Information Literacy Guide

Audience:  High school students

Topic:  Science literacy

Rationale:  In today's interactive and participatory culture, it is more important than ever to be able to evaluate non-academic sources of science information (such as nutritional information or vehicle emissions reports, etc. found in popular sources, like social media) in order to make reasonable and responsible science-related decisions.

Example situation:  While browsing Facebook, you come across this article:  http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/13/science/weighing-the-evidence.html?_r=0

STEP ONE:  Ask yourself comprehension questions, and then answer them.

ü  Do you understand what the article/website/document is saying?

ü  Could you summarize it?

ü  Can you pull out the important pieces of information?

Example:

1.      What is the opinion of the expert cited in the article? 

That a dose that is more likely to be ineffective will be recommended on packaging than a dose that could potentially harm someone.

2.      What determines recommended dosages for toxic pharmaceuticals, such as chemotherapy?

Weight

3.      What ultimately determines the recommended dosages for over-the-counter medications?

Safety

4.      What advice does the author provide to the readers?

If the recommended does is not effective, see your doctor. 

STEP TWO:  Ask yourself analysis questions, and then answer them.

ü  Do you understand what the text means, in addition to what it says?

ü  What is the purpose or main argument being made?

Example:

1.      What was the author’s purpose in writing this article?

To answer a question posed by a reader

2.      Who is the intended audience of this article?

Anyone who reads the New York Times; likely an adult; someone with a 9^th-grade (or above) reading level

3.      What is the author’s main argument or point?

That over-the-counter dosage recommendations do not account for weight because they lean toward safety over efficacy

STEP THREE:  Ask yourself evaluation questions, and then answer them.

ü  Evaluate the source's reputation for reliability

ü  Evaluate the author's credibility

o   Perform a quick Google search with the author's name

o   Is he/she qualified to write about this topic?

ü  Evaluate the currency of the information (some science information must be very current in order to be considered reliable)

ü  Evaluate any data, graphs, charts, etc. provided

o   Have axes on graphs been skewed?

o   Were sample sizes adequate? 

o   Was the sampling biased?

o   Was a mean used when a mode would have been more appropriate?

Example: 

1. Is this article from a credible source?  What evidence do you have to support this?

Yes.  The New York Times is a major publication that originated as a print source.  It has a documented reputation of reliability.  The author of this article, in particular, often writes in the Science Q&A section.  For the subject matter, 2012 is current enough.  The author's full name and contact information is provided.

2.      Why does the author cite the name and title of the expert quoted?

To lend credibility to his opinion.

3. The expert uses phrases like, “my opinion is…” and “it is more likely…”.  Why?

To support the idea that science is based on evidence, which can be interpreted differently by different people, and can be refuted given new evidence.

4. Is there bias in the article on the part of the author?  Defend your response.

Of course.  The author provided the opinion of only one expert, and provided very specific examples.

5. What could the author have done to make the arguments presented more complete?

Include information from more than one expert. 

STEP FOUR:  Share what you've found.

ü  Summarize the content of the article

ü  Emphasize what makes the source of information credible

ü  Address any issues with bias

Example:

In responding to a question about why weight is not taken into consideration for over-the-counter medicine recommended dosages, the author draws on the opinion of an expert in the field of urology.  The expert's opinion is that dosages are recommended with safety in mind over efficacy.  This information comes from the New York Times, a reputable source with full contact information provided.  It is also relatively current.  The expert quoted uses language that supports the idea that science is based on evidence, which can be interpreted differently by different people.  The author could have made this article more complete by citing additional experts. 

Week 11 Blog Post -- Adolescent Interview Project

In completing the adolescent interview project, I wanted to ask questions that relate to my topic for the final project: How is language (both verbal and written) being redefined in response to new media, such as social media?  I felt that using this opportunity to conduct some primary research on the topic would be a valuable addition to a literature review.

The student I asked to participate in this interview is one who I know to be very thoughtful and philosophical.  She is one of my honors chemistry students and also my advisory student, which means I meet with her at least once a week to ensure she makes appropriate academic progress in all her classes.  For the purposes of this blog post, I will call her by a pseudonym: Eleanor.

