained affair, brought to light by a miss-sent text message. Of course, today's news reveals his side of the story - of course he is not denying the text message, but instead saying that their marriage was not in a period of reconciliation at the time, but over.

But the content of the text message was interesting in itself, revealing that someone whom we would expect to be quite competent in the use of SMS, made a slip-up, or a typo, or an error.

"Hey beautiful, I'm just talking to my kids, the back door's open." - Shane sent
"You loser, you sent the message to the wrong person." - Simone replied

I must admit, my first reaction was to laugh. Apart from the fact that popular news media discourse plays up the drama of Shane Warne's private life to the level of soap opera, I was entertained by the literacy event that had occurred.

When I first entertained the concept of 'mobile literacy', the generative thoughts arose from SMS language as a linguistic form of communication. I had seen far too many uses of 'txt' language emerging in formal English essays and exams, where they didn't belong. However, the New Literacy Studies approach - drawing on such researchers as the New London Group (1996; 2000), Gunther Kress (2003), James Paul Gee (2000; 2001; 2003), Victoria Carrington (2004; 2005) - opened up the nature of multimodal literacy to me, and a connection to the social life of individuals using mobile technologies. The connection between mobile technologies and multimodal literacy (or design) forms the core relationship for a concept of mobile literacies.

In terms of Shane and Simones' SMS conversation, how might we talk of the 'mobile literacies involved there?

First I suppose I should begin at the traditional concept of literacy as related to linguistic communication. In terms of grammar, language use, syntax, the messages are surprisingly traditional. There is no evidence of 'squeezetext', 'txt', 'acronymy', 'emoticonymy', etc (Carrington, 2004; 2005; Bodomo & Lee, 2002). This is not the language of digital natives, but rather, the traditional grammar of 'digital immigrants', imported into SMS as part of their immigrant accent (Prensky, 2001a). What was the purpose in this conversation for using full and expressive language, or is this they way they use language in txts all of the time? If the latter, then they may be an example like Larissa Hjorth (2005) uncovered in a Melbourne study, where a student indicated that there were different rules and expectations for the use of language in SMS conversations: long and expressive writing was a sign that the person writing it did not have full control of expected conventions of SMS language. Either way, at the level of linguistic literacy, both Shane and Simone seem to conform to traditionalist conventions.
What other literacy practices are involved then?

Gestural design? (New London Group, 2000, 25). Well there was an extent to which Shane's gestures in pressing the buttons on his phone were involved in the error of selecting the correct recipient for his message. Despite his dexterity as the 'king-of-spin' in cricket, did his fingers make an error in this instance? Then again, amid all the other SMS that this self-confessed text addict probably sends, what is just one mistake? Well, it did result in his wife/ex-wife finding out about a new indiscretion. The thumb-pads of mobile phones are not really designed for writing alphabetically based messages. Still, some young people seem amazingly adept at it, resulting in the development of such terms as 'thumb cultures' (Glotz, Bertschi & Locke, 2005).

There are however, specific features to mobile technologies which I do not believe that mutiliteracies approaches have yet adequately dealt with, and therefore I need to move further afield, into discussions of specific technological, digital, ICT, information and cultural literacy realms.

There has been a good deal written on the literacy practices involved in the use of Information and Communication Technologies (ICT). Since the mid-1990s, the Internet has formed a point of focus for a literacy researchers and educators, seeking to understand how this technologies are, and can be best used. From Gilster's concept of 'digital literacy' (1997) to research into the literacy practices involved with hypertext reading and writing, and the whole raft of other communication and entertainment mediums that this makes available. (Snyder, 1996; 1997; 2002; Snyder & Beavis, 2004).

I would like to draw from a single paper at this point, where Yoram Eshet-Alkalai (2004) reinterprets Gilster's concept of 'digital literacy' (1997) in the light of recent and continuing technological development. Eshet-Alkalai breaks digital literacy down into:

Photo-visual literacy: the art of reading visual representations
Reproduction literacy: the art of creative recycling of existing materials
Branching literacy: hypermedia and non-linear thinking
Information literacy: the art of scepticism.
Socio-emotional literacy (1997).

The most relevant of these for this circumstance is that of branching literacy. Here I apply it to the idea of writing an email, then linking it to a chosen address from the phone's address book or entered by hand. It is clear than unless Shane intentionally sent this text to his wife/ex-wife, and then this is where his error occurred: whatever method he used to select the recipient for his message was incorrect. Whether he used a recent call or message sent/received list, selected from the address book (perhaps the name of his mistress is similar to Simone), or entered the number manually (would he really keep track of a whole lot of numbers in his head?), this is where the misstep in his branching literacy practice occurred. Why this happened? Well, the only person to know would be Shane himself. When he sent the message did he realise immediately that it had been to the wrong person, and hope to hell his wife didn't understand it or take it seriously? Or did he just go "Oh shit!" and expect consequences?

In terms of a concept of cultural literacy as developed by Shirato and Yell (2000), where one understands the cultural and social restrictions for a particular form of communication, well, we can say that Shane simply wasn't paying enough attention. Considering his professional life has been plagued with incidences of womanizing and accusations from women all over the world that he had affairs or one-night-stands with them, he still wasn't paying enough attention in this case to avoid sending the message to the wrong person. Apart from being a personal stuff-up, it may also be indicative of a social move where the use of SMS has become more normalised, more invisible, and for some people, and essential part of their communication regime. The use of SMS as a culturally confirmed communication medium - if we are to take the popular media as a measure - is confirmed in its increasing use across a range of popular media, from television, to newspapers, to advertisements, radio, websites, etc. SMS has become a typical communication tool integrated into the everyday lives of an increasing number of people in Australia - and worldwide, to differing degrees. Shane Warne's careless use of the SMS medium to conduct what the wider public may see as another example of his womanising, resulted in his 'backstage', private life, coming to fore in the public forum (thanks to his wife/ex-wife giving the story to a women's magazine) (Fortunati, 2005).

The activities of Shane Warne and his text messaging, provides a seemingly continuous source of soap opera drama for the Australian media to feed to the public. But what this incident demonstrated is it also provides an interesting insight into the ways in which social practice using mobile technologies can reveal a range of important literacy practices occurring. Competence in the use of mobile technologies for effective communication – or capable mobile literacies – requires an individual to have competence in a range of multimodal literacy or designs. The indication here is that Shane Warne slipped up in some of these.

References

Bodomo, A. & Lee, C. (2002). Changing forms of language and literacy: technobabble and mobile phone communication in Hong Kong. Literacy and Numeracy Studies, 12(1), 23-44.

Carrington, V. (2004). Texts and literacies of the Shi Jinrui. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 25(2), 215-228.

Carrington, V. (2005). Txting: the end of civilization (again)? Cambridge Journal of Education, 35(2), 161-175.

Eshet-Alkalai, Y. (2004). Digital literacy: a conceptual framework for survival skills in the digital era. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 13(1), 93-107.

Fortunati, L. (2005). Mobile Telephone and the Presentation of Self. In Ling, R. & Pedersen, P. E. (Eds.). Mobile communications: re-negotiation of the social sphere. London: Springer-Verlag, 203-218.

Gee, J. P. (2000). Teenagers in new times: a new literacies studies perspective. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 43(5), 412-420.

Gee, J. P. (2001). Reading as situated language: a sociocognitive perspective. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 44(8), 714-725.

Gee, J. P. (2003). What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Gilster, P. (1997). Digital literacy. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Glotz, P., Bertschi, S. & Locke, C. (Eds.) (2005). Thumb Culture: The Meaning of Mobile Phones for Society. London: Transaction.

Hjorth, L. (2005). Postal presence: A case study of mobile customization and gender in Melbourne. In Glotz, P., Bertschi, S. & Locke, C. (Eds.). Thumb Culture: The Meaning of Mobile Phones for Society. London: Transaction, 55-66.

Kress, G. (2003). Literacy in the New Media Age. London: Routledge.

The New London Group (1996). A Pedagogy of Multiliteracies: Designing Social Futures. Harvard Educational Review, 66(1), 60-92.

The New London Group (2000). A Pedagogy of Multiliteracies: Designing Social Futures. In Cope, B. & Kalantzis, M. Multiliteracies: Literacy Learning and the Design of Social Futures. London: Routledge, 9-37.

Prensky, M. (2001a). Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants. On the horizon, 9(5), 1-2. Accessed at: www.marcprensky.com/writing/ (25 Sept, 2007).

Prensky, M. (2001b). Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants, Part II: Do they really think differently?. On the horizon, 9(6). Accessed at: www.marcprensky.com/writing/ (25 Sept, 2007).

Schirato, T. & Yell, S. (2000). Communication and cultural literacy: an introduction. St Leonards, NSW: Allen & Unwin.

Snyder, I. (1996). Hypertext: the electronic labyrinth. Carlton South: Melbourne University Press.

Snyder, I. (Ed.) (1997). Page to Screen: taking literacy into the electronic era. St Leondards: Allen & Unwin.

Snyder, I (Ed.) (2002). Silicon Literacies: communcation, innovation and education in the electronic era. London: Routledge.

Snyder I. & Beavis, C. (Eds.) (2004). Doing Literacy Online: teaching, learning and playing in an electronic world. Cresskill: Hampton Press.

Rudolph Giuliani's interrupting mobile

2007-09-24T13:20:00.000+10:00

The debate around the proper use of mobile phones in different social situations has again manifested itself, this time through the actions of the former New York mayor Rudolph Giuliani during a speech to the NRA (September 21, 2007). In the midst of his speech he was interrupted by a mobile phone call, apparently from his wife, which he answered, dealt with, and then reflected on the dual positive/negative aspect of modern communications, that one can be contacted anywhere, anytime. The most curious thing about this event though, is whether or not it was an authentic interruption, or a staged performance.

One video on YouTube [ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NljO7w8fXKc ] discusses this very fact through a comparison with a previous speech, made in June this year (2007) to a different group (a Latino based-group). Both mobile phone interruptions occurred in the middle of the speech, and both featured the "I love you" comment to his wife. Whether or not this incident was authentic or not was not the issue for myself. Rather, what interested me was the performance aspect and the meaning-making (literacy) practices at play - authentic or not.

Let's assume first that the "surprise" calls were actually authentic, that they were really calls from a loving wife to her loving husband, whom she was not aware was in the middle of the speech. In contemporary post-industrial societies there is an emerging social expectation that there are times when it is appropriate, indeed, important, to switch off one's mobile phone. It seems to me that a formal speech to a group of constituents would be such a situation. In answering his mobile phone in the middle of his speech, this forms a moment where the "backstage" is brought to the front. This phenomena was observed by Leopoldina Fortunati observed on trains in Italy: when individuals spoke about private matters on a mobile phone in public, there was a sense in which the public persona of the person was changed by the emergence of their private lives - the "backstage" (2005). The fact that we only hear half of the conversation creates a further sense of mystery, in that something has been revealed, we are just unsure what. However, we might also call it an error in his "cultural literacy" (Shirato & Yell, 2000) practices: he has misread the situation as one where it is appropriate to answer a phone and have a personal conversation. Then again, he does keep the phone conversation short, to the point and indicates that he will call back. However, in such situations, what is indicated to an audience may be that the personal call is more important that all of the people in the audience. It is interesting to note than in NEITHER case did he appear to apologise to his audience for the interruption (although I have not seen the entirety of either speech). Does this imply that his actions were a natural part of this activity, to be tolerated, indeed accepted and applauded? In both cases he did receive applause for his candor and involved the audience either through reference, or in the first instance holding up the phone and encouraging the audience to say hello. One could surmise that this is one such way in which the social practices around 'mobile fields' are being negotiated and transformed: despite reworkings of traditional rules of etiquette suggesting you give your full attention to your audience in such situations, this public figure has sought to change the predictability of the practice of the public speech, which "...change over time as people engage in them in partially idiosyncratic ways." (Dimitriadis & Kamberelis, 2006, 67). Will we see further examples transforming the field of the public speech and the habitus of the public speaker, through the use of new technologies in the future?

