Suw Charman-Anderson has written a very well researched piece that discusses the attitudes towards internet technologies among both young and old:
There are two common assumptions about the relationship between age and technical competency that rear their heads whenever the internet is discussed. The first assumption is that young people have a natural affinity for technology and both understand and use it in ways that older people cannot. The second is that anyone over the age of 60 is not only technically incompetent but also uninterested in the internet, using it only under protest.
Both of these assumptions are flawed, yet have worked their way firmly into the public consciousness. Because they seem like ‘common sense’, these concepts are spread by policy makers, the media and technology companies alike. But if civil society associations take them at face value, they risk forming strategies and policies that are as flawed as the assumptions they are based on.
Suw draws from work done by Neil Selwyn, University of London (among others) where he says:
[T]here is mounting evidence that many young people’s actual uses of digital technologies remain rather more limited in scope than the digital native rhetoric would suggest. Surveys of adolescents’ technology use, for example, show a predominance of game playing, text messaging and retrieval of online content (as evidenced in the popularity of viewing content on YouTube, Bebo and MySpace).
I initially thought this was overly critical, especially seeing how my children and grandchildren use the internet but then as I considered what Suw and others are saying, a number of other things fell into place. I’ve long argued that in any interactive internet based community, Nielsen’s law of inequality participation (or the 90-9-1 rule where 90% of information consumers are passive,) holds largely true. It is remarkably difficult to get people to participate which means that even moving tohe needle to 89-9-2 has a massive impact.
It’s not clear to me why this should be because in any information led business, it makes sense to share and participate. That’s how value is derived. However the more time I spend discussing these issues with professionals, the more I am coming around to the idea that many professionals feel intimidated by the prospect of putting their heads above the digital parapet. It’s partially a confidence problem but also one that seems to revolve around the dual fears of a) thinking they’ll be caught out in offering some questionable opinion or b) of giving away something that might be of value.
The first problem is one with which I can identify. Muffing up an opinion can make you look very silly indeed. But the only way anyone learns things of value is by asking questions. Therefore, if there is at least one person who can offer an opinion on an issue of substance then it cannot hurt to ask: ‘How did that work?’ On the other hand I am less concerned about giving something away. I’ve found over time that regardless of what I might think I know, there is far more that is left unsaid than is revealed. At least in this medium.
There is also the problem of ‘what’s in it for me?’ Unless there is a clear value proposition for individuals then initial enthusiasm will wane rapidly. That’s even more so in a difficult economy. Put another way, as someone said to me recently: “If you think I’m opening a Twitter account to give HR more fuel to fire my ass then you’ve got another thing coming.” Understandable and resonating with the fear and mistrust I see among some sections of the workforce.
Instead, I see firms being drawn into the social computing space on the promise of untold riches arising out of shared knowledge, making technology decisions that then get thrust upon the workforce. A recipe for disaster if I ever heard one and a complete disregard for what is needed. Engage with the very people you want to encourage and discover how confident they feel before doing a thing.
Assuming that Suw’s research represents a fair overview of how people use the internet then it is equally fair to assume that Gen Y/millenials will not be that much different to generations that have gone before. They may have a greater ability to pick up new services but there is no guarantee that they’ll willingly blog or share information. I do believe however that some media may be more accessible and valuable over time. Here I am especially thinking about video, which remains one of the Cinderella technologies to which we can gain easy access. Encouraging young people to develop these forms of media may serve to help break the participation log jam. Or at the very least encourage more people to create new media. It is through creativity that we learn the most valuable lessons and so drive value.
What do you think?
