WRITTEN ON September 24th, 2006 BY Prof Melvin Dubnick AND STORED IN Uncategorized
Over the past three years I have situated myself firmly on the sidelines when it comes to “e-” topics (e-Democracy, e-Government), primarily because my own views on how we ought to approach the subject are based on assumptions radically different from my colleagues. Perhaps it is time to come out of my intellectual closet and admit to a perspective that will make some (if not most) uncomfortable at best.
First, let me note my own obsession with all things “e-” in my own life — on both work and personal levels. I have been at this computer thing since at least 1986, and I have come to regard it as much a subject as a tool. As observer and participant in the cyber-revolution, I am fascinated by the almost transformative impact it has people’s behavior and thinking. Watching “up close” my children adapt and adjust to computers and the Internet over the past two decades (they are now in their thirties) led me to rethink the simple assumptions that most of us make that computers and the Internet are merely wonderful new tools to apply to business-as-usual and governance-as-usual. There was more to it than that – the tools were actually creating new personalities that demanded something different from those who used the emergent Internet interface as a means for “reaching out” to them….
To make sense of it all I had to dust off an old copy of Marshall McLuhan’s Understanding Media, and in that I found what I regard as a basic insight regarding the transformations we were entering into.
Specifically, I was drawn to McLuhan prescient insight that in this new age of electronic media there was about to emerge a society populated by “nomadic gatherers of knowledge”; and while McLuhan got the medium and generation a bit wrong (he attributed too much to TV and the baby boom generation), the Internet and the (now college-age) cyber-generation will prove him a prophet.
To put my central point quite briefly, those working with e-Democracy and e-Government have been assuming (both empirically and normatively) two distinct, but equally incorrect target populations while designing their new media tools: the citizen and the consumer. Focusing on the citizen we seek to fashion approaches that stress access, engagement and accountability; focusing on the consumer we substitute choice for access, service for engagement and satisfaction for accountability. All those nice and interesting innovative web sites and interfaces designed to deal with citizens and customers would work well in a world populated by either of those “assumed” target groups; but with only rare (and often temporary) exceptions, their sites sit unused by those they were designed to serve. Yes, we of the attentive “cyberati” link to them and give out accolades and awards, but the fact remains that they have failed to achieve even a modicum of success.
But I am not a complete pessimist, for I think that eventually we will learn that the best strategy is to accept the nature of the emerging Internet-savvy “nomads” who are the real hope for potential “e-“approaches. This means that we have to accept that this group seeks neither the access desired by imagined citizens nor the choices sought by customers; rather, they seek options and alternatives — different paths that they can follow if they wish to. And in lieu of citizen engagement and customer service, these cyber-savvy nomads seek immersive experiences — a level of real or virtual involvement that might not fit the traditional interactions we assume they should engage in. And where we attribute the need for accountability and customer satisfaction to our ideal target populations, nomads want a form of e-governance that will meet their needs for sustainable life styles.
So, while:
CITIZENS seek (1) access (2) engagement and (3) accountaiblity, and
CUSTOMERS seek (1) choice (2) service and (3) satisfaction,
NOMADS seek (1) options (2) immersion and (3) sustainability.
I have been thinking about the implications of this for a number of years, and in the past I played with this concept of a generation of McLuhanist “nomads” in some work on the challenges facing civic education. But the first generation of these nomads are now entering adulthood, and I am increasingly convinced there is value in pursuing this perspective into the realm of “e-governance” projects.
Having stuck my head out of the closet, perhaps I need to get serious about the argument….
5 Responses to “Adjusting to Nomads”
These nomadic gatherers: are they an interesting elite, or the shape of things to come?
Does government cater for them at the risk of ignoring the bulk of the most needy? Or is it more important to realise that its projects will continue to fail until it uses the nomads as guides to what e-enabled government should do?
Great piece. Of course, the web is becoming as much about information creation by individuals as it is about information gathering by those individuals. Which takes us back to William’s co-creativity theme.
Re. The interesting 1998 paper about USA education: I know best about my childhood and my education in UK: I’m very grateful for the eight schools, two technical colleges, a polytechnic, and two universities which tried to help me on my way. I’m also grateful that even as undergraduates we were not taken entirely seriously; were allowed space to experiment, make mistakes and grow-up. Not everything was perfect, but at least we were protected from many outside pressures until we could cope.
The 1998 paper also discusses phases and fashions largely in the context of schooling, implying that school is (or should be?) the chief influence on children. Obviously school was a great influence, but I was also much influenced by parents (born in an earlier period), by elderly grandparents & relatives (from a much earlier period), and by leaders of youth activities. As a young adult, there were colleagues, friends, managers, mentors, customers, clients and first-hand experiences.
Having roots and relatives in several countries, as well as influences from several directions, I can guess at the pressures these days on youngsters from some minority groups.
I believe that some other aspects are also important in our use of the Internet: Some *may* be implicit in the desires of “Nomads.” Aspects include: Trust, risk, convenience, fun, community, cost, relevance, time consumed.
Also important is the actual availability (and speed) of access: Many companies (and government departments) restrict the web access of their staff – a great problem for “Nomads” who have become accustomed to continuous access to Internet services for work and play.
Until youngsters acquire a settled home address, they may not have ready access to high-speed Internet, except at the office, so may not have effective access to Internet services.
Although Wi-Fi and LAN access are becoming more common, people travelling away from home or office may also lack adequate Internet access.
In other words, youngsters who become too dependent on having continual high-speed access to Internet services may struggle to cope with the current constraints of the real world.
Our personal passion and experience is definitely a better guide to hwat is really happening than any prevailing accepted wisdom.
Kevin Kelly told me we all have a moral duty to use this technology to the very best of our ability. And I think the “exemplary Internet user” is a better guide to what we should be doing with e-enabled public services than any politician or award-winning project. We need to shift government CIOs to seeing it this way, and help them become persuasive advocates.