In any case, if the incident was indeed accidental and unintentional, then there is an extend to which more is revealed of the humanness of the politician - he has a wife whom he loves and commitments beyond the scope of the presentation he is giving - which is perhaps one reason why there is speculation that this was a staged performance, intended to humanise this public figure.

If these 'unintentional' speech interruptions were actually staged, there is still an extent to which they are important and indicative of changes in the way we communicate and make-meaning. In terms of literacy practices involved, a whole raft of multimodal design strategies are in play. There is the fact that he takes the personal call loud enough, using aural design, ensures that the audience is involved in, and drawn into the conversation. His gestural design, or body language - despite dropping his head initially to answer the call - remains open and directed to the audience, suggesting that this conversation is for them as well as himself. He additionally reflects in the latter speech on the nature of this 'modern age' and it's technology. Thus the mobile phone call becomes yet another way for the politician to draw comparisons and similarities with the lived experiences of his audience: "See, I get phone calls at all sorts of strange times too! It can be bad and it can be good, but it is a part of the modern world that we share." In such a case the mobile technology serves as a form of symbolic communication (Katz & Sugiyama, 2006) or even symbolic capital (Bourdieu, 1977). In both these cases, the incident of mobile communication means more than simply taking a phone call: in the particular context of use, it takes on a range of connotations and meanings. The "I love you" line to his wife, repeated in the latter speech, obviously draws on a discourse of domesticity, drawing Giuliani as a caring and loving husband. The fact that the call arrives in the middle of a formal speech - apart from providing a ready-made audience for his gushing sentiments - also creates a performance of an imperfect human, prey to the inconsistencies and interruptions of daily life. The mobile phone in this case, becomes a tool of communication, to create discourse of humanness around the political figure. As a form of symbolic capital it may be surmised, mixed results are achieved. Whilst the place of a private mobile phone call in the midst of a formal presentation provides a catalyst for debate around 'mobile manners', in this case it is used to bring the "backstage" - or his private life - to the fore, to create a positive image of his domestic life (Fortunati, 2005). The most telling indicator of this is the loving and positive nature of the call. What a different image would have been put across if the call had been from his wife, berating him for something, or accusing him of being unfaithful. The symbolic value of the mobile phone in such a case would be far from positive.

Overall, the most curious thing about this event was simply the disruption of a traditional social practice by an individual's engagement with a mobile technology. Does this mean we are on the verge of witnessing a new wave of transgressions of traditional literacy inspired by social practices around mobile technologies. We have already seen this with the emergence of SMS - where traditional rules of written communication and grammar are transgressed and transformed in the emergence of a new written form. To what extent will social and literacy practices around mobile technologies continue to change other aspects of our literate lives?

Needless to say, in the wider media (e.g. morning news television) it has sparked debate and discussion about when and where it is appropriate to use mobile phones, and various other features of mobile technologies (SMS) and other technologies (email). This is of course one area that my current research with high school students seeks to examine.

References

Bourdieu, P. (1977). Outline of a theory of practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Dimitriadis, G. & Kamberelis, G. (2006). Theory for Education. New York: Routledge.

Fortunati, L. (2005). "Mobile telephone and the presentation of self." In Ling, R. & Pedersen, P.E. (Eds.). Mobile communications: re-negotiation of the social sphere. London: Springer-Verlag, 203-218.

Katz, J.E. & Sugiyama, S. (2006). "Mobile phones as fashion statements: evidence from student surveys in the US and Japan." new media & society, 8(2), 321-337.

Schirato, T. & Yell, S. (2000). Communication and cultural literacy: an introduction. St Leonards, NSW: Allen & Unwin.

Impact of Mobile Phone on Work/Life Balance - ANU Preliminary Report

2007-07-17T14:32:00.000+10:00

Recently released preliminary findings from an Australian National University (ANU), AMTA/ARC study has supported the belief that the mobile phone is becoming an indispensable part of everyday life for the majority of Australians.

This large quantitative research project, reporting on findings from Phase 1 of the research, is based around a questionnaire, mobile phone log and 24 hour time diary. The result is a sample size of 1358 individuals from 845 households. Of this sample, the age-group that used mobile phones the most were aged between 18-39. Can we really have a moral panic about student use of mobile technologies in secondary schools, when many of their teachers use them even more frequently?

Some other interesting findings to come out of the research, even at this early stage, have to do with the factors influencing the individual's choice of 'different communication modalities'. These include why individuals use mobile phones as opposed to landlines, and why people send text messages instead of making a phone call.

When choosing a mobile phone over a landline, 'convenience' is the major influence, but when choosing and landline over a mobile, the major factor is 'cost' (Wajcman, et.al., 2007, 11). Making decisions between texting or calling are also related to financial, contextual, as well as intra- and interpersonal dimensions:

"The major reasons for sending text rather phoning someone were convenience, consideration for the other person's situation, and cost. Convenience is also an important consideration when deciding to use the mobile to phone someone rather than sending a text but the main reason is how important or time critical the topic is. " (11)

It is refreshing to see some research into the effect of contextual factors on the modalities of contextual practices.

There was also some interesting preliminary findings on how people use their mobile technologies, focusing on what features they use. The vast majority of uses were for talking and texting, though there was still other uses emerging around using the visual (photos), voting, Internet and music functions of phones (around 20% each). It would be further interesting to see how contextual factors (such as those for choices between landlines, mobiles and texting) influence choices around these other modes of semiotic engagement.

This research is laying important new ground in scholarship about mobile technologies and their effects on the everyday social lives of Australians. It provides a statistical backdrop for more detailed ethnographic or case-study based investigations that can flesh out the lived experiences of people as expressed in the findings of this research.

I will remain interested in how this research progresses, it's further findings and how they may tie in with and inform my own studies.

The full preliminary report is available through the ANU website at the following URL:

http://polsc.anu.edu.au/staff/wajcman/pubs/Report_on_Mobiles_and_Work_Life_Balance_June_07.pdf

References

Wajcman, J., Bittman, M., Jones, P., Johnstone, L. & Brown, J. (2007). The Impact of the Mobile Phone on Work/Life Balance: Preliminary Report. Australian Mobile Telecommunications Association and Australia National University. Retrieved on 17 July, 2007 from: http://polsc.anu.edu.au/staff/wajcman/pubs/Report_on_Mobiles_and_Work_Life_Balance_June_07.pdf

Walliker, A. (July 17, 2007). Mobiles change world. Herald Sun, p.7.

Levels of iPod literacy as social practice

2007-06-29T16:45:00.000+10:00

I just watched a news report about the imminent release of the iPhone in the U.S.A. People were sitting in a queue along 5th Avenue in New York City, to get in early when they are released tomorrow.

In Australia we won't see it for about a year more, but it got me thinking about why the news would focus on such a story. The iPod has indeed risen to the level of a cultural icon. Already, there is a rapidly evolving realm of writing and scholarship on these compact music libraries (Jones, 2005; Kahney, 2005; Levy, 2006; Thomas, 2006).

For my part, I considered what meaning-making practices seem to be generally at play. iPods are generally used, in meaning-making process in terms of 'interpretation' (Kress, 2003) as opposed to 'articulation'. In terms of the multiple modes of textual design that are interpreted, they manifest in individual practice in two main fields: the outside world, or context of iPod use, and the soundtrack the iPod provides. The relationship between these two sets of texts is an example of multimodal social practice. But is it literacy?

How do individuals use the soundtrack the iPod provides to augment their external reality? To what extent are emotion, intellect, sociocultural influences, purpose and physical environment each involved in the choice of what one listens to on an iPod at any one time? There is a distinct different in the multimodal literacy practices where one intentionally listens to specific music because one is in the mood for a certain song in a certain situation, as opposed to simply putting the iPod on shuffle and randomly hearing (and enjoying or not) a selection of songs that evoke individual memories (Jones, 2005). Listening to a news podcast on a train in order to prepare for a meeting, is a different multimodal literacy practice compared to surreptitiously listening to pop songs whilst in class. And this is only considering the audio features of the iPod.

Meaning-making designs other than audio are present in the multimodal textual landscape of iPod use. Showing photos to friends using an iPod is another literacy event distinct from spending hours organising playlists. Identity, s is often displayed through different social practices during the use of iPods: the overt display of an iPod in public has a range of different (and related) meaning-making potentials to the intentional hiding of the device within one's clothing. To display an iPod is in way to claim: I am part of this! Or so it seems.

The problem about the relationship between the soundtrack one runs on an iPod and the context of its use, is that sometimes they don't fit neatly together. A man was recently critically injured after being hit by a tram in Melbourne. Witnesses reported that he had ear-phones in and appeared not to have heard the tram coming. Was he listening to an iPod? A music player of any kind? It doesn't really matter: the point is, the soundtrack he was running and the dangers of his physical environment were not congruent. The same situation may be observed by students listening to iPods during lessons: where attention is required, it cannot be fully given; the soundtrack generally doesn't match the focus of a lesson. Of course, this may not always be the case.

One can imagine situations where the soundtrack of an iPod could be used productively, to augment a specific situation to create a congruent multimodal experience. This has clear implications for learning. The use of podcasts to augment class based lessons is one example. One can also imagine guided audio tours of cities or landmarks using podcasts. Then again, there are already examples of this: in some Japanese cities you can access information on specific places in your physical vicinity using mobile phones (Thompson, 2005).

Well, now that we have the iPhone coming out, with an iPod fan base ready to go crazy over them, further possibilities may emerge for ways to augment reality using technology. What new soundtracks will we run to our lives? More importantly, how will we choose to access soundtracks? We will of course have to wait and see.

References

Jones, D. (2005). iPod therefore I am. New York and London: Bloomsbury Publishing.

Kahney, L. (2005). The Cult of iPod. San Fransisco: No Starch Press.

Levy, S. (2006). The Perfect Thing: How the iPod Shuffles Commerce, Culture, and Coolness. New York: Simon & Schulster.

Thomas, M. (2006). iPod Education: Innovations in the Implementation of Mobile Learning [Electronic Version]. The Knowledge Tree: An e-journal of learning innovation, 10, 4-15. Retrieved 8 December, 2006 from http://kt.flexiblelearning.net.au/edition-10/ipods-in-educationinnovations-in-the-implementation-of-mobile-learning/

Thompson, H. (2005). Phone Book: a handy guide to the world's favourite invention. London: Thames & Hudson.

