Identit(y)ies and anxiet(y)ies in on-line communities

Author: Dr Carol Reid

pdf version

University of Western Sydney, Australia.

Keywords: University of Western Sydney, on-line communities, identity, cultural diversity, construction of Other.

Article style and source : Peer Reviewed. Original ultiBASE publication. Paper originally presented at the Eight International Literacy and Education Research Network (LERN) Conference on Learning, Spetes, Greece, 2001.

Contents

• Abstract
• Introduction

• Theoretical and methodological frameworks

• Discussion
• Conclusion
• References

Abstract

This paper presents some remarks on identity formation and the relationship this bears to transformative possibilities in on-line communities. The inability to 'read off' identity - as in embodied university classrooms - offers the promise of non-racialised/gendered/sexualised constructions of the 'Other' and therefore the presuppositions that such constructions carry with them. This presumed comp/utopia (idea of perfection) is attractive to many who work in culturally diverse environments where tensions often surface around changing local demographics (Reid, 2000). However, this paper argues - citing student focus group discussions and threads from on-line discussions - that a lack of knowledge about the ‘Other’ produces anxiet(y)ies. But rather than being unproductive, the anxiet(y)ies produced by ‘facelessness’ may have transformative potential. back

Introduction

Studies concerned with issues of diversity, multiculturalism and difference in teacher education on-line discussion groups have pointed to the tendency for flaming and a lack of democratic deliberation (Reid, 2000; London, 1995; Light et al, 2000). In an effort to overcome some of these problems, which are related to communicative literacy (Light et al, 2000; Shirato and Yell, 2000) as well as cultural literacy (Reid, 2000; Lankshear et al, 2000; Cazden et al, 1996) I used examples of texts that were produced anonymously and deconstructed them with first year students in teacher education studying the subject that I authored: Cultural diversity and learning. At one level, the texts that students were given were models of what was not acceptable (in terms of flaming etc) rather than what might be an appropriate genre. However, they also deconstructed the same texts for their discursive properties, in particular, the ideological positions that the authors were taking and they noted the tendency for authors to employ a range of ideological positions. Thus, complexity was introduced quite early in the subject. Despite this preparation, most students were unfamiliar with this emerging cultural field (i.e. on-line discussion and their part in developing an on-line community) and as such, struggled to find a voice to communicate (Lankshear et al, 2000) both their subject knowledge and cultural knowledge. Therefore, to understand pedagogical practice in education using Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs), it is important to interrogate the field - as a system of power hierarchies (Grenfell and James, 1998: 169) - or a site of struggle. Thus, this cyberfield in which identit(y)ies are shaped carries relations of power.

Unlike other studies that have focused on issues related to diversity in on-line discussion groups (Wizer and Beck, 1996; Light et al, 2000) this study was based on an entire cohort of students (136 in total) rather than small groups of between 12-30. In addition, unlike the conclusions of Light et al (2000) where the presence of the lecturer in discussions was seen as necessary to quell flaming or tangential discussion, students in this cohort were mixed about the need for the lecturer to be involved. The most productive literacies, where knowledge was distributed, well-evidenced and on topic, was where students challenged taken-for-granted explanations. To achieve this level of literacy, students had to consider not only the content of the subject but also their own positionality. back

Theoretical and methodological frameworks

The paper is based on a project entitled Framing Technological Literacy: An Ethnography of Social Space in Teaching and Learning On-line. This was an ethnographic study of the social/cultural dimensions - including pedagogical frameworks - of the new information and communication technologies (ICTs) in teaching and learning in an undergraduate teacher education social science based subject. The undergraduate subject that forms the focus for this research - Cultural Diversity and Learning - was a first year social science subject for undergraduate, teacher education students. Students used a discussion board and email as well as a range of subject materials within the teaching platform called 'Blackboard'. The subject took a critical approach towards issues of social justice arguing that social and pedagogical transformation is not possible without some sense, and therefore negotiation of, conflict, or as Gaine (2001) put it: ‘If it’s not hurting it’s not working’. Indeed, "causing trouble and wobbling perceptions are intended to help students understand the need to look deeper or beyond perspectives or responses that they have grown to ad-mire" (Whang & Waters, 2001:204).

Drawing on Hakken (1999, p.23) the overall project aimed to answer the following questions:

• What social changes are brought about by the use of ICTs and what changes are made to ICTs by social relations?
• How do social relations mediated by ICTs shape pedagogy?

