Introducing the Online-Offline Continuum (A Work in Progress)
I’ve recently noted various conversations and approaches that discuss the online/offline phenomenon. Some of the questions I’ve come across about the phenomenon concern naming it and articulating how it might shape and change the worlds we live in. Questions regarding how we articulate online/offline experience, interaction, and/or movement, and how we describe the “affirmation that the Web is not a separated sphere from our reality” rely heavily upon our ability to see outside of a phenomenon that is impossible from which to separate ourselves. Most researchers, scholars, and philosophers would probably agree that articulating the online/offline phenomenon is daunting task, and yet terribly necessary in order to understand ourselves and our futures at this moment. Naming “it”
During my search to find how others are naming the phenomenon, I came across terms like "augmented reality" and "augmentism" quite often. According to Mr. Teacup (Internet persona), we might call the phenomenon of online/offline interaction, augmentism, or the idea that “new technologies are extensions to our existing reality”. Another writer, Nathan Jurgenson of Cyborology, argues that the phenomenon is “co-constructed” and that “the digital and physical are increasingly meshed. It is, in other words an implosion of “atoms and bits [called] augmented reality”. Without so much naming it as describing it, communication scholar, Manuel Castells, recently stated in an interview with UOC that "nobody who is on social networks every day is the same person. It's an online/offline interaction, not an esoteric virtual world”.
It’s comforting to see more discussions about (re)naming the phenomenon since conversations about the separation of online (i.e. fake) and offline (i.e. real) worlds have long shaped views about our relationship to computer-mediated technologies. As the authors above imply, these dualistic narratives are inherently false and misleading. In an era where offline practices and affiliations impact online interactions and vice versa, it is time to not only propose but also push for alternative ways of understanding how our ‘connected’ and ‘disconnected’ lives shape who we are and the worlds around us.
For the past two years now, I have also been trying to articulate the phenomenon by naming it. Implicit in my idea are theoretical discussions about tracing and shifting from theorists, Bruno Latour and Gloria Anzaldua, respectively. To date, I am unaware of anyone using these two thinkers hand-in-hand to explore the phenomenon of shifting and tracing in and among online and offline contexts. Separately, however, people have cited both thinkers’ work to examine the World Wide Web (WWW) and social theory. Lisa Nakaura applies Anzaldua’s mestiza consciousness to critique the reification of identity categories on the Internet in her chapter, “Menu-Driven Identities: Making Race Happen Online”. Ulises Mejias, a graduate of CCTE (the doctoral program in which I an currently enrolled) applies Latour’s critique of the social to examine social software. While Anzaldua and Latour, in my opinion, complement each other, their ideas are unfortunately presented as worlds apart in academia since Anzaldua’s ideas have been used to theorize identity and Latour’s ideas used to critique social theory. As a graduate student of women’s studies and current doctoral student in communications, I hope to marry these two thinkers in academia by applying their ideas to my work here.
Expanding on the works of Latour and Anzaldua, I propose a new naming of online/offline phenomenon:
The ONL-OFL Continuum describes what happens when our selves move, as well as describes the practices that constitute our selves moving within and among computer mediated and non-computer mediated contexts. Additionally, the ONL-OFL Continuum says that 'connected' realities inform 'disconnected' realities, and vice versa, and as such may very well result in the (re)shaping, (re)making, and co-construction of experiences across contexts.
With the ONL-OFL Continuum, I take to task issues concerning movement, i.e. shifting and tracing, and subsequently, marking. I argue that if we can 1) identify these shifts and traces, and then 2) probe these shifts and traces that occur within and among networks through well-articulated and exhaustive descriptions, then we might be able to transition beyond digital dualism rhetoric. Doing so may also allow us to begin exploring how shifting and tracing reflect changes in the way we communicate and identify across contexts.
When we move, we not only leave traces of where we have been but we are also marked by the so-called “traveling” we have encountered through our ‘connected’ and ‘disconnected’ experiences. I argue that left on us is a sort of imprint as if we’ve gone through a type of perpetual third space car wash (although with this metaphor, I don't want to evoke imagery of clean/dirty, worse/better dichotomies either). On us exists remnants of places and spaces we’ve traversed. Text-speak, like “LOL” and “OMG” are now uttered on the streets of New York City in everyday synchronous face-to-face conversations. Loved ones who have passed away still exists in photos and status updates on Facebook, or, as is the case with my father who passed away in 2008, still exists by way of YouTube (it is very difficult to watch this video of my father ‘existing’ posthumously through computer-mediated technology, which is why I’d rather link to it than embed the video here). Embarrassing scanned family photos from the 80s that were “accidentally” posted without our permission exist someplace on the Internet where Kodak film stock is irrelevant. We exist simultaneously across contexts as atoms projected through bits and nodes. Granted, we have always existed simultaneously across contexts, even before the advent of the Internet; it’s just that the Internet makes this phenomenon more palpable. We are, as Jacqui Alexander says, “never quite who we are. We are always remaking ourselves”, and I would add too that we are always being remade--particularly in the context of the ONL-OFL Continuum.