I began with what I considered to be more basic questions like, “How much time per day do you spend on your phone?” and “What apps do you use most often, and why?”  I then moved toward questions I felt would require more analytical thought on the part of Eleanor.  These included asking for her definition of the term “literacy,” and asking her to evaluate how this concept has changed as a result of new media.  Moreover, I posed questions about changes in language and identity formation as a result of integrating new media into our society.  Lastly, I asked Eleanor to come up with a few questions of her own that could be useful for further research on this topic.

I chose to conduct the interview via email, rather than in person, because I wanted Eleanor to be able to think through her responses.  As can be demonstrated by some of the responses I will highlight, I believe that decision was a good one.  Eleanor’s thorough and thoughtful responses did not surprise me because it’s what I’ve come to expect of her.  However, while they did not surprise me, they did impress me.  One particular response I’d like to highlight is as follows:

Question:  How do you think language (spoken and/or written) has changed in recent years as a result of new media?

Response:  As a result of new media, language, both spoken and written, has become less grammatically oriented and more focused on quick communication. Abbreviations and emojis replace thoughtful expression. I believe that for many, true substance in language has been lost. Communicating through media can be helpful in some instances in spreading information quickly,  there is less pressure of consequence of language through media because there is typically a barrier between you and repercussions. Also, language through media is easily misinterpreted or misunderstood, as virtual words are not being properly emphasized by a speaker.

Eleanor’s analysis of both the benefits and detriments of a changing language is highly reflective.  As we’ve seen throughout this course, the loss of “true substance in language” is a concern for many people when it comes to use of new technology and media.  In answering the question, “Do you think you act or speak differently online than you do in person?”, Eleanor expressed frustration over not being able to adequately convey emotion when communicating online.  She says, “When replying to my friends on line [sic], I find that much of my actual feelings are not properly conveyed, and I always struggle to find the right assembly of words. When speaking online, in my personal experience, I am given time to over think [sic] my response, which changes it from how I would typically respond in person.”

Yet, Eleanor points out that there is “less pressure of consequence of language through media.”  Clearly this can have negative effects; but, conversely, it can empower marginalized groups -- those who have not had much of a voice in the past -- to be heard.  On a more personal level, it can empower introverted individuals, and provide them with a platform on which to communicate with others, without the fear of the consequences of face-to-face interaction.  

Along those lines, another question posed was: What role do you think new media has in shaping a person’s identity?

Response:  Being able to hide behind a screen can allow a person to feel less inhibited, and even open up in ways one does not know how to in person. This can either have a very positive or very harmful effect, depending on the circumstances. I've seen people find themselves with the help of new media, connecting with others and opening up because of opportunities that were never presented to them in the real world. Contrasting this, I have witnessed vicious sides of people unleashed through new media because they feel untouchable. Despite which way the shaping of identity goes, new media frees people from restrictions and pressures of real life, allowing them to express different sides of themselves.

Once again, I believe Eleanor’s evaluation of this concept to be spot on.  For good or bad, the interactions that take place on new media, and as such, the identities people take on when interacting on new media, can be very different than those “of real life.”  

Through conducting this interview, I realized that adults (and researchers of new media/new literacies, in particular) could benefit from speaking with adolescents more often about these topics.  In looking through the sources I’ve found for my final project, very few of the researchers spoke directly with adolescents; and when they did, the questions posed seemed superficial.  I have learned that adolescents can absolutely evaluate, analyze, and think critically about the integration of new media, as well as how those new media affect the concepts of literacy, changing literacy, and identity formation.  While I admit that not all students would provide answers at her level, Eleanor’s insights have illuminated the true depth of thought of which adolescents are capable.  

Some questions for further thought, courtesy of Eleanor:

In what ways do you notice this new media/ technology shaping or coming into every day [sic] conversation?

Do you ever find that cell phone usage is detrimental to your friendships?  How so?

Would you be comfortable sharing the identity you have online with your parents?

What is a fear or emotion you have in person when speaking that is not there when speaking online?

Citation: 

Eleanor [pseudonym].  (2016).  Adolescent interview project.  [Personal communication].