ESSI Money Program - Financial Literacy for Adolescents

2007-06-22T14:28:00.000+10:00

A new program has been designed by the 'Financial Basics Foundation' to teach 'financial literacy' skills to students. The ESSI Money Program (Earning, Saving, Spending and Investing), takes around 6 hours and is based on simulating financial decisions over a 6 month period.

www.essimoney.com.au

"The game is a teaching resource designed around the concept of a challenge or quest. It is a structured exploration of financial concepts using mentors and educational scaffolding to create a valuable learning experience primarily for teachers and students, though individuals can register and play at their own pace."

What was interesting to me with regard to ICT literacies, was not just the fact that the whole program is computer based, but that understandings about the financial impact of communication using different technologies, is addressed within the framework of 'financial literacy'. Some of the key learning areas addressed relate directly to the use of specific technologies, such as 'Spending on mobile phones' (bills) and 'Investing scams' (such as bogus emails).

When channel surfing whilst having my morning coffee, I happened upon a segment on a TV about this, where Katrina Birch, from the Financial Basics Foundations was discussing how the program worked. The example given was that students are required to read mock newspapers that emerge in the course of the game. Later in the game, they receive a scam email: if they had not read the article on this scam in an earlier mock-newspaper, then it is highly likely they will fall for the scam. Part of financial literacy it seems, as configured by this Financial Basics Foundation program, is being aware of the contextual surroundings of individual financial decisions. This seems to be an extension on the concept of "cultural literacy" (Shirato & Yell, 2000), where an essential component is contextual understanding of communications. In this case, it is important to have an understanding of the financial risks involved in responding to some emails, whilst having knowledge of social and cultural practices occurring in the wider society (ie. the existence of scammers). A social practice is configured in this situation in terms of monetary understandings and knowledge.

Examining the use of mobile technologies by young people under the key learning area of 'spending', seems to reinforce a common cultural discourse that young people experience financial difficulties as a result of mobile phone bills. Whilst the alarmist promotion of this issue by the media is seemingly supported by an array of anecdotal evidences (testimonies from tearful teenagers and families who have experienced financial ruin as a result of runaway mobile phone bills), this idea is not always supported by research. In conducting focus groups with young people, the Australian Psychological Society found that dramatic difficulties over paying for mobile phones was not a massive issue for young people, with most able to manage this financial commitment competently (2004). I am not suggesting that a focus on 'Spending' on mobile phones is not an important part of a concept of 'financial literacy' - rather, in today's world it would seem to be a rather natural and common bill for most people - rather, I would suggest that we should not automatically assume that young people need our help in this respect.

It must be remembered that this new ESSI Money program is not limited to young people. Indeed, anyone can play it, although your character in the game - you - is only every 18 years old. With current Australian personal debt being at an all-time high, perhaps there are wide swathes of the rest of the community who would benefit from playing this game.

Of course, just how financially literate young people and adolescents already are, is still an area in need of more research.

The concept of financial literacy also got me thinking about my own concens with mobile technology costs, which I had termed broadly as a form of 'economic literacy'. Are 'financial literacy' and 'economic literacy' the same thing? Are these two concepts interchangeable or are they different?

References

The Australian Psychological Society (2004). Psychosocial aspects of mobile phone use among adolescents. Sydney/Melbourne: The Australian Psychological Society. Accessed on 16th January, 2007 at: www.psychology.org.au/news/mobilephoneresearchreport.pdf

Financial Basics Foundation (2007). Earning,Saving,Spending,Investing. Essi Money Website. Accessed on 22nd June, 2007 at: www.essimoney.com.au .

Mornings with Kerri-Anne, Broadcast Friday, 22nd June, 2007. Sydney/Melbourne: Channel 9. Accessed on 22nd June, 2007 at:
www.kerri-anne.com.au/news.php?newsid=437

Schirato, T. & Yell, S. (2000). Communication and Cultural Literacy: An Introduction (2nd ed.). St Leonards, N.S.W.: Allen & Unwin.

Bourdieu's Capital and New Media

2007-01-18T12:11:00.000+11:00

In seeking to understand the nature of mobile phone literacy practices as the activities of those involved in social practice, I have turned to the wider sociological theories of Pierre Bourdieu. His theoretical approach proves useful in the context for it is concerned with the activities of everyday social life and how these are linked to established cultural, social, symbolic and economic forces. The force that organises social interaction is configured as a process of exchange and the unit of exchange is capital.

Bourdieu's use of the term 'capital' to describe social interaction and reproductions has resulted in accusations of 'economic determinism' being leveled at his work, configuring it as another branch of Marxism. However, as Swartz points out, Bourdieu distances himself from Marxism (and to a degree, economic determinism) in three distinct ways:
- "The first way Bourdieu distances himself from Marxism is by extending the notion of economic interest to ostensibly noneconomic goods and services." (1997, 66)
- "A second way that Bourdieu distances himself from Marxism is by extending the idea of capital to all forms of power, whether they be material, cultural, social or symbolic." (73)
- "A third way that Bourdieu distances himself from Marxism is by emphasizing the role of symbolic forms and processes in the reproduction of social inequality." (82)
In essence, Bourdieu's concept of capital moves distinctly away from a strictly system, to act as a system of exchange that functions as a part of everyday social life (in both formal and informal fields). The different manifestations of capital are by no means discrete and easy to seperate: they continually interrelate in social practice

Carrington and Luke (1997) offer a succinct breakdown of the four different types of capital:
"Symbolic Capital: Institutionally recognised and legitimated authority and entitlement requisite for the exchange and conversion of Cultural, Economic and Social Capital.
Cultural Capital [manifests in three forms, as follows]
- Embodied Capital: Knowledges, skills, dispostions, linguistic practices and representational resources of the bodily habitus;
- Objectified Capital: Cultural goods, text, material objects and media physically transmissable to others;
- Institutional Capital - Academic qualifications, awards, professional certificates and credentials;
Economic Capital: Material goods and resources directly convertible into money;
Social Capital - Access to cultural and subcultural institutions, social relations and practices." (102)

The relationship between these various types of capital is a complex one, linked to habitus and fields through the central nexus of symbolic captial. As a system of exchange, capital linked to the process of labour (Swartz, 1997, 74). This work is not always conscious, as the nature of symbolic capital and symbolic work indicates: symbolic power is a system of exchange which legitimates to capacity of an individual to deploy other forms of capital within symbolic systems. Through 'symbolic violence', "symbolic power is a legitimating power that elicits the consent of both the dominant and the dominated." (Swartz, 1997, 89) Symbolic capital is therefore important in the establishment of 'distinction' as the 'natural order of things' through the establishment and naturalisation of 'paired oppositions' (84-85). Symbolic capital, is thus the nexus through which other forms of capital gain strength and validity.

Bourdieu himself points out only three types of capital: "...capital can present itself in three fundamental guises: as economic capital...as cultural capital...and as social capital...." (1986, 243). This is not to suggest that capital only works across these domains, and indeed the picture is a lot more complicated that this, with a fourth form of capital - symbolic capital - as a necessary feature "...for the exchange and conversion of Cultural, Economic and Social Capital." (Carrington & Luke, 1997, 102). This is not to imply simply that one form of capital can be easily converted to another, and vice versa, as despite the economic connotations to 'capital', the conversion of types of capital into other forms of capital is not always possible.
"How the various capitals interconvert also poses a problem. One contribution by Bourdieu to the sociological study of power relations is the forceful demonstration that cultural capital, social capital, and economic capital can be interchangeable. Yet the interchange is not equally possible in all directions. Social capital and cultural capital are more closely related to each other than to economic capital." (Swartz, 1997, 80).

The relationship of capital to social life is connected to the inculcation of habitus, the structure of fields in which they are deployed and the legitimation of such capital through the establishment of distinction through 'symbolic violence'. Literacy and language clearly links into this process as a symbolic system, as does bodily hexis (Bourdieu, 1991). Both act as forms of exchange in human society, dominated by semiotic practices of meaning-making. The extent to which individuals are able to realise different forms of capital is determined at both an unconscious level (habitus) and conscious level (attaining educational qualifications), though this does not necessarily mean that such power can be realised in economic terms. Rather, capital should be understood as the fabric of exchange behind social activity, whereby individuals seek to derive some form of 'profit'; be it symbolic, cultural, social or economic.

As the relationship between capital as configured by Bourdieu and the use of mobile technolgies in everyday life is an evolving theoretical landscape, we are left with ever more questions and few answers. How are dispositions towards literacy practices configured as different forms of capital across multiple fields? As mobile technologies increasingly make inroads into 'established' discourses of literacy, how will the landscape of symbolic and cultural capital that surround them change? If mobile phones (for instance) are increasingly used to strengthen established social relationships, what is the impact for social captial? How can social captial be expanded using the increasing convergence of technologies and capabilities, in mobile technologies? How will the increasing use of mobile technologies at an everyday level have an effect on the types of distinction that emerge? As mobile technologies disappear through ubiquity into the fabric of our everyday lives, will we be able to draw a distinction between capital realised in mobile fields and those realised in traditional contexts? And even if we can, what purpose will it serve, if any?

References

Bourdieu, P. (1986). "The Forms of Capital." In J.G. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of theory and research for the sociology of education (pp.241-258). New York: Greenwood Press.

Bourdieu, P. (1991). Language and Symbolic Power. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Carrington, V. & Luke, A. (1997). "Literacy and Bourdieu's Sociological Theory: A Reframing." Language and Education, 11(2), 96-112.

Moore, R. (2004). "Cultural capital: objective probability and the cultural arbitrary." British Journal of Sociology of Education, 25(4), 445-456.

Swartz, D. (1997). Culture and Power: The sociology of Pierre Bourdieu. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Webb, J., Schirato, T. & Danaher, G. (2002). Understanding Bourdieu. Crows Nest, NSW: Allen & Unwin.

Poststructuralism and Objective Structures

2007-01-15T12:30:00.000+11:00

In discussing my understandings of Bourdieu's theories and their applicability to my own research into the literacy practices of mobile technologies, with my supervisor, I have been given cause to reflect on my self-positioning as a researcher.

I must comment that when I first read the term 'objective structures' in Bourdieu's Language and Symbolic Power (1991) it did catch my eye. A small splinter in the back of my brain seemed to suggest that there was something 'wrong' here, something amiss, something that did not seem to gel with the rest of my poststructural leanings. Indeed, the very idea of something being 'objective' in any way shape of form, seems highly problematic to me, similar to describing the ocean as blue, when we actually know that this is a perceptual trick of light. This continual reference to 'objective phenomena' seems to be spread throughout Bourdieu's work, underlining his structuralist perspective. However, it remains something that I find difficult to accept.

So how am I to resolve this apparant contradiction between my poststructural beliefs and Bourdieu's identification of 'objective structures'? Can they fit together, or do they destroy each other as matter and anti-matter would?

Objectivity, in all its apparent forms may appear to be a 'truth', but such is the danger when one looks at one's own culture from within. I had always considered 'objective truths' within the field of social activities to be constructions of hegemonic discourses: 'truths' that could be changed, but only by those with the appropriate cultural and symbolic capital. In reviewing literature in this area (of which there is a mountainous amount) I was drawn to the work of James Paul Gee on Discourse Analysis.

