These days we are inundated with new technology. The landscape we operate in is constantly changing and it feels as though the change is ever-accelerating. Discussions and discourse on technology itself tends to focus around economic advantages and/or disadvantages in the efficiency technology can bring now and will bring later and how this impacts the economy. Another interesting perspective from which we can look at the changes technology brings is sociology. Though not mutually exclusive from economics, by focussing on people’s interactions and societal structures since the birth and then evolution of Information Communication Technologies (ICTs) different conclusions can be made about its use and impact.
What is a generation?
Sociologist Karl Mannheim is one of several sociologists to subscribe to a theory of generations as one which most aptly describes and predicts social constructs and movements. His idea of a generation is one that most others, particularly in the context of this post, think of. According to Mannheim the foundations of a generation occurred during youth. If a particular group are faced with circumstances unfamiliar to previous generations, requiring new methods of thinking about the problems they face, this can be considered a generation. A generation is not, however, only defined by age. Location and sociocultural surroundings also play a part. Mannheim acknowledges that Generationalism does not encompass everything and that other sociological ideas can be conflated with it such as gender, socioeconomics and racial divisions to form a more complete picture.
Is there a Digital Generation?
A Digital Generation’s existence, based off Mannheim’s definition of generation seems likely. Anyone who grew up with the internet faces an entirely different market as we continue to transition from an industrial economy to a knowledge economy. Very few rules that applied to the industrial economy are relevant today. Working hard is not the surest way to success now, since a robot or computer will always be able to work harder and faster than you can.
Computer games are a primary source of entertainment for today’s youth and adolescents, yet for the most part their parents look on confused as to how watching “flashy light things” while “clicking buttons” can be entertaining, let alone engrossing. This divide appears even as digital “outsiders” embrace ICT, because they often need their children to show them how to use it.
Having just described the Digital Generation and the divide, I’m yet to calcify a direct answer… which is quite obviously “yes” in my opinion.
What does this mean?
The most important aspect of the Digital Generation discourse to address is the divide. Without a proper connection between the two disfunction is certain. The sector where the most damage can be done if disfunction between generations occurs is in policy making. Currently, it would be safe to say almost 98% if not 100% of policy-makers are not part of the Digital Generation. This is dangerous. The Digital Generation is also the younger, and therefore those with the most future ahead of them. Digital “outsiders” are now making decisions for the youth without proper knowledge of technology, it’s uses and perhaps even with a negative bias of ICT brought about from “I don’t understand it, therefore I don’t like it” reasoning.
Already this can be seen in the severely late adoption of ICT in schools, the place where students are supposed to be preparing for the future. Although majority of students will be more knowledgeable in the use of technology than their teachers, the surface level use such as making fonts bold in Pages or cropping an image in Photoshop need not be of concern to the teachers. The adaptation of schools to new technology should, ironically not actually be about technology at all. The focus should be on the “soft skills” that will allow students to live a fruitful and happy future.
Let me provide an example. A teacher is teaching about World War 2. Using the antiquated method of teaching, the teacher would reach for the text book, write some questions (or use those in the text book) and tell the students to answer them, maybe after a quick oral summary by the teacher herself. Now, with technology the teacher could try to create some multimodal resource for the students with the knowledge that the students could probably do it better than they could. So, why don’t they?
If the teacher puts the task of learning about World War 2 onto the students they now have ownership of their learning and simultaneously can enhance their own experience through technology. The teacher though is not redundant, the teacher is to direct. “Soft skills” such as critical thinking, team work and effective communication are skills a teacher is certainly (you would hope) more proficient in than the students. These skills are also perhaps more important than the ability to insert a video into a powerpoint slide. The curriculum comes as a favourable, yet secondary, outcome of the whole process.
The effects extend further than just schooling though. Automation, made possible by technology, will also impact the economy greatly. Those of the Digital Generation, those familiar with ceaseless change will naturally be ready for more, however, for society as a whole to adapt quickly it will be up to the policy-makers.
Conclusion:
It appears there is a wide-enough divide in groups to establish a generational divide, in particular one based off the definition set by Karl Mannheim. The problems faced in the formation of this generation lay predominantly in the gap between it, and the preceding generations of “digital immigrants”. To counter some of these problems in education attention should be focussed towards the underlying skills technology can empower, and not the surface level skills of technology itself. Other, greater, societal problems must be considered meticulously and rationally.
I realise I have not addressed any of the “other” problems with regards to a digital generation, I will save that for another post.