Week 9 Blog Post -- Advertisement Deconstruction Reflection

As someone who teaches science literacy, I have been trying to introduce my students to more traditional, offline sources of information, including print magazines and journals.  Since I was already spending my time looking through print magazines, I decided to deconstruct an ad that I found in a recent issue of Discover.  I also chose a print advertisement because I thought it would be worthwhile to revisit what a print ad actually looks like, since I so rarely do anymore.  

The ad I chose is for a five-stone opal ring.  A large picture of the ring is placed at the top of the page and the bottom of the page is mostly text.  There are no people depicted in the ad; just the photographs of the jewelry being sold.  The camera angle is close to the subject and taken from above.  The lighting is artificial, and the photo has had some "touching up," including the addition of an artificial gleam coming off the center part of the ring.  The colors of the opals in the ring are vibrant against the brown and tans used for the background.  There is a lot of text on the page, which is written in paragraph form.  It describes the jewelry and price (explaining that they are not deceiving the public the way other jewelry companies are).  Based on the language used, I believe the intended audience was older, middle class, married men.

Source: Discover Magazine

I followed the process outlined by the Media Education Foundation’s (2005) guidelines for deconstructing a print advertisement.  At first, the ad was seemingly innocuous, and I wondered if I would actually be able to find any biases or damaging reinforcement of stereotypes, as I can so easily find in ads I see online or on TV.  However, as I went through the Media Education Foundation’s steps for deconstruction, I did begin to find some issues with the ad, including the reinforcement of some old-fashioned ideas: that women need men to buy merchandise for them; that older men tend to be cheap and are always looking to get a deal; and that only married people have anniversaries to celebrate.  I also found that due to the “act fast” rhetoric throughout the ad, it could be targeting people with shopping addictions, enticing them to spend money on something they don’t need and can’t afford.  

In terms of connection to our readings, it was interesting to look at this ad, which is laid out in such an old-fashioned format: browns and tans, lots of text, and a phone number to call to place the order instead of using a website.  I found it to be in high contrast with the types of new media we’ve been studying.  On top of the fact that this ad was found in a print source, the ad itself was mostly text.  Postman (1985) points out that “...Western society began to abandon print culture and enter an ‘Age of Entertainment’ grounded in a culture of the image…” (as cited by Lankshear & Knobel, 2011, p. 85).  We rarely see an ad anymore that is so full of text, including the use of complete sentences and full paragraphs.  Ads are much more visual now.  I find that, personally, I am more drawn to ads that follow the current visual format.  If I hadn’t been purposefully looking for an ad to deconstruct for this assignment, I would have glossed right over this page in the magazine.  However, it was a good exercise to read this ad and think through the questions posed by the Media Education Foundation.  

Lankshear, C. & Knobel, M. (2011). Literacies: Social, cultural, and historical perspectives. New York, NY: Peter Lang Publishing, Inc.

Media Education Foundation.  (2005).  Deconstructing an advertisement.  [PDF].  Retrieved from: http://www.mediaed.org/handouts/DeconstructinganAd.pdf.

Week 8 Blog Post

“Jenkins (2010) states that for the past several decades media literacy advocates have called on schools to, ‘foster a critical understanding of media as one of the most powerful social, economic, political, and cultural institutions of our era,’” (p. 31; as cited by Gal, 2016).  This is an interesting statement in light of the views expressed by McLuhan (1970) that we should “put the questions in the classroom and...start a real dialogue there,” (p. 11).  At the surface, this seems to coincide with Jenkins’s idea that literacy is a social construct, particularly when new forms of media are being introduced and integrated into our everyday lives.  After all, “an acoustic world...is, in effect, a world of simultaneous information,” (p. 1).  As such, it was important then, and is increasingly important now, to instill critical media literacy skills in our students.  As relatable as this idea is to today’s world, I did have some issues with McLuhan’s speech, which I printed out to read more thoroughly.  

One of the difficulties I had with this reading is that much of what McLuhan spoke of seems outdated now -- that rock music “threatens the whole educational establishment” (p. 3), and that “[a]s subjects become dubious as a form of learning, the interdisciplinary takes on more and more meaning,” (p. 6).  Those things clearly did not pan out; at least not on any large, long-term scale.  Traditional educational platforms still exist, despite rock music’s influence; and we still teach in discrete subjects, not in interdisciplinary thematic curricula.  