The two central concepts at the heart of Gee's model of discourse analysis are "situated meanings" and "cultural models." (1999). With reference to both these concepts, there is a continual dependence on situational context for meaning-making. Let me take each of these concepts in turn, discussing their implications for my approach in dealing with the 'objective structures' identified by Bourdieu.

Situated meanings are based on a "pattern-recognition" (Gee, 1999, 48-52) model of the mind. It is based on an understanding that meaning is not an objective reality, but rather something situated in actual practices and experiences: "...meaning is multiple, flexible, and tied to culture." (40) Further, "...meanings are situated in relationship to history and in relationship to other texts and voices." (41) Meaning-making is thus tied up continually with contextual factors determined by the 'cultural models' at work in any given situation.

This concept in fact has a good deal in common with Bourdieu's understanding of the way habitus works for individuals in social situations, across fields. Indeed, as Schirato and Yell point out, cultural context is an essential component of Bourdieu's theories: "...practice, or what people actually do, is constrained by, and develops as a response to, the rules and conventions of a culture." (Schirato & Yell, 2000, 1). Both are based on an understanding of the deployment of dispositions, or actions, in response to a contextualised meaning. Through Bourdieu we might configure this relation as being one about how activities are conducted in response to a particular field, where the individual deploys responses according to their habitus, which is augmented by the 'capital' they have access to in that particular concept. It is here where his concept of 'objective structures' comes into play, as a determining aspect of social relations that helps define the capital that one is able to realise in certain contexts. Part of the structure of 'symbolic violence' is the necessary importance of 'misrecognition'. In this process "...agents are subjected to forms of violence...but they do not perceive it that way; rather, their situation seems to them to be 'the natural order of things'." (Webb, Schirato & Danaher, 2002, 25). It seems therefore that 'symbolic violence' is the way in which 'objective structures' may be maintained and gain their 'objectivity' in the mind of individuals. Whether or not we can equate 'objective structures' with 'cultural models' is a difficult and complex question.

At it's simplest level, Gee describes "cultural models" as being like "videotapes in the mind" (1999, 60-61), though he admits that this metaphor should not be taken too literally or simplistically, the situation being far more complicated that the description suggests prima facie (On a side-note, should we now be speaking of DVDs in the mind, or MPEGs in the the mind, avoiding the connotations of linearity that this metaphor suggests and instead moving to one that suggests we can skip to scenes without having to fast-forward through all the irrelevant 'stuff'? A rethink of the metaphor to consider.). Whilst cultural models may appear to be 'objective', this is only a result of Bourdieu's concept of 'misrecognition'. The distinction must be made though that whilst Bourdieu uses the concept of 'objective structures' as if they were external influences on social practice (well that's the implication), for Gee, the concept of 'cultural models' is always contextual and always linked to local cultural contexts. Cultural models are not an external construction of a society, but rather, shared understandings, shared Discourses (with a capital D) of individuals with similarly inculcated habituses. 'Cultural models can become emblematic visions of an idealized, "normal," "typical" reality...' (Gee, 1999, 60) yet is must be kept in mind that this is not an objective reality, but rather the construction of shared Discourses across a society. Therefore, just as with individual habitus there is variation, "Cultural models are also variable, differing across different cultural groups, including different cultural groups in a society speaking the same language. They change with time and other changes in society, as well as with new experience." (60)

Suggesting an alternative to Bourdieu's notion of 'objective structures' in order to reframe his theories in a more poststructural light, is a difficult, and no doubt, controversial move; though it is a necessary one I think. In his sociological work Bourdieu goes to great pains to be flexible, to lay open rules to breaches and difference. Therefore whilst he may say that individual interest is generally pursued at the unconscious or pre-conscious level, he still does not rule out conscious pursuit of 'interest': "There is, however, ambiguity in Bourdieu's work.... At times he admits conscious strategizing while at other times he insists on the unconscious character of interest calculation....Bourdieu is willing to recognize degrees of awareness of the interested character of some forms of action...." (Swartz, 1997, 70). It is difficult therefore to accept the place of 'objectivity', of strict certainty, within his theory.

I seek to move beyond any absolute certainty in the reality of social practices, to a more fluid understanding of social relations caught up in symbolic systems of power, 'cultural models', or 'Discourses'. As society and culture seems to move and change so rapidly - the massive impact of mobile technologies on social life is a dramatic demonstration of rapid change - we need a sociological understanding that is capable of accounting for these rapid changes, without getting caught up by principles of objectivity. I do not see this as leaving me at the mercy of unresolved and rampant subjectivism either: concepts such as Gee's 'cultural models' and the manner in which capital is continually reproduced as 'the natural' through Bourdieu's concept of 'symbolic violence', point to understandings of everyday life and the literacies involved therein, that can account for stability, as well as change.

References

Bourdieu, P. (1991). Language and Symbolic Power. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Gee, J.P. (1999). An Introduction to Discourse Analysis: Theory and Method. London and New York: Routledge.

Schirato, T. & Yell, S. (2000). Communication and Cultural Literacy: An Introduction (2nd ed.). St Leonards, NSW: Allen & Unwin.

Swartz, D. (1997). Culture & Power: The Sociology of Pierre Bourdieu. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Webb, J., Schirato, T. & Danaher, G. (2002). Understanding Bourdieu. Crows Nest, NSW: Allen & Unwin.

Response to iPhone Release

2007-01-11T10:43:00.000+11:00

With the release of the new iPhone yesterday (Jan, '07), I have been given cause to reflect about impacts on techno-literacy practices, due to its revolutionary new interface. Not only does it look really cool - sleek, uncomplicated - (on that basis alone I have decided that I WANT ONE!) but the interface is so different from all that has gone before it, that as stated in the media: "...the iPhone appears poised to revolutionise the way mobile phones are designed and sold." (The Age, Jan 10)

The first thing that I thought about when I saw the new design was how the input method was more like a computer than a mobile phone. Now I havn't used a Mac extensively since high school (at least 1995), but remember how menus were accessed, drag-and-drop features, and 'windows' well before I ever logged onto a PC. Features such as the ability to use a QWERTY keyboard, access internet sites and zoom in, listen to music and watch videos, send email and SMS, all point to this 'phone' being more of a mini-computer than a mobile phone, a shift in thinking that Marc Prensky has been calling for for a number of years (Prensky, 2004). When watching footage of the iPhone release, this was one of the features that struck me.

Another feature of the iPhone that seems really fresh is the fact that menus and features are accessed through an 'icon' interface. Whilst this feature has been common on many smartphones for a number of years, one still had to use the keypad or navigation buttons to scroll through and make selections. It is here, with the touch screen that the truely ground-breaking innovation of the iPhone comes into its own. The 'dislocation' between accessing phone features through clicking keys that correspond to a selection on the screen, is substantially diminished by being able to simply point to what you want on the screen itself. It seems to be a difference like that between handwriting and typing; which feels more human and 'tactile'?

I even found a website/blog where possible designs for the upcoming iPhone were displayed (http://appleiphone.blogspot.com/). It is interesting to note how a lot of the predictions subscribed to typical mobile phone or iPod design features (including keypads, navagation wheels, etc). And then there are some just plain 'far-out' designs. It is interesting to note though, that the touch-screen nature of the iPhone moves it dramatically away from previous model smartphones, making it closer to a PDA that you accessed with one of those 'stylus-pen' things. But here you get to just use your finger - point at what you want and it supposedly happens. I suppose it still remains to be seen what kinds of difficulties this touch screen producers

It also remains to be seen what effect this new design will have on individual dispositions with regard to communication. How will the 'apparant' easy of use of the iPhone influence dispositions towards modal selection for semiotically based activities? This is the area that really interests me. I have no doubt that the iPhone will take off extremely quickly - there is already the ready-made iPod market who will jump at this new device as a kind of 'up-grade' - but there will also be a large proportion of individuals that will be attracted to the iPhone due to its innovative design and features (not to mention the 'huge' screen size by comparison to other model phones!).

The effect of this interface design on the choices people make about everyday literacy events involved in communication and information retrieval/dissemination is of course a completely untested and unknown area. Sure, reading pathways will be somewhat limited (as with all phones) by those linkages laid down in the design of the product, however the ability of this device to access a wide range of internet sites opens up the possibilities for hypertext practices on the move in a very real manner. How will this ability to access a wide range of information sources at 'anytime' (take this idea with a pinch of salt of course) influence the decisions we make in everyday practice?

Will the apparent ease-of-use of the new interface have an impact on dispositions towards communication modes when using the iPhone? With the ability to use a QWERTY keyboard change the nature of SMS? Will the ability to send emails as easily spell the death of SMS to some extent? Will there be an impact on our dispositions towards making a phone call as opposed to 'txting' someone? Will the larger screen result in more extensive 'txt' messages or an increase in MMSing?

If the iPhone is taken up with as much enthusiasm as the iPod, what will be the results for the rest of the mobile phone market? With this device acting more like a mini-computer and presenting a functional convergence of technologies, a new expectation has just been set for the mobile technology market generally! I can't wait to see the response of other companies like Samsung, Sony-Ericsson, Motorola, etc., just as they responded to the iPod with their own portable music and media players. It is curious that Apple has called it an 'iPhone', when clearly the 'phone' is just one feature of many. The need to reconceptualise what we mean by a mobile phone or cellphone (or whatever other term is used), is clearly demonstrated with this new release.

It may be cliche to say: but the iPhone has set a new bar for mobile technology design, in terms of features, interface and design. The impact of these technologies on the literate practices of individuals in their everyday lives is of course yet to be seen or tested (in fact, the same could be said for most mobile technologies today in any case). I for one, am excited by this new release, this new innovation. Watching the impact across society and individuals should prove a far more interesting show than anything you could download and watch on it.

References

"Apple looks to reinvent itself." (2007, January 10) The Age.
Accessed on 11 January, 2007 from: http://www.theage.com.au/news/biztech/apple-looks-to-reinvent-itself/2007/01/10/1168105032307.html

Prensky, M. (2004). "What can you learn from a cell phone? - Almost anything!" Innovate!, 1(5). Accessed on 11 January, 2007 from: www.marcprensky.com/writing/

Vardarova, O. (2004). "iPhone Concept Blog." Retrieved 11 January, 2007 from: http://appleiphone.blogspot.com/

Bourdieu's Habitus and Mobile Technologies

2006-12-04T11:49:00.000+11:00

Upon further reflection, the nature of capital as discussed in the writing below needs further clarification - it is at times a vague and (I apologise) misused term. A discussion on the nature of capital will follow at a later time.

Mobile technologies are changing the nature of literacy practices among individuals at an everyday level in highly noticeable ways. Apart from the fact that mobile phones have become so ubiquitous, that you can be virtually guaranteed to see them in use on public transport, the convergence of technological features in such devices, is forcing a rethink of what exactly these devices are and the myriad of ways they may change the way we live our everyday lives. As I am seeking an understanding of literacy practices within the context of everyday social life, it seems only logical to place this within a wider theory of everyday practices. I had come across the work of Pierre Bourdieu during my wanderings through literature concerning literacy and new technologies; his concept of 'habitus' was something that immediately appealed to my poststructural sensibilities (despite a whiff of determinism).