'Online' and 'offline' experiences are co-constructed by way of an awareness that enables us to locate our selves in relation to others. I am constantly aware of how I construct myself on Facebook and on Twitter. But perhaps more importantly, I am also aware, sometimes to the point of obsession, of how my online presence reflects my offline presence, particularly around groups of people that came to know me first via social media. I say to myself, “I wonder if they think I’m acting differently face-to-face than online.” Because our realities have expanded into computer-mediated contexts we may even adopt a sort of alternative consciousness that enables us to adapt in nearly chameleon-like ways. And for those who find themselves on the margins in offline and in online worlds (because there is no such thing as a cyberutopia), we may in fact adopt a sort of double or mestiza consciousness as a way to better navigate inequalities that are ever present even in extended ‘online’ realities.
One can very well argue that notions of selves, co-construction, and even consciousness are arbitrary terms, which may very well be the case. But we have to locate our experiences in this digital moment somehow, and I try to do this with by introducing the ONL-OFL Continuum. Naming phenomenon, and subsequently articulating it, will remain a never-ending task. I implore us to, in the very least, remain up for the challenge.
Note: Another very important aspect of this conversation and the ONL-OFL Continuum deals with synchronicity (occurring at the same time) and asynchronicity (not occurring at the same time, and typically mediated through computer technology), both of which I will attempt to highlight in another post. Correspondingly, another issue I would like to examine in a latter post concerns the idea that the ONL-OFL Continuum, by its very name, implies a dichotomous relationship. However, the term does not reify digital dualism rhetoric, i.e. real vs. fake. Rather the term describes movement characterized by 'connected' or computer mediated contexts, and 'disconnected' or non-computer mediated contexts that are distinguishable by way of tracing and marking, and according to degrees of synchronicity and asynchronicity.
Should I 'Live Write' My Dissertation?
As it concerns the 21st century cyborg: I think therefore I am. Linguistically, I speak in 140 characters offline and in print. Scholastically, I write papers with a distinct voice in mind; one that I have come to develop through blogging. All of my class and reading notes, as well as my papers, have been written and organized using Google Docs. I couldn't tell you how many times I've caught myself saying "OMG" out loud during a face-to-face conversation. I'm becoming more and more culturally embedded in the digital world. Or is the digital world consuming me?
Recently, I've started to contemplate writing on the screen more, although not leisurely or professionally, but rather, academically, as in writing academic papers, like a dissertation, on the screen--live. I've harbored anxieties about writing my dissertation (which is a ways off) on the screen. Though, as a practice, live-writing my dissertation on the screen could be a way to hold myself accountable and to avoid writers block. It could also be a way to satisfy or entirely destroy my ego. Either way, it's an intriguing concept.
(This, of course, could all be a theory in my head. Plus, I'm not sure if I'm even allowed to live-write my dissertation.)
That said, below is an excerpt from a piece I started writing a few months ago (using Google Docs) tentatively entitled "Writing on the Screen." This excerpt provides more context as to why I might consider live-writing my dissertation. It's still a draft version.
As society shifts towards an era where the written word continues to be challenged as a dominant form of communication, we are confronted with how to make meaning with/of words, (hyper)texts, and images. The processes of organizing, producing, and illustrating are increasingly more convoluted. It's like standing in the cereal isle at the grocery store; there are so many options of meaning-making from which to choose; textual, visual, and audio forms. For someone like me, a non-digital native, these options have dramatically affected my meaning-making processes. The rate at which I consume information in order to make meaning using digital artifacts has also influenced my production processes.At times, I worry that I'm approaching writer's block when I am unable to compose a succinct blog post, online article, or a twenty-page academic paper. However, my tweet count is well over 20,000 and counting and I continue to make Story Melodies with my digital camera. Clearly I have not stopped making my own meanings of things, just not always in the traditional written contexts. This past week I watched in real time as Baratunde Thurston ‘live wrote’ his upcoming book, #HowToBeBlack. The title itself suggest a new way of meaning making through pop cultural references, that is #hashtagging. As Thurston typed, backspaced, deleted, copied/pasted we all watched, some of us not thoroughly clear as to what exactly we were looking at. Watching Thurston write his book in real time through the screen was, as one commenter mentioned, “[t]he closest [thing to] Harlan Ellison writing in store windows, but this is much less sweary and doesn't smell of pipe smoke.” While peaking at Thurston’s thoughts on the screen I began to realize why I have been feeling writer’s block so intensely. Naturally, I tweeted about it:
@taralconley: Watching @baratunde write his book in real time online makes me realize why I have writer's block all the time...b/c no one's watching me.
Implicit in the idea of writing on the screen is that an audience is watching somewhere at some place in time. Whether it’s the gratifying feeling of instantaneous feedback or