Conversely, I am intrigued by McLuhan’s ideas that do ring true today, particularly those that have to do with communication being transformative: “how people are changed by the instruments they employ,” (p. 4).  It reminds me of a concept in science, that the act of measuring something actually changes the “something” you’re measuring.  You can never get a true temperature measurement of a cup of water, for instance, because inserting the thermometer into the water initiates heat transfer between the water and the bulb of the thermometer, thus altering the original water temperature.  

Along the lines of transformative communication, I was drawn to his idea about new journalism, and how it seeks not to show us the “sides” of a situation, but to “[immerse] us in the feeling of the whole situation,” (p. 5).  I wonder if that is still true today.  Perhaps to some extent, but with today’s media, and particularly social media, we often play the role of journalist, and our opinions on the situation certainly shine through.  But it’s difficult to obtain any coherent picture of a situation in today’s media environment.  Even in the 1970s, McLuhan recognized this.  “In the electric world, the simultaneity of information is acoustic because it comes from all directions at once,” (p. 7).  I can think of no truer statement of today’s world.  As such, it becomes everyone’s responsibility to engage in, learn, understand, and teach critical media literacy.  Of course it should be addressed in schools, but it should be discussed at home and in social situations, as well.  We all live in this digital world; it’s our job to ensure it’s the world we want to live in.  In this way, I think McLuhan’s points of view line up with Jenkins’s -- that is, when I could actually understand what McLuhan was getting at.

I found this reading/video to be difficult to get through.  I printed out the transcript so I could really pay attention to and analyze his ideas, but I found it to be too abstract (and as a chemistry person, I’m used to dealing with abstract concepts).  His arguments were all over the place.  I wish he would have focused more on depth over breadth.  When he provided examples and analogies, I understood it better, and found myself interested in what he had to say.  

One idea, in particular, that I was drawn to was McLuhan’s statement that “[the] motorcar as the supreme form of privacy has been threatened,” (p. 10).  I never thought about the idea that Americans tend to “go outside” for the sake of privacy, but his description rings true.  Co-workers will ask how I deal with a 30-minute one-way commute, but I love it.  It gives me my only private time of the day.  And yet, we are at the point where we are losing the privacy that a car provides.  This is very reminiscent to me of the idea of the “telecoccoon” in which our cars are “equipped with screens, Bluetooth, GPS navigation, services like OnStar and satellite radio,” (Varnelis & Friedberg, 2012, p. 22).  I can be in the middle of belting out my favorite song, and it’s suddenly interrupted by an incoming call on my Bluetooth, or the robotic voice of Google Maps telling me the next turn to take.  As someone who values quiet time and privacy, the social aspects of our media-driven world can be overwhelming at times.  Is there such a thing as privacy anymore?  Have our technological advancements rendered that concept completely null?  McLuhan might disagree: “It is the environment that changes people, not the technology,” (p. 11).  He states that, “all the effects come before the cause or the discovery itself” (p. 9).  Perhaps this is true, but it brings to mind a quote I mentioned earlier: “how people are changed by the instruments they employ,” (p. 4).  

So, I guess I’m left with a “chicken or the egg” type of question.  Do new technology and media actually change society?  Or, does a changing society create the technology and media it needs to navigate that society?  I certainly did not obtain the answer to that question from McLuhan, but maybe through a more thorough examination of new media, I’ll eventually have a better idea.  

Works Cited

Jenkins (2010); as cited by Gal, D. (2016). Week 8 blog post.  [Assignment instructions.]  Retrieved from: https://moodle.esc.edu/mod/page/view.php?id=1405222.

McLuhan, M. (1970).  Living in an acoustic world.  [Public lecture.]  University of South Florida.  Retrieved from: http://www.marshallmcluhanspeaks.com/lecture/1970-living-in-an-acoustic-world/.  

Varnelis, K. (Ed.). (2012). Networked publics.  Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press.

Week 5 Blog Post

Through many of our readings in this course, I keep coming back to the idea expressed by Lankshear and Knobel (2011) that often what we consider to be new literacies are actually just old literacies performed on new technologies or platforms.  This week’s readings are no different, as they provide insight into a key issue of the cultural and critical frames of literacy: a lack of change in how society functions, regardless of the potential the internet affords us.