The analysis presented in this paper is developed from focus group discussions carried out by a research assistant at the end of semester, and from the discussion threads built during the course of the subject’s duration. All four focus groups in addition to many of the discussion threads, made reference to the absence of visual clues, and to the absence of face. The decoupling of faces and names, and time and place, appears to afford students a perceived degree of anonymity but for many it created anxiety. It would appear that ‘facelessness’ created a sense of distance and increased awareness of the “social, cultural, historical, geographic, and linguistic realities of one’s own community” (Cummins & Sayers, 1995:137 cited in Whang & Waters, 2001:202). In the remainder of this paper, I will examine the ways in which identit(y)ies are negotiated in an on-line community as a consequence of increased anxiet(y)ies produced by social distance, or in this case, facelessness. back

Discussion

According to Salmon (2000), after students set up and access an e-learning environment, the next stage involves "individual participants establishing their online identities and then finding others with whom to interact" (p.3). This on-line socialisation requires some confidence - with technology and literacy - if students are to create on-line identities. It becomes important therefore to consider how texts might achieve some of these aims. One way to do this is to see authors as agents (Agger, 2001) who actively construct their identit(y)ies. However, it is not simply a case of communicative literacy because identity construction always occurs in a context marked by power relations (Castells, 1998, p.7). In terms of Islamic students and the issue of homosexuality that was discussed on-line, the process of communicating their concerns about this area often meant revealing their religious grounds by quoting the Q’uran as well as directly stating what they perceived to be their comparative marginalisation in Australian society. This positionality was revealed in the following ways:

An Islamic student expressed the annoyance she felt when people assumed that wearing a scarf [sic] was ‘a Turkish thing, and not an Islamic one.’

Another Islamic student agreed, protesting against the ignorance and stereotyping which often insists that all Arabic speakers must be Lebanese, that all women who wear a scarf [sic] must be Lebanese, and that all female followers of Islam must be oppressed.   This student insisted that ‘the solution here is pure and simple - education.’

The revealing of identit(y)ies is clearly liberating as one mature-aged female student in a focus group commented:

They are quiet [in embodied tutorials] —Muslim ladies are quiet, very quiet.  Their names on the discussion board… had a lot to offer.  It must have been incredible for them too, to voice their opinions.  It was easier for them…

However, the learning from and about others that occurred in the on-line community also highlighted the need for dominant groups within the student cohort to consider their own power and communication styles. This positionality became evident when students considered their audience and whether or not they felt constrained on the discussion board.

 Definitely –because it is so—it’s a touchy subject, and everybody is so multicultural, here especially.[young fe male - focus group]

 That was the point that I had, but also too, to make sure that I didn’t offend anyone, that I had said the exact thing that I wanted and it couldn’t be taken out of context I suppose.  It made me concentrate a lot more on what I was actually thinking and what I really felt about the subject.[mature female - focus group]

In the subject Cultural Diversity and Learning students are asked to reflect on the intersection of their own biographies and their attitudes towards relevant topics. The following is a summary of an exchange which takes place on the discussion site between a younger student and a mature-age student. 

• In response to a very tentative discussion about cultural diversity in Australia, the younger student quips that after researching and writing an essay on that topic recently, ‘I will be happy not to talk about Australian history for a while’. 
• The mature-age student responds, asking if the other student hadn’t found some of the research to be ‘a real eye-opener’.  She goes on to say that her research had ‘made me realise how much I didn’t know and how my opinions were influenced by my ignorance.’ 
• The younger student replies, citing all of the subjects she has recently studied which meant that the current topic felt ‘kind of repetitive for me’.  She offers a ‘sorry if I offended you’.
• The mature-age student replies that she had not been offended, and acknowledges that her enthusiasm for her studies after a break away from education was probably ‘driving my friends insane.’

This exchange illustrates the anxiety about causing offence that was apparent at times, and the misunderstandings which arose at times on these threads.  People repeatedly apologised for offending only to be told that they had not caused offence or that there had simply been a misunderstanding.  Yet we can see from this exchange that anxiety was productive because authors critically considered their positionality. Exchanging information about personal biographies in order to explain different reactions to learning experiences demonstrates a growing awareness of the intersection of the students’ own biographies and their attitudes towards relevant topics.