Prima facie I found Bourdieu's concept of 'habitus' to be a breath of fresh air - logical, practical and based in the messy activities of everyday life (not in the archives of academia). It seemed logical to talk about individuals in terms of their dispositions towards everyday experiences. In order to explain this concept, I would like to start with a rather simplified explaination: "...habitus can be viewed as a complex internalised core from which everyday experiences emanate. It is the source of day to day practices." (Reay, 1995, 357) In examining mobile technology practices as they pertain to literacy events (broadly defined and not limited to linguistic phenomena) in everyday life, it is essential to understand the individual as a member of a specific sociocultural environment (in this case Australia), but as a self-determining individual nontheless. The concept of habitus allows us to conduct such an examination (despite claims that we can only do so indirectly).

In seeking to connect Bourdieu's complex concept of habitus with mobile phone practices, it was first necessary to define the general qualities of this term. Diane Reay breaks this concept down into what she sees as the "four main aspects of habitus" (1995, 353):

Habitus as Embodiment;
Habitus and Agency;
Compilation of Collective and Individual Trajectories;
Complex Interplay between Past and Present. (1995)

Let me unpack these themes with specific relation to mobile technologies and their impact on habitus, and the subsequent realisation of different forms of capital.

Bourdieu's acknowledgement of habitus' embodiment through bodily hexis demonstrates how individuals are not only in a social world, but the social world is incribed in/on their body. As with all dispositions within the habitus, this embodiment occurs through the process of inculcation: "The child imitates not 'models' but other people's actions. Bodily hexis speaks directly to the motor function, in the form of patterns of postures that is both individual and systemic...." (Bourdieu, 1977, 87) In this way, one's very physical presence in society, the embodiment of one's habitus (postures, gestures, ways of standing, speaking, walking) can be realised as different forms of cultural capital (at both a social and symbolic level). Consider how the mobile phone, as a physical object carried almost everywhere by people who own them (after all, that is the point of a mobile technology), functions as an embodiment of a particular type of habitus, with access to different types of capital than those people without one of these devices. The very presence of the device seems to say: "I am connected...I can be contacted, anywhere, anytime." As the embodied nature of habitus inscribed through inculcation, it may be the case that young people, who have grown up with these technologies as ubiquitous, take for granted the presence of these devices, and instead look for other features of these technologies as markers of 'distinction' with regard to cultural capital. Put another way, as the mobile phone increasingly becomes "...not only a tool to 'talk' but also...a means to communicate symbolically about oneself..." (Katz & Sugiyama, 2006, 324) the very physicallity of the device can be used as 'fashion' to as a way of expressing individual and/or collective identity. Depending on sociocultural inculcation, different features of the mobile device (appearance, functionallity, ease of use) may be weighted differently as cultural capital. Therefore, the mobile phone, as a part of bodily hexis, is inscribed as a part of habitus, for the very use (or absence of use) of a specific mobile device - and use in specific ways - realises different levels of cultural capital. It is doubtful, for instance, that a student with a 10-year old second-hand phone, would gain much cultural capital in a group of peers who valued up-to-date and the most modern model phone. In this way, embodied habitus can be linked to class and economic prevlidge realised as cultural capital. The connection between mobile technologies embodied in the habitus is no doubt far more complex that this short discussion suggests, but I want to move onto a discussion of habitus and agency.

The relationship between agency and structure is linked to the fact that "Choice is at the heart of habitus...but at the same time the choices inscribed in the habitus are very clearly limited." (Reay, 1995, 355) The agency of habitus is limited by a number of structuring factors, including fields, inculcation and various types of capital. It is this dialectic interaction between individual agency and structures which determine and restrict choice; capital is realised through the 'aptness' of a disposition for a specific context. There has been a good deal of criticism that Bourdieu's concept of habitus, as unconscious dispositions which drive our choices without us being aware of them, is too deterministic. This idea, that individual agency is restricted by factors beyond our control, ignores the fact that Bourdieu explicitly states that: "habitus goes hand in hand with vagueness and indeterminacy." (Bourdieu cited in Reay, 1995, 355) There is also Bourdieu's acknowledgement that habitus can indeed be deployed consciously: "It is, of course, never ruled out that the responses of the habitus may be accompanied by a strategic calculation tending to perform in a conscious mode the operation that the habitus performs quite differently..." (Bourdieu, 1980, 53). Whilst there may not be limitless choice incribed in the habitus, accusations that it is overly deterministic fail to take account of the flexibility and vagueness of this term. As Adams points out in attempting to resolve respective accusations of determinism and voluntarism levelled against the concepts of habitus and reflexivity, "disjunction between habitus and field has become the norm." (2006, 520) As such, reflexivity becomes incorporated into the habitus, historicizing Bourdieu's analysis in that we have moved beyond the stability of modernity that shaped his earlier analyses: nowadays, in times of constant change - or times of 'instablitity' as Kress might call it (2000) - "reflexivity has become a general capability reflecting social change." Thus, although objective structures of society (fields) may limit the agency of individuals, due to their habitus, there is a degree of movement and change still available (despite inculcation of the habitus). For elaboration, let us consider the situation surrounding mobile technologies: whilst 'digital natives' (Prensky, 2001) may have grown up with mobile technologies, meaning that individual agency surrounding their use in objective structures, generally results in the realisation of positive cultural capital, 'digital immigrants' have also become part of this mobile generation. The current use of mLearning in corporate environments (Metcalf, 2006), is testament to the fact that even those individuals for whom the use of mobile technology is not intimately inscribed and embodied in their habitus (through inculcation) are able to develop agency using these devices in objective structures. Of course, this is predicated upon a workplace field that supports such communication behaviours. In our schools for instance, this is not the situation. More often than not, mobile technologies are seen as a distraction to learning and the objective structure of the educational institution reduces the agency of young people to use such devices to develop cultural or symbolic capital for this field. There are other situations where the use of mobile technologies for literacy events is restricted by structures beyond the habitus, either through formal regulations (the illegallity of using a mobile phone whilst driving a car for instance) of social restrictions (speaking about a delicate private matter whilst on a crowded train for instance). As can be seen, the agency of an individual in accordance with their dispositions (habitus) is restricted for mobile technologies by various structures, as with any other form of social behaviour. Once again, this is by no means an exhaustive examination of this complex area; rather a starting point for further discussion and debate.

The nature of a habitus is linked to the nature of human beings: individuals who function in accordance with their own needs and desires (individual trajectories), which are inculcated by their experience of a particular sociocultural context, and so, to an extent, shared with the rest of human kind, or at least with other people in their shared social/cultural context. "A person's individual history is: constitutive of habitus but so also is the whole collective history of family and class that the individual is a member of." (Reay, 1995, 355) This is the essence of habitus being both a collective and individual phenomenon. This allows us to speak of habitus in terms of both cultural/social dispositions (ingrained in the habitus through inculcation), but also in terms of individual habitus (including all the quirks and variations of individuallity). But how is this relationship between the collective and the individual configured? If our habitus is always the product of our inculcation in a specific sociocultural context, how do we account for individual/personal style? Bourdieu himself suggests that: '...each individual system of dispositions may be seen as a structural variant of all the other group or class habitus ... "Personal" style...is never more than a deviation in relation to the style of a period or class so that it relates back to the common style not only by its conformity...but also by the difference which makes the whole "manner".' (1977, 86). Therefore, if we think of habitus as a set of guiding principles by which we live our social lives, we may consider that some of those principles are inculcated by the environment in which we live and develop, but equally, other principles are influence by individual dispositions, experiences and attitudes (individual trajectories). I would also contend that we leave room for biological imperatives as well. As laid out by Roos and Rotkirch (2003), there is room to take account of a 'evolutionary sociology' in respect to habitus. They agree with Bourdieu's concept of habitus, but urge that additional concerns be taken into account:

"The fact that lots of our bodily functions and emotions are based on evolved characteristics
The fact that the way in which habitus-based actions (instincts) function and work back in the society are to some extent biologically bounded and determined." (5)

Whilst these observations are not extensively explained in their work, the idea that being a biological entity plays a part in individual dispositions seems like common sense. Imperatives such as hunger, fear, wanting to go to the toilet, sweating, etc., all point to a biologic aspect of habitus. This is in some way encouraging, in the realisation that there is some common aspects to habitus, despite inculcation. Whether or not the need to communicate is an evolutionary or inculcated disposition of the habitus is an area that still needs investigation. If it is indeed an evolutionary need, then the rapid uptake and highly-frequent use of mobile technologies (particulary mobile phones) by 'digital natives' (Prensky, 2001) takes on a biologic dimension. Aside from that, inculcation has still clearly played a role in dispositions towards mobile technologies, as despite the positive attitute towards these devices expressed through cultural discourses (particularly the media), painting a positive picture of these devices, it has generally been the younger generations that have taken up these technologies as a ubiquitous part of their lives, or put another way, as an essential part of their habitus. Indeed, there is an evolving area of research exploring how important mobile technologies are becoming in the lives of young people, with comments such as: "'We often have a panic situation when the battery runs down' or 'I'd feel really, really lost without my phone now'." (Vincent, 2005, 120) becoming more and more common. As such, habitus at both a collective and individual level is becoming more and more integrated with the use of mobile technologies. We no longer phone a place, but a person, when we call a mobile phone. We don't stick rigidly to schedules, but can call from anywhere, anytime (in an ideal world) to renegotiate appointment times. Mobile technologies are thus changing dispositions, even amongst 'digital immigrants'. (Prensky, 2001)

The last aspect of habitus that Reay (1995) illuminates is the complex interplay between past and present in the habitus. Habitus, through the process of inculcation, is a product of individual history, lived through specific social and cultural conditionings. Thus, habitus, while being used in 'the present', is always connected to it's collective and individual history. It is this continual presence of the past in the habitus that determines our dispositions in the present, not an anticipation of the future as Bourdieu puts it: "...they [dispositions] are determined by the past conditions of production of their principle of production, that is, by the already realized outcome of identical or interchangeable past practices...." (1980, 61) This is why, in unfamiliar situations, in which an individual has no past experiences to fall back on "...the objective chances...are negatively sanctioned because the environment they actually encounter is too different form the one to which they are objectively adjusted." (62) Consider having to ask for a place to stay in a country where you do not speak the language or understand the culture. However, the result of this disjunction is not a paralysis of habitus - dispositions are not so fixed as to be immovable or unchangeable. Rather "...although the habitus is a product of early childhood experience...it is continually modified by individuals' encounters with the outside world." (Reay, 1995, 356) The understanding that needs to be gleaned about habitus in this respect is that whilst it is "inevitably reflective of the social context in which ...[it was] acquired..." (357) every experience shapes and reshapes dispositions. Mobile technologies, and their rapid dissemination and use throughout society are a prime example of this, especially with regard to their take-up by 'digital immigrants' (Prensky, 2001). Those students who have grown up with the inculcation of mobile technologies into their habitus as ubiquitous, inevitably deal with the devices in a more effective manner. This has resulted in a curious disjunction arising in contemporary classrooms, where quite often students are more digitally competent and savvy than their teachers (Leech, 2006). This is due to the fact that their dispositions are driven by a past rich in these technologies, where very often, the habitus of a teacher is less rich in terms of 'digital experience'. Mobile technologies then, and the ability to realise cultural capital through their use in the present, is driven by past experience and exposure to such dispositions. One would only expect dispostions amongst young people towards the use of digital technologies to increase with the release of phones specifically designed for children (featuring parent-programmed numbers and controlled content). Put simply, when you grow up in a world where mobile devices are ubiquitous, then dispositions towards their use are more ingrained and 'natural'. People with such habitus' will no doubt find it easier, more 'normal', to realise cultural capital through their use.