In reading just the first page of David Crystal’s (2004) work, two quotes immediately pop out to me as being representative of the early hopes for the internet:

“The Internet is one of the most remarkable things human beings have ever made. In terms of its impact on society, it ranks with print, the railways, the telegraph, the automobile, electric power and television,” (Naughton, 1999; as cited by Crystal, 2004).

“...people should seize the new technology to empower themselves; to keep themselves informed about the truth of their own economic, political and cultural circumstances; and to give themselves a voice that all the world could hear,” (Mbeki; as cited by Berners-Lee, 1999; as cited by Crystal, 2004).

It seems like the hopes for the power of the internet to actually change society, and, as such, change the idea of literacy, had still not been carried out by the time O’Baoill (2004) and Sassen (as cited by Varnelis, 2012) had performed their research.  At the beginning of her talk, Sassen poses an interesting question: “If we have openness...and we have choice...do we get a more democratic outcome?”  Ultimately, her research led her to an answer of “no.”  Though the technologies being used have changed, the “social logic of the users” still dictates how it is used.  These new technologies provide us with the same outcomes, just at “different orders of magnitudes,” (Sassen; as cited by Varnelis, 2012).

Previously, O'Baoill (2004) had voiced a similar concern in his discussion of weblogs (blogs).  He states, “...the emergence of a small loose group of A-list bloggers, whose traffic and in-bound links are far in excess of those of most other bloggers…” (p. 3).  The idealistic potential of blogging to be open to anyone, regardless of off-line rank, turns out not to be true in practice.  This reminds me of Jenkins’s (2006) idea that “media operate in specific cultural and institutional contexts that determine how and why they are used,” (p. 7).  In other words, the technologies used are only as productive as their users allow them to be.

Recuero (as cited by Connected Learning TV, 2012) addresses this issue, specifically toward social media use in Brazil.  She states that “social media are exposing the problems with our society,” but at the same time “a lot of people are stating their position, but not really [having] a back-and-forth…” conversation.  I think this not only also applies to social media use in the United States, but also goes hand-in-hand with a concern brought about by O'Baoill (2004) when he discusses “the time commitment needed to produce a quality weblog,” (p. 2).  “The major task here is not actually in writing but in reading,” (Mills, 1956; O’Hehir, 2003; as cited by O’Baoill, 2004, p. 2).  The problem is that social media today have made it incredibly easy for people to obtain information in snippets, rather than spend the time necessary to read about and truly understand various sides of a political topic.  Moreover, social media provide a platform for people do just as Recuero points out: state their opinions without having the types of democratic discussions these researchers had hoped could (and would) occur.  

Some of these readings, and works cited within the readings, could be considered “old” at this point; however, it’s clear that little has changed in regards to  the issues discussed.  This can be exemplified by the fact that the videos posted in 2012 discuss similar concerns to those issues posed in the articles from the late 1990s and early 2000s.  My own observations of today’s social media world compliment these views.  Perhaps with more discussion and education about new technologies, social platforms, and forms of literacy, society can progress the ways in which the inventor of the World Wide Web, Tim Berners-Lee had hoped.  After all, “The Web is more a social creation than a technical one,” (1999; as cited by Crystal, 2004, p. vii).  

Works Cited

Connected Learning TV.  (Producer).  (2012, July 24).  Raquel Recuero - Digital youth, social movements, and democracy in Brazil [video webinar].  Retrieved from: http://connectedlearning.tv/raquel-recuero-digital-youth-social-movements-and-democracy-brazil.

Crystal, D. (2004).  Language and the internet.  Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.  [Online PDF].  Retrieved from: https://moodle.esc.edu/pluginfile.php/1878287/mod_page/content/7/david-crystal.pdf.

Jenkins, H. (2006).  Confronting the challenges of participatory culture: Media education for the 21st century.  Retrieved from:https://www.macfound.org/press/publications/white-paper-confronting-the-challenges-of-participatory-culture-media-education-for-the-21st-century-by-henry-jenkins/.

Lankshear, C. & Knobel, M. (2011). Literacies: Social, cultural, and historical perspectives. New York, NY: Peter Lang Publishing, Inc.