Sometimes, students in the focus group discussions indicated that they were particularly anxious to avoid causing offence over an issue which they recognised as emotive and personal. Here they were mainly referring to the discussion related to religion.  It is worth noting that the same sensitivity was not accorded a discussion about sexuality but that is another paper! Perhaps, more disturbingly students indicated that they were concerned about making the ‘right’ comments, and following the ‘right’ line on such issues. While they did not use the term this could be seen as a concern about ‘political correctness’. It is worth noting that the term ‘political correctness’ has it’s origins in a 1960’s anti-left wing discourse which morphed into the acronym ‘PC’ in the 1990s in the USA to be used against those who spoke up for the rights of oppressed minorities, gays and women (Kalantzis & Cope, 1997). Some would argue that it is just ‘doing the right thing’. So a concern about political correctness is largely about having to consider other standpoints as well as developing intellectual discipline. We only need to consider the racist - ‘Indigenous people are savages’ and the homophobic - ‘Lesbians are perverted’ discourses to understand that the term ‘PC’  is fundamentally aimed at preventing a practice of freedom for all.

This is troubling, for when such attitudes intersect with ‘ideologies of childhood innocence’ we get the following kind of response by a young woman in an on-line discussion:

Hattam etc (subject reading), are trying to push too much information onto children.  They propose a 'Australian cultural studies' component to add to other kla's.  This inclusion would only trivialize the children [sic] and monopolize the childs thought process.  They state critically analyse this and that, when is the child able to process  his/her own thoughts ideas and when are they able to form their own opinions about anything if their minds are askew with an overload of almost useless info.  Cultural studies should be a part of a childs learning, but I believe Hattam etc - the "Hitler's" - are trying to make primary school children the followers of what their ideals and concepts are. 

In this response the student reveals their own anxiety about having their previous understandings of the world made called into question. It is worth asking however whether a concern about political correctness is resolved in face-to-face tutorials. A mature-aged male student reflects on the critical nature of some on-line exchanges and comments:  

That critique of each other [on-line] is good…sometimes, it puts people back in their places so to speak whereas in tutorial (face-to-fac) sometimes…you just let it go…sometimes you can say real crap and people agree with you…they don't even listen, they're not even there.  

Whang and Waters (2001), drawing on Freire, Cummins & Sayers (1995) and Ellsworth (1989) argue that distance provides opportunities for critical engagement that a personalised, embodied pedagogy may in fact limit. There is a real need when attending to issues of cultural diversity to take risks and to overcome the fear or anxiety brought about by not knowing the ‘Other’ whether the space is emodied or virtual. Social distance appears to foster a more critical and engaged student.  

However some of the anxiet(y)ies created by social distance or ‘facelessness’ were related to the fact that processes appeared depersonalised. The personalistic model of teaching however involves the 'self' in a way which might often also be associated with a reliance on personal charisma to stimulate and hold interest (Salmon, 2000). At times this diminishes diversity and hegemonic social relations continue under the guise of creating ‘safe’ environments. It is my contention however that we cling to the personalistic model which is hegemonic in embodied space, because we are often more concerned with creating a 'safe' environment. It is not possible to duplicate this environment in cyberspace.

Undergraduate teacher education students are not used to critical thinking, nor are they generally familiar with the cultural field of on-line communities. This produced a major anxiety around the issue of what students saw as depersonalisation. It is interesting to note that what students are referring to is the ability to influence one’s perceptions of oneself via visual clues and interactions. Presumably some can do this better than others, especially those that are not visible minorities. Thus, the personalistic model of teaching and learning in embodied space provides scaffolding for particular modes of power and particular identit(y)ies. A young woman in a focus group tries to explains the role of personality on the perceived critical nature of interactions on the discussion board:

think it must be a personality thing.  People being hard on the strangers that they didn’t know, because they haven’t developed friendships and they don’t all know what everyone’s like…(woman -focus group)

Of interest here is the idea that somehow or other the inherent dispositions of people towards strangers was at the centre of the problem created by social distance rather than considering the medium and the hegemony of the personalistic model of teaching and learning. back