I am essentially concerned here with the way in which mobile literacy practices, as deployed in accordance with a particular Australian youth habitus, across indeterminate fields, are realized as different forms and levels of cultural capital. The role of habitus in this process is a central one, where mobile technologies act as altering principles on individual dispositions during everyday social interactions.

So what can we say at this stage about habitus where mobile technology is concerned? At first the distinction must be made that when we are talking about mobile technologies and their use in the everyday lives of people, we are concerned with the deployment of information and communication practices. In this sense, this research is tied up with the power relationships inhenrent in the production and reproductions of 'legitimate language'. (Bourdieu, 1991) Therefore, the use of mobile technologies for communicative practices realises a form of cultural capital that is not really valued in the educational establishment. Thus, we get reactive and prohibition measures to address the 'intrusion' of these handheld devices into classrooms. This is also the root of claims that SMS language is devaluing authentic and legitimate language. It must be remembered that such debates are predicated on differentiated forms of cultural capital concerning language.

However, once we move beyond this politically charged debate, and examine the agency that can be realised by the habitus through the use of mobile technologies, the situation becomes even more complicated. Deciding which semiotic resources to deploy in relation to a literacy event, is a choice between multiple modes of meaning-making. Dispositions inculcated in the habitus with regard to such activities are no doubt different for the 'digital natives' than for the 'immigrants'. (Prensky, 2001) Whether, in a particular situation, one should send an SMS, make a phone call, send an email or MMS, have as much to do with habitus, with one's individual historic trajectory, as with regard to 'access'. Whilst the limitations of a 'virtual field' enforced by a particular model mobile phone, network or bandwidth restrictions, or even access to a mobile device of some kind, help to determine the literacy event that can take place, the dispositions of an individual in particular contexts, play an essential role as to what actions an individual will take. Dispositions towards answering a ringing phone in a movie theatre have more to do with habitus (both at an individual and cultural level) than whether that phone was on 'silent' or not.

References

Adams, M. (2006). Hybridizing Habitus and Reflexivity: Towards an Understanding of Contemporary Identity? Sociology, 40(3), 511-528.

Bourdieu, P. (1977). Outline of a theory of practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bourdieu, P. (1980). The Logic of Practice. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Bourdieu, P. (1991). Language & Symbolic Power. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Carrington, V. & Luke, A. (1997). Literacy and Bourdieu's Sociological Theory: A Reframing. Language and Education, 11(2), 96-112.

Couldry, N. (2004). Liveness, "Reality," and the Mediated Habitus from Television to the Mobile Phone. The Communication Review, 7, 353-361.

Katz, J. E. & Sugiyama, S. (2006). Mobile phones as fashion statements: evidence from student surveys in the US and Japan. new media & society, 8(2), 321-337.

Kikin-Gil, R. (2006). Affective is effective: how information appliances can mediate relationships within communities and increase one's social effectiveness. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 10(2-3), 77-83.

Kress, G. (2000). A Curriculum for the Future. Cambridge Journal of Education, 30(1), 133-145.

Leech, R. (2006). Teaching the digital natives. Teacher, 167, 6-9.

Metcalf, D. S. (2006). mLearning: Mobile Learning and Performance in the Palm of Your Hand. Amherst, Massachusetts: HRD Press.

Moore, R. (2004). Cultural capital: objective probability and the cultural arbitrary. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 25(4), 445-456.

Prensky, M. (2001). "Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants." On the Horizon, 9(5), 1-2.

Reay, D. (1995). 'They Employ Cleaners to Do That': Habitus in the Primary Classroom. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 16(3), 353-371.

Reay, D. (2004). 'It's all becoming a habitus': beyond the habitual use of habitus in educational research. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 25(4), 431-444.

Roos, J. P. & Rotkirch, A. (2003, Sept 23-28). Habitus, Nature or Nurture? Towards a paradigm of evolutionary sociology. European Sociological Association Conference, Murcia.

Shay, S. B. (2004). The Assessment of Complex Performance: A Socially Situated Interpretive Act. Harvard Educational Review, 74(3), 307-329.

Vincent, J. (2005). Emotional Attachment and Mobile Phones. In Glotz, P., Bertschi, S. & Locke, C. (Eds.), Thumb Culture: The Meaning of Mobile Phones for Society (pp. 117-122). London: Transaction Publishers.

Autoethnography and Mobile Technology Research

2006-11-29T14:41:00.000+11:00

The following comments primarily (prima facie) relate to my own experience of ethnographic, quantitative studies. Whilst the comments may be applicable to other contexts, I make no claims for their generalisability as such.

A curious concern has emerged as my research continues to progress and evolve, concerning the distance between the researcher and the researched. By the researched I don't simply refer to people either, but the general subject of engagement as well. Of course, as a poststructuralist, I have always acknowledged the inherent impossibility of ever achieving strict objectivity in relation to conducting research.

The impossibility of any researcher ever being entirely separated from their topic of research, is linked to my anti-positivistic and existential beliefs, but also to my empirical experience in conducting research. Not only is the researcher ever-present during the research phase (when dealing with others for instance), raising the possibility of influencing data outcomes through their very presence, but this elucidation of the physical presence points to an even more pervasive ontological status for the researcher within their field of study. A research project denotes a 'constructed' field of engagement (perhaps not as overtly when a 'grounded theory' approach to 'discovery' is employed) that in some ways precludes possible data, or at the very least, interpretative schemas for explaining the data. In essence, because research is research, it unavoidably involves the 'tainted' perspective of the researcher; however much they may strive to study 'naturalistic' situations, the frame for the data is a constructed, artificial one, implied by the researcher's persona.

It is here, at the point where I acknowledge that yes, a researcher is a person, that I come to a second point concerning the impossibility of ever separating the researcher from the researched; the researcher as a human being with the possibility of shared experiences with the subjects of research. If the researcher has personal experience in the actual topic of investigation, how, and to what extent is this analytically useful?

Particularly with ethnographic studies, there is an extent to which the researchers and their subjects of research have shared experiences, frequently being from the same society, if not culture. This means that the 'expert' brings with them to the study their own preconceptions, experiences and perspectives; their own habitus if you will. In such as case, the importance of the researchers own experience becomes not just a side-line or aspect of research to be explained away theoretically (This project is postmodern, so doesn't ascribe to objective, positivistic beliefs), but an important piece of research data in itself.

In studying mobile technologies and their use among young people, I have had numerous cause to reflect on my own use of these technologies. Since these technologies - taking mobile phones as the quintessential example - have become so ubiquitous, it seems the case that everyone in Australian society can provide possible data from their own experiences (phone owner or not) concerning how these devices are used in everyday practice. Does this mean that I, as the central researcher, should not only be avoiding any facade of objectivity, but rather, tend towards the other extreme and expose my own mobile technology behaviours as a component of data? Perhaps, but as always with research, there is a need to find theoretical support for such a position. I found such an approach in the controversial field of 'autoethnography'.

Autoethnography, or the examination of myself as a subject of my own research, could offer some interesting insights and perspectives for my work. The line between digital 'natives' and 'immigrants' as put forward by Prensky (2001) may provide a point of focus for examining literate practices around these devices. In deploying Bourdieu's concept of habitus (1977; 1980; 1991) as a means to understanding how individuals function in everyday practice, I am given cause to reflect on the differences regarding inculcation of the habitus for myself, compared to the youth at the centre of my study. How the nature of inculcation effects dispositions towards deploying certain literacy practices associated with mobile technologies, as a form of cultural capital, and how effective this is, may be beyond the scope of this project. A detailed comparison of the researcher's habitus with regard to the use of mobile technologies, with a students, may also be beyond the scope of this project, but should this preclude the personal experiences of the researcher from being included as data? I suppose I will find this out as I delve into the field of youth mobile technologies in an effort to understand how their habitus works through the deployment of various types of 'semiotic capital' (as a branch of cultural and symbolic capital) (Carrington & Luke, 1997, 102).

Sure, autoethnography fits with my own poststructuralist beliefs an approaches in the sense that "...autoethnography in sociology has been championed predominantly by interdisciplinary symbolic interactionists with postmodern or poststructural sensitivities...." (Anderson, 2006, 373) However, as has been suggested, the difficulty is in maintaining the focus on students' experiences in a analytical manner. One of the dangers of autoethnography, as pointed out by Anderson, is in it becoming purely evocative we may "...fail to adequately engage with others in the field." (386) A central concern of my research - one of the catalysts for its birth - was the absence of authentic student voices in the research. I am fully aware of my digital immigrant status, as I print out articles off the computer to read in hard-copy, struggle to type and SMS without looking whilst driving, and generally try to get my mind around the ever-expanding realm of digital choice now available anywhere, anytime. In an effort to resist narcissistic writing, Anderson (2006) proposes a useful structure for 'Analytic Autoethnography' which may prove useful.

Anderson (2006) offers a more rigorous framework, as an alternative to 'evocative autoethnography', for this research methodology in his 'Analytic Autoethnography' model. This AA model (as Vryan terms it, 2006) has five key features:

complete member researcher (CMR) status
analytic reflexivity
narrative visibility of the researcher's self
dialogue with informants beyond the self
commitment to theoretical analysis. (Anderson, 2006, 378)

In addressing each of these points briefly: it is difficult to imagine how a researcher in the field of mobile technologies would not meet CMR status. With mobile phones being so ubiquitous and widespread, it is difficult nowadays to conceive of someone who has no experience living in a society with these devices. Analytic reflexivity would of course occur in places like this blog, where I continually examine myself as a mobile technology user: to carry this same sort of discourse over to more rigorous work, would be to make myself visible within the narrative of research (point 3). The last two points link very much with my own philosophy, not just about teaching and learning, but research itself, in that I have a commitment to understanding the voices of students in a rigorous manner (not simply in an evocative or descriptive fashion). In deploying the concepts of habitus and cultural capital in relation to students I am seeking a deeper theoretical understanding of informants beyond myself. No doubt this model of autoethnography has its own problems (as pointed out by Charmez, 2006 and Vryan, 2006), but it is at least a start in justifying a possible overt presence 0f the researchers within the project. In essence, I want to make sure that if my own experiences are useful for the research in some way, that it is used in a rigorous fashion, avoiding the use of personal experience for simple ego-gratification.

Whilst Vryan (2006) makes some forceful arguments for the importance of 'evocative autoethnography' - which he sees as expanding the potential of this field of study, rather than "...unnecessarily constrain[ing]..." (405) it as he feels Anderson has done - I can see the limitations of an evocative approach for my own work. Sure it might be interesting to dissect the cogs of elation/frustration as this digital immigrant seeks to continually integrate mobile technologies into his life, but the scope is too narrow for my liking. I can of course acknowledge and importance for 'evocative ethnography' in research generally, though in my case, it does not fully suit.

In my examination of students literate habitus with regard to mobile technologies, I am searching for that vein of rigor, or abstraction. In deploying Bourdieu's concept of habitus (1977; 1980; 1991) I am seeking to explain everyday practices in terms of sociocultural trends specific to Australia. Whilst evocative forms of writing and analysis may have a place in examining the emotional realm of mobile technology, may be relevant to the concept of habitus, this form of writing seems unable to reach the level of description and possible generalisablity that a more analytically based study would.