O'Baoill, A. (2004). Weblogs and the public sphere. University of Minnesota. Retrieved from the University of Minnesota Digital Conservancy, http://hdl.handle.net/11299/172814.

[Varnelis, K.].  (2012, July 26).  Saskia Sassen: Networks, power, and democracy.  [Video file].  Retrieved from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hpw1GpHzAbc&feature=youtu.be

Week 3 Blog Post

Upon reading the introduction and scanning the chapters of the book “Networked Publics” (Varnelis, 2012), I am drawn to the idea that “Networked digital media are beginning to be taken for granted in everyday life,” (p. 1).  In fact, this was the topic of conversation just yesterday in the science literacy course I teach.  I asked my students to talk about what we take for granted today in terms of information literacy and science literacy.  The idea that access to information is something we take for granted came up repeatedly.  The new tools, techniques, and skills that everyday citizens employ on a daily basis are directly related to this incredible access to information.  Based on the reading, and my own experiences, some of these tools broadly include smartphones and personal computers, in addition to the more specific applications used within these tools, such as social media sites.  

I was also drawn to the idea that “...an increasing number of people are domesticating networked digital media for their ongoing business, for socialization, and for cultural exchange,” (Varnelis, 2012, p. 1).  Being able to use the internet for these purposes is a key skill needed today.  If you’re not advertising your company on the internet, you probably won’t succeed.  In terms of socialization, if you don’t use any social media sites, you'll probably be the last one to know what's going on in your family.  This is an operational dimension of literacy, but also cultural.  Moreover, it can become critical, especially at times when there’s something controversial going on (e.g. a presidential election) or when science information is shared (e.g. rampant vaccine misinformation).

Personally, I think what is important to remember is that “...technologies are embodiments of social and cultural structures that in turn get taken up in new ways by existing social groups and cultural categories,” (Edwards, 1995; Hine, 2000; Pinch & Bijker, 1987; as cited by Varnelis, 2012,  p. 4).  I am reminded of an episode of the show The Big Bang Theory, in which “Sheldon and Amy secretly experiment on the gang by spreading rumors when they hear that Bernadette is thinking about breaking up with Howard,” (IMBD, n.d.).  Sheldon and Amy hypothesize that a rumor will spread much like a virus does; that information has a life of its own.  The cultural and participatory nature of literacy through new technologies is much the same.  “This distribution of processing power to larger masses of people is linked to an unprecedented spread of the means of cultural and information production and dissemination,” (Varnelis, 2012, p. 6).  Whenever I have a question about a topic, I can simply pull out my smartphone; or, as my father-in-law puts it, I can “ask the answer machine.”

The problem is, “We are still very much in the midst of negotiating appropriate social norms in this era of layered presence,” (Varnelis, 2012, p. 6).  This is easily exemplified by the debate over student cell phone use in schools.  When is it appropriate?  Should we be teaching students how to use their phones responsibly, not only in maintaining an appropriate digital presence, but in following cultural norms (e.g. don’t start playing on your phone while your teacher is lecturing)?  Or should we restrict their use in schools entirely?

This question arises outside of schools, as well; for instance, the coffee shop scenario described on page 16 (Varnelis, 2012).  I think it all comes down to choice.  I don’t think it’s rude not to “reach out” to the other Starbucks patrons because that’s become the social norm that’s developed for that particular situation.  We choose to interact with people who are not close to us in proximity, and yet, we are connecting with people; in fact, online interactions might be the most enriching interactions we ever encounter because of that distance.  We feel emboldened to express ideas we would likely never express to those we interact with in person.  I think people of older generations have a problem with this concept because now people have a choice as to whom they give their attention.  My uncle (whose political views and personal stories are tedious, at best) doesn’t have a monopoly on my attention anymore just because he’s in the same room as me.  

Along the lines of negotiating new social norms, I recently saw this picture going around Facebook:

(Rembrandt's The Night Watch is considered a masterpiece, Gijsbert van der Wal, 2016)

People were up in arms.  How dare children not respect such a classic piece of art?  It’s just one more example of our “distracted society.”  It’s a perfect “metaphor for our age,” (Malloy, 2016).  My thought at the time was: Well, maybe those kids just didn’t care about that painting, and I don’t blame them, because it seems pretty darn boring to me.  Maybe it’s OK for opinions regarding artistic appreciation to change over time.  But when I read a follow-up article provided by The Telegraph, I gained a new (complementary) perspective.  According to the teacher of the students pictured, they were using their phones to look up information about an assignment related to that particular painting (Malloy, 2016).  And here the internet was, making assumptions about and judging a situation about which they knew nothing.