Conclusion

There are a number of implications from this research project for teaching and learning when discussing issues of cultural diversity in on-line teacher education communities. The first, is that there is a need to discuss with students at the outset their uncritically received notions of what constitutes good teaching. Secondly, they need to deconstruct the notion of personality in teaching and examine whom may be included/excluded by such constructions. Thirdly, I believe students benefit greatly from the deconstruction activity we carried out at the commencement of semester where we looked at the ideological positions of teachers towards cultural diversity. The reason this worked was because deconstruction removed the tendency for students to personalise responses and to reject or approve comments on the basis of what they saw as good and bad. Finally, the historical basis of these ideological discourses helped students isolate and understand their own positionality in relation to issues of diversity. back

Reference

Agger, B. (2001) 'Are Authors Authored? Cultural Politics and Literary Agency in the Era of the Internet' Democracy and Nature, Vol. 7, No.1.

Cazden, C; Cope, B; Fairclough, N; Gee, J; (1996) 'A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures' Harvard Educational Review; Cambridge; Spring 1996; Volume: 66 Issue: 1 Start Page: 60 ISSN:   00178055

Cummins, J. & Sayers, D. (1995) Brave New Schools: Challenging cultural illiteracy through global learning networks. New York: St. Martins.

Ellsworth, E. (1989) ‘Why doesn’t this feel empowering? Working through the repressive myths of critical pedagogy’. Harvard Educational Review, 59. pp. 297-324.

Gaine, C. (2001) ‘If it’s not hurting it’s not working: teaching teachers about race’ in Research Papers in Education, Vol. 16, No. 1. pp. 93-113.

Grenfell, M; James, D, (eds) (1998) Bourdieu and Education: Acts of Practical Theory, Falmer Press, U.S.A.

Hakken, David (1999) Cyborgs@Cyberspace: An Ethnographer Looks to the Future, Routledge, New York.

Kalantzis, M. & Cope, B. (1997) ‘An Opportunity to Change the Culture’: Multiculturalism, Immigration and Australian History in the Argument about Political Correctness, Occasioinal Paper No. 18. Centre for Workplace Communication and Culture. Australia.

Lankshear, C; Snyder, I; Green, B. (2000) 'Literacies, Technologies and Classrooms' in Teachers and Technoliteracy, Allen and Unwin, St. Leonards. Pp. 1-22.

Light, V; Nesbitt, E; Light, P; Burns, JR (1996) ' Let's you and me have a little discussion': Computer mediated communication in support of campus-based university courses, in Studies in Higher Education, Abingdon, Mar 2000. Retrieved from the WWW on 7.09.01 (Proquest)

London, Scott (1995) 'Teledemocracy Vs. Deliberative Democracy: A Comparative Look at Two Models of Public Talk' Interpersonal Computing and Technology: An Electronic Journal for the 21^st Century, Vol. 3, No. 2, pp. 33-55. Retrieved 5.5.2000 from the World Wide Web. http://www.helsinki.fi/science/optek/1995/n2/london.txt

Reid, Carol (2000) 'What happens to democratic space when it is cyber?' Ultibase: Journal for Research into Teaching and Learning On-line, July, 2000. RMIT Melbourne. http://ultibase.rmit.edu.au/Articles/online/reid1.htm. This document was published on ultiBASE on 17/July/2000

Salmon, G. (2000) ' Learning Submarines: Raising the Periscopes' Presented to Net*Working 2000 Online Learning Festival, Australia. Retrieved http://pcbs042.open.ac.uk/gilly/ 18.6.01

Schirato, T; Yell, S. (2000) 'Cultural Literacies and Practices' Communication and Cultural Literacy, Allen and Unwin, Australia. P. 34.

Solomon, R Patrick; Beyond prescriptive pedagogy: Teacher inservice education for cultural diversity; Journal of Teacher Education, Washington; Sep 1995; Vol. 46, Iss. 4; pg. 251

Whang, P.A. & Waters, G.A. (2001) ‘Transformational spaces in teacher education’ in Journal of Teacher Education, Vol. 52, No. 3, May/June. Pp. 197-210.

Wizer, D.R; Beck, S. S. (1996) 'Studying Diversity Issues in Teacher Education using Online Discussions' Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, Vol.13, No.1. October. back

About the authors

Dr Carol Reid

Lecturer in Sociology and Cross Cultural Studies
School of Education and Early Childhood Studies
College of Arts, Education and Social Sciences
University of Western Sydney
NSW 1797, Australia

Phone: +61 2 9772 6524
Email: c.reid@uws.edu.au