After all this wondering, I am still not sure how my own experiences with mobile technologies should fit within the scope of my work. I want to focus on student/youth experiences, but also find myself continually reflecting on my own experiences. I find it impossible to believe that I will be able to keep my own experiences out of the discussion - there are those poststructural beliefs again - but at least there are some models of autoethnography that offer a structured methodology to work from.

If anyone else knows of any autoethnographic work that may be of use, please suggest it through the comments section.

References

Anderson, L. (2006). Analytic Autoethnography. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 35(4), 373-395.

Bourdieu, P. (1977). Outline of a theory of practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bourdieu, P. (1980). The logic of practice. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Bourdieu, P. (1991). Language and Symbolic Power. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Carrington, V. & Luke, A. (1997). Literacy and Bourdieu's Sociological Theory: A Reframing. Language and Education, 11(2), 96-112.
Charmaz, K. (2006). The Power of Names. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 35(4), 396-399.
Prensky, M. (2001). Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants. On the Horizon, 9(5), 1-2.
Vryan, K. D. (2006). Expanding Analytic Autoethnography and Enhancing Its Potential. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 35(4), 405-409.

The Loaded Decision of Coverage

2006-11-09T11:55:00.000+11:00

I find myself once again, and quite unintentionally, caught up in the maelstrom of mobile phone selection. I received a phone call from my mobile communications service provider - who shall remain nameless - informing me that because I had been with them for so long (at least 7 years), they would be rewarding me: free credit on my next recharge (I still use pre-pay) and a free, new handset. I could even get a free 3G handset!

Now, after the fuzzy feeling of being appreciated by some faceless corporation wore off, I began to once again appreciate the complexity and difficulty in selecting a mobile phone. I had forgotten this area of complexity. It must appear that much more difficult in the US, where phone service provider choice can in some ways be even more determining of the people and technologies you have access to. I had been going along with the assumption that a lot of people had mobile phones which they simply used, and in such exercised literacy skills. I had overlooked the intricate set of negotiations and understandings involved in the consumer's engagement with the market in selecting a mobile phone and a service provider; along with the inherently political nature of this engagement. In essence, choosing a mobile phone - such a ubiquitous and important part of contemporary everyday life for many people - is no simple task in contemporary Australia.

My situation is additionally, not as complex as most in that I am sticking with the same service provider (I am getting sick of this term! - what others can I use?) as they're the ones giving me the new mobile phone! Therefore I am really choosing between different model mobile phones (an easy task of choosing what you like the most - I like flip-phones), but more importantly, whether to choose a 3G model, and joint the 'Third Generation' network. This is the more complicated decision, as the network you choose, determines the coverage that you receive.

Mobile phone coverage was a contentious issue of debate during the roll-out of mobile phones into popular Australian culture during the 1990s. This was especially evident in a binary discourse that emerged regarding equality of access between urban/rural Australians, a binary that still exists to some extent. You can still travel through many areas of rural Australia and, depending on your coverage provider, may find yourself out of 'contact'. This situation is improving continually, though still exists. I know that my own provider drops out of coverage between towns in Northern Victoria. This is even more evident with the 3G network, which is not rolled out and available through most of rural Australia. If I make the decision to buy a 3G phone, to learn about all these new features available, then I forgoe access to that whenever I got to rural areas to visit family and friends, or for work of course.

Third Generation Networks have expanded recently with Telstra (the largest provider in Australia) launching it's 'NextGen' Network. This is a third generation model, which builds on Telstra having the most extensive coverage in Australia. It will be interesting to see if this allows for the expansion of other 3G networks provided by other corporations. If so, my decision of whether to choose a 3G phone would not necessarily limit my access in rural areas. But then again, there are still areas that don't have any digital coverage! We've all seen the skit on various television shows and movies of someone moving their mobile phone about in order to find better coverage; in rural Australia finding better coverage may generally involved a more extensive drive in the car.

The difficulties of roaming between different countries is of course even more pronounced and plagued with the difficulties of traversing different networks (unless your provider has a form of 'roaming' which is covered).

I was quite comfortable with my 2-year-old mobile phone. Sure, I haven't figured out all the features and how to access everything available with it yet, indeed, I don't use most of the features, but the offer of a new, free handset is always a temptation for one raised in consumer culture. One phone call has once again set my mind off into that labyrinth of deals and contracts and features and coverage and all the rest of that nonsense, which in some ways form legally binding contracts. There are regular media stories of young people (and wider-people generally) falling victim to the financial dragon of mobile phone contracts, or developing 'negative social habits' as a result of phone use (but these are issues for discussion at another time).

Choosing a mobile phone is a social task fraught with complexity and difficulty. Despite the image portrayed in marketing of easy of choice and easy of access, buying such a constantly used and financially alive device, is not the same as buying shoes. Like everyone else, I will continue to navigate my way through this briar-patch of possibilities and the restrictions and possibilities they allow for my communicative practices.

The Limits of Literacy?

2006-10-01T10:29:00.000+10:00

In considering the literacy practices that surround mobile technologies I have found myself struggling with a contemporary 'hydra' of educational theory. Just what is 'literacy'? Just what is literacy concerned with?

Circumscribing the boundaries of a theory of literacy has become a risky task. In recent years, understandings of what we mean by this term have been both expanded and compressed; it has been an issue of continuous and unending debate amongst researchers and theoreticians. The major catalyst for this has been the rapid emergence and dissemination of modern ICTs, throughout the everyday lives of many people in 'developed economies'. This is a particularly important point for my discussion, relating to mobile technologies, which (if we consider mobile phones as an example) have surpassed almost all previous technologies (with the exception of the television perhaps) with the speed of their uptake by the general public. Educators have become aware of this through the increasing number of these devices that end up in our schools and classrooms, and then, due to current institutional approaches, at times confiscated by the teacher.

So if we are to use the literacy potential of mobile technologies, if we are to develop a productive manner in which to use them for educational purposes, then it becomes ever more important to understand just what we mean by the term 'literacy'. Whilst the New London Group ("A Pedagogy of Multiliteracies." 1996) and Kress seek to limit the focus of literacy to written, linguistic language, there are yet others that seek to unshackle literacy from the bonds of written language. Victoria Carrington for example: "Like Gee...and many others, I am arguing that 'literacy' must be understood to extend beyond the ability to encode and decode print. Much of the meaning of contemporary text is embedded in the graphics, symbols, images and sounds that surround print...." ("Txting: the end of civilization (again)?", 2005, 172). Limiting literacy to a focus on the skills of reading and writing, is what the New London Group terms 'mere literacy'(1996, p.64). With regard to mobile technologies, which are so intimately entwined throughout our everyday lives and social practices, a focus on 'mere literacy' is far to narrow and restricts the field of our observations and understandings in an unproductive manner.

So if we are to extend the concept of literacy to cover other modes of human representation for meaning-making, how far is this 'extension' to go? Amongst educational and communication researchers concepts of 'visual literacy' (Anstey & Bull, Reading the Visual, 2000), 'cultural literacy' (Schirato & Yell, Communication and Cultural Literacy, 2000), 'hypertext literacy' (Snyder, Hypertext, 1996) and 'games literacy' (Gee, What Video Games Have to Teach Us About Learning and Literacy, 2003) have all been developed by a number of researchers (I have only indicated more influential publications in these areas - there are many others). However, none of these frameworks fully accounts for the multitude of modes that are deployed in mobile communication or information processing.

Multiliteracies frameworks, as first formulated by the New London Group (1996) offers the strongest way into understanding the literacy practices that surround mobile technologies. I do not intend to use this approach as a strict guideline, but rather as a heuristic strategy for understanding new and evolving literacy behaviours. It is particularly important to leave the scope regarding 'what is literacy?' or 'what is language?' somewhat open, as we do not yet understand all the textual configurations that mobile technologies might produces.

As Agar (2005) and Levinson (2004) both point out, SMS was a peripheral feature of mobile phone development, never intended for wide-spread use. However, in this case it was the mobile phone users who determined a future direction for this technology through their unprecedented uptake and use of SMS-messenging (txting). This has not only had an effect on mobile phone service providers (providing sms-packages in billing structures) and manufacturers (designing phone keypads for easier 'txting' navigation), but has permeated throughout 'consumer-media culture' (as we saw with the example of the 'Fone' biscuits) (Kenway & Bullen, Consuming Children, 2001). The most recent phenomenon over the past few years has been the development of interactive television and mobile phone 'sms clubs'. Both of these developments normalize sms communication as a legitimate form of social communication and consumer behaviour, whilst also making a LOT of money out of them (Costs as high as $4.50 per message sent AND received are not uncommon). However, I do think that a discussion of this issue might wait to another time - it is an extensive issue with a large number of implications for education, culture and young people.

Back to the concept of literacy and how far to extend it. As I have demonstrated, sms-communication has quickly become legitimized, if not by educational authorities (certainly not in most cases), then certainly within consumer-media culture. But 'txting' is still written, linguistic language which in some ways abides by traditional rules of grammar (though these are stretched and breached frequently), thus still able to fall under the mantle of literacy as a discipline. But this is not the case with all modes of communication around mobile technologies.

Considering that mobile technologies are very much a part of the multimodal, everyday lives of individuals, then we are faced with a problem: what modes of representation deployed in semiotic practice can we discuss in terms of literacy? Can we talk of 'gestural literacy' (people often gesture when talking on the phone, despite the fact that they can't be seen by other other person)? What about a 'grammar of body language' (How do we know when someone is involved with their real, virtual or projective identity? Gee, 2003)? How do we talk about 'synchronic literacy' (Eshet-Alkalai, "Digital Literacy", Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 13(1), p.93, 2004) - sound, text and motion presented simultaneously - when someone is both watching a music video on their iPod whilst chatting with friends at a cafe? Where are their attentions deployed and why? How far does a concept of literacy extend to cover interpersonal interactions, especially when they are mediated by technology so frequently? In essence, the blurry line where theories concerning literacy bump up against other approaches is for me, continuing to become ever more indistinct.

When we think about mobile literacies, what modes are we concerned with? All of them? Some of them? On what basis do we decide that something is or isn't literacy? Sure, Kress' limitation of literacy to the written/linguistic, is in some respects restrictive, but it also allows him to clearly delineate the boundaries of his theory. Mine just seems much fuzzier, with a lot of sharp edges poking out that could tear a hole in my research and theory.

Where literacy ends and human living beings is a distinction that for me, is continuing to be attacked by the floods of mobile technologies that now wash over us in our everyday lives. One thing is for sure though: we need to rethink concepts of what literacy is if we are to adequately account for the impact that these new, ubiquitous ICTs, are having on our experience as humans beings: social animals.

A Mobile Blog

2006-10-01T01:56:00.001+10:00

This will b short - using this keypad is unfamiliar & I am not sure bout the memory. Small screen compresses web pages & difficult read. Find myself 'squeezing' language & expression - acronymy. Seems to have worked, albeit brief. Wonder if this site was set up 2 allow 4 this? Cheers!