Unfortunately (in this case), “Anyone with access to an Internet connection has a soapbox with which to try and reach their audience, even if that audience is spatially dispersed,” (Varnelis, 2012, p. 7).  As evidenced, this can be a negative attribute.   Those who choose to remain ignorant (those who choose to ignore Green’s critical dimension of literacy) can say whatever they want with very little recourse.  This enhances the spread of misinformation, racism, sexism, homophobia, classism, etc.  On the other hand, the access to this type of “soapbox” can be good.  People or groups who, historically, haven’t had a platform on which to express their points of view now do.  For instance, there have been many social justice movements enacted on the internet, like #YesAllWomen and #BlackLivesMatter.  These hashtags allow the everyday citizen to share information about his or her life that majority groups (men and white people) might not have even known.  

These social media movements also provide those minority groups with a sense of belonging.  I will never forget a situation that occurred shortly after graduating from college.  I was expressing distaste over the show “Deal or No Deal,” on which 30 or so scantily-clad models held briefcases containing a numerical representation of a monetary prize.  I verbally asked why there always had to be half-naked women on TV whose purpose was nothing more than a visual fantasy for men (had I known of the term cis-men at the time, I would have used it).  It was something that really bothered me.  The response I received was not very accepting.  In fact, one person told me, “You’re the only girl who feels that way.”  I held onto that sentiment for a long time.  It wasn’t until the advent of social media that I began to realize that, in fact, I was not the only girl who felt that way.  Many other women were frustrated with the portrayal of women in the media.  It made me feel validated.  Though older generations might write it off as not important, or even silly, social justice hashtags can make a world of difference.  

At the same time, this brings up the question of privacy now that everyone has access to this “soapbox.”  “...individuals, particularly teenagers, discuss their most intimate -- and illicit -- details online,” (boyd [sic], n.d.; as cited by Varnelis, 2012, p. 153).  Based on my Facebook feed, I would argue that it’s certainly not particularly teenagers anymore, but that is an entirely separate argument.  The fact of the matter is that my generation is the first generation of parents to ever have to make social media decisions for our children.  My children’s digital privacy is always in the forefront of my mind.  It annoys me when my peers post stories about their children involving bathroom habits or other “harmless” stories.  It’s more serious when you start to think about the fact that “...advances in computation and networking have made it possible to store data on individuals to a greater degree than ever imaginable,” (Varnelis, 2012, p. 153).  I read an article when I was pregnant saying that you shouldn’t post your child’s full name on social media when announcing his/her birth because people can use it to steal his/her identity.  Recently, I got a letter from our health insurance about a breach in their computer system.  As a result, they’re providing us with two years of free credit monitoring.  I have to take care of this type of stuff for my children the same way I have to make sure their teeth get brushed and they have regular checkups.

“...it also underscores the degree to which privacy is no longer important in this culture,” (Varnelis, 2012, p. 154).  Honestly, I question whether or not this is true.  Is there really such a total lack of privacy anymore, or is the concept of privacy, itself, changing?  For instance, it’s still somewhat taboo for women to discuss their menstrual cycles in a public setting (public meaning in person or online), but this is changing -- what used to be a very private (and embarrassing) thing is now becoming normal to discuss.  I also question whether a lack of privacy is even a problem at all. Maybe it’s just a sign of changing social norms.  Who actually finds this to be problematic?  Probably the same people who are annoyed that you don’t interact with them at Starbucks.

Works Cited

Malloy, M.  (2016, January 16).  The real story behind a viral Rembrandt ‘kids on phones’ photo.  The Telegraph.  Retrieved from: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/12103150/Rembrandt-The-Night-Watch-The-real-story-behind-the-kids-on-phones-photo.html.

IMDB Staff.  (n.d.)  The Big Bang Theory: The Herb Garden Germination.  Retrieved from: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1632236/.

Varnelis, K (Ed.).  (2012).  Networked publics.  Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.