In today’s digital world, the average individual would assume the internet as a staple in the lives of all, both a necessity and communally shared luxury. Although, is this really the case? Is the all encompassing digital space as inclusive as it may seem? To further understand this, we turn to some of the most digitally excluded Aboriginal communities, assessing why this may be the case, and how this pertains to the wider field of digital literacies. If we wish to appropriately dissect this digital divide, it is critical that analysis is conducted through the conceptual lens of ‘social logistics’, bound together by Ng’s (2012) intersecting dimensions of digital literacy; technical, cognitive, and social-emotional.
If we consider the definition of digital literacies from the European Information Society (Martin, 2005, p. 135), we know that digital literacies is key in ‘facilitating identity…communicating with others [and] enabling constructive social action’(reference), or in other words, creating meaningful, effective communication through digital tools. This is precisely what these indigenous communities lack. Or is it?
The Dimensions of digital literacy:
From a technical standpoint, these remote communities lack ‘the technical and operational skills to use ICT for learning’ (Ng 2012, p. 1067), and as such, are not given the opportunity to develop critical thinking skills. Without the opportunity to develop their digital literacy skills, these communities remain isolated, as shown in studies made by (Rennie et al. 2016), outlining a direct correlation ‘between social exclusion and digital exclusion’ (Rennie et al. 2016, p. 23). Overlapping with the technical dimension of digital literacy, the cognitive dimension regards the ability to critically think, which, as established before, is lacking within these remote communities, in a digital sense that is. According to Ng (2012), cognitively and emotionally apt individual is able to evaluate digital information and as such, further develop ‘linguistic, audio…[and] gestural skills’ (Ng 2012, p. 1068), skills that individuals in these communities seem to lack, or do they?
In revisiting the above definition, emphasis is placed on digital literacies as a means of facilitating both social action and identity, although, internet access and digital inclusion is largely influenced by tradition and/or social structure, a tradition that does not rely on ones digital literacy skills to flourish. As such, Ng’s dimensions in a sense serve no beneficial purpose within the context of these communities. Thus, whilst the idea of digital inclusion within these remote communities may be desirable to some, the only way in which such an ideal can become a reality, is if the thousands of years of established kinship tradition allows for it.
References:
Martin, A. 2005, ‘DigEuLit – a European framework for digital literacy: a progress report’, Journal of ELiteracy, vol. 2, no.3, pp. 130–136.
Ng, W 2012 ’Can we teach digital natives digital literacy?’, Computers & education, vol. 59 no. 3, pp. 1065-1078
Rennie, E., Hogan, E., Gregory, R. Crouch, R., Wright, A. & Thomas, J. 2016, ‘Introduction, Internet on the Outstation: The Digital Divide and Remote Aboriginal Communities’, pp.13-27.
13542117 