The blog above was written and saved via mobile phone. A number of limitations imposed upon the format by the technology itself - including small screen size, memory capacity and battery life (among others) - had a clear impact upon the language used.

The Extremes of Mobile Phone Commodification

2006-09-30T23:52:00.000+10:00

I literally had to rub my eyes when I saw this packet of biscuits at my local supermarket; then I just had to have them!

So I purchased a pack of Paradise Foods "Mobile Fones" chocolate biscuits.

What a fantastic cultural artifact this turned out to be, demonstrating the extent to which mobile phones, aside from any functionality or purpose, have become commodified by market forces. I do not know in what other countries - if any - these biscuits are available. What was most interesting to me, aside from the fact that they appeared to have picked mobile phones as the topic of their biscuits for no logical reason (save economic or marketing studies no doubt), but they manner in which semiotics are deployed on the packaging - the second skin of commodification.

Clearly the consumer group whom is target by this product is children, and in a much more direct manner than through parents. The language deployed on the packaging - including 'squeeze-text' or 'txt' (Carrington, 2005) or 'acronymy' (Bodomo & Lee, 2002), along with personification of the mobile phone itself, is clearly aimed at a younger audience; those whom are tech and mobile savvy.

The first thing that I immediately noticed, apart from the bright colours and picture of a happy, smiling mobile phone on the packet, was the sub-title to the product name, curiously written the the abbreviated language of SMS.

"gr8 fone shapd bizkits w choc 4 u 2 njoy"

Whilst this message is fairly straight forward, even for those relatively uninitiated in the language of SMS, it is a fairly clear appeal to a particular audience. The designers of this product - the packaging in particular - have intentionally deployed a language form generally associated with younger, more tech-savvy 'digital natives' (Prensky, Don't Bother Me Mum - I'm Learning! 2006). This is part of a clear attempt to relate to the consumer on the basis of identity and group association, through a use of their own language, as opposed to the expected language of 'the establishment'. By speaking to young people on their level, using their language, the marketers are clearly acting in a manipulative manner that is not all that unexpected in modern consumer-media culture.

The second point which I found most interesting about this cultural artifact, was the manner in which the technology of the mobile phone was acquired and commodified as a mascot for Paradise Foods through the persona of "Moby".

The first encounter that the consumer has with Moby is encountering his smiling face on the front of the packet. There is nothing new about this marketing ploy of course: smiling faces and images that engender feelings of happiness have been an overbearing feature of the commercial sector since the development of its modern manifestation in the twentieth century. The reduction of the mobile phone as a technology to a mere character is an interesting way in which mobile telephony generally seems to be being normalized in this cultural artifact. The further description of Moby on the back of the packet, adds further depth to his character, but also reveals a more disturbing aspect to this commodity: its intended audience.

I have already suggested that in deploying SMS language, this cultural artifact is clearly allying itself with youth culture through their lens of language. Turning to the Moby profile reveals more about the intended consumer of this product:

"Meet Moby
Moby is a cool little dude choc-full of playful energy. He just loves to keep on the move, getting connected with his mates and having fun along the way. Paradise Kidz Mobile Fones have a great chocolate taste and are fun to share wherever you may be.
www.paradise4kidz.com.au "

I know that when I first read this small outline I could not get over the connotations drawn with being mobile and connected("...keep on the move...wherever you may be..."), friendship ("...with his mates...") and play/fun ("...playful energy...having fun...fun to share..."), and how this is cleverly linked in with the qualities of the product. Not only is the language clearly directed at a young audience - pre-teen - but once again, there is the suggestion of a shared cultural identity with their audience.

Clearly, Paradise Foods, as indicated by their website, is engaged in a process of constructing a culture around their products, based very much on appealing to the interests, identities and affiliations of young people. I also wonder who notices the website for paradise foods on the back of the packet and goes to it: kids? Parents? It does seem highly superficial to conscript a seemingly innocuous device such as a mobile phone to advertise a packet of chocolate biscuits, but this is not a new phenomenon by far. Consider the relevance of some well-known brand icons to their actual product: Coco Pops, Rice Bubbles, Fruit Loops. Additionally consider the manner in which popular cultural icons, such as movie and television show characters are co-opted for marketing purposes: McDonalds' happy meals are the ideal example of this (featuring regular toys from the latest release movies, or other fad). In this context, the move to have mobile phone biscuits is not that strange at all.

But it it strange in another way: introducing children to technologies in the form of play, yet technologies which essentially have an economic dimension. It is a curious irony that whilst the marketing around the mobile phone in this context is based on fun and freedom, the economic aspect of purchasing the biscuits, or a real phone, is something that can impinge upon that fun and freedom: what happens when mum says no, she will not buy the biscuits for the kid?

Here we have a true indication of the manner in which mobile phones have become an accepted and at times, invisible part of our everyday lives. Just as Davide, Dario and Tal revel in their "Fashion Victims" research, by "...Subverting the everyday behaviour of an everyday object..." Can change the light in which we see a cultural artifact. In this case, the nature of the mobile phone as a cultural artifact is revealed: one that is linked with young people, fun, freedom and friendship.

I wonder how mobile phones will manifest themselves throughout consumer-media culture as they become even more ubiquitous.

Pre-Mobile Blogging

2006-09-30T23:17:00.000+10:00

I am about to attempt something new, at least for myself - blogging via my mobile phone. I am aware of the LifeBlog software developed by Nokia, but I don’t have this program, and want to experiment with an authentic, real-life situation: accessing an established blog via a mobile technology.

I expect problems. My phone - a Samsung E730 - accesses web content via GPRS. I know that this is somewhat like a verson of WAP language, which will only serve to exacerbate translation changes from HTTP format used for PC. Therefore, some of the problems I expect will relate to the specific device that I am using: problems with translation, display of images, sounds. Also ruled out would be accessing web pages with a large format, size or complex content, due to download times.

I am however, also expecting changes in the literacy practices I deploy in typing a blog on a mobile phone. Not only is the input method (phone key-pad) not something I am especially adept at, but the small size of the screen may also effect the manner in which I express/explain my opinions. The difficulty in scrolling and reviewing all that has been written is no mere flick of they eye further up the page, but instead requires a good deal of sorting through information more delicately perhaps than on a computer or in hard copy.

The web page may not display properly, or I may be unable to access the correct menus to enter the blog writing section. This is all experimental, for although I was able to access some of the website on my mobile phone last night, I came up against a problem when I couldn’t remember the password (which I had not changed to one I could remember), thus necessitating me having to go to the computer to check my email - this feature being unavailable on my phone.

As regards situational considerations: I am purposefully NOT selecting a specific time or place to try this little experiment out. The very essence of mobile technologies is that they can be used anywhere, anytime (Levinson, Cellphone, 2003). As such, it is important for the authenticity of this work, that the blog be completed in an indeterminate, as yet unplanned context. How this will effect the easy of use of the technology and the nature and quality of the blog, is yet to be seen.

I do not know if this pre-writing before mobile blogging will help, or if I have even covered all the areas that will impact on my literacy practices. I guess the only way to find out is to try: I will then reflect on the both the event of mobile blogging (including texts-in-the-making) as well as the artifact created (the mobile blog).

Let’s just hope that I can even access the site, or all this babbling will have come to naught!

Technology & Emergent Literacies in 'Times of Instability'

2006-09-30T23:13:00.000+10:00

What are we going to uncover when we decide to examine what literacy is becoming, is continuously becoming? It is duly acknowledged that the nature of literacy as a concept is something of continuous debate, especially in these times of ‘instability’, as Kress would say (Literacy in the New Media Age, 2003). The increasing extent to which information and communication is electronically mediated is encouraging changes, not just in the way that language (either written or verbal) is being used, but in the way the individual citizens within a given culture relate to each other.

Space and time constraints on human communication is increasingly losing its power, especially with the increasing expansion of mobile technologies. And it is here I turn to a major focus of my research, an obsession of my academic identity: the ways in which mobile technologies, in their wide variety of forms, are changing literacy practices. This interest has required deep thought and contemplation on just what ‘literacy’ is. Should I be drawn by historical imperatives to return this study to focus on written language? Or like James Paul Gee and Victoria Carrington, am I going to seek to expand it’s focus beyond the confines of the linguistic domain? (Carrington, V. (2005). “Txting: the end of civilization (again)?” Cambridge Journal of Education, 25(2), 172).
In the face of the increasing complexity of human behaviour around mobile technologies, and their continual penetration into all areas of our lives, I must acknowledge that ‘literacy’ must develop as a concept to cover the multimodal nature of human communication. It seemed strange to me upon first realising it, that the New London Group (”A Pedagogy of Multiliteracies,” 1996) and others following in the Multiliteracies tradition (eg. Kress, 2003), should firstly acknowledge the essential link between literacy and social practice, and secondly, the multimodal nature of human social interaction, and then turn and seek to restrict the focus of study through chaining literacy to its written form.

I don’t know if the approach of expanding literacy is any better. There is the feeling within academia that with over-use of a term leads to a reduction in the rigor of its meaning. By extending literacy to cover multiple modes of communication, are we devaluing or reducing it’s value in some way? This is hard to believe when what I am seeking to do is add to its complexity and tie literacy into social practice even more closely.

This is where the idea of ‘emergent literacies’ came from for the heading. I realise that the idea of ‘emergent literacies’ has received a good deal of discussion and coverage throughout educational literature. The terms sparks glimmers of recognition in my mind: “I know I have read about this somewhere…but where?” In using the term in the manner in which I have, I am seeking to use it to mean two things, both indicated in the term ‘emergent’. Firstly, we seek to understand literacy practices that are ‘emerging’ as a result of increasing electronic-mediation of information/communication, as well as the increasing diversity of voices in a globally connected world. As a result - and especially with relation to mobile technologies - I am seeking to understand the literacy practices that are emerging in this changing time.

However, ‘emergent’ is also taken to mean something more continuous and ever-present. In acknowledging that literacy is essentially linked to social practice, ’situational considerations’ (Gee, What Video Games Have to Teach Us About Learning and Literacy, 2003) or ‘frames’ (Kress, 2003) - context - become vitally important. Therefore, we continuously have literacy practices being reworked, transformed by individuals to suit specific situations. In this respect, literacy is continuously emerging - somewhat analogous to Derrida’s concept of ‘deferral’ (is that where that term came from?) - in relation to texts or ‘texts-in-the-making’ (Kress, 2003, 88). This is of course, taking a very poststructural/postmodern approach to the concept of text. But when considering mobile technologies can we do anything but.

Consider the types of ‘texts’ that can be presented or accessed on devices such as iPods (and Mp3 players generally), mobile phones (cellphones), portable gaming consoles (eg. GameBoy, PSP), PDAs. Few of the texts accessed or created here conform to traditionalist concepts. So what are we left with in relation to the emerging relationship between mobile technologies and literacy? What literacy practices are deployed in using these devices as part of social practice? How does an individual decide the ‘aptness’ (Kress, 2003) of a mode to use for a specific communication in changing and unstable situational contexts?

For me, so far, the mobility of these devices, their ability to be used across mutable spaces, has the greatest impact on literacy practices. What emergent literacy practices students are demonstrating in response to mobile technologies, is still an are in need of a great deal of research. I am seeking to understand and construct a concept of “mobile literacies” - what this entails is a matter of continuous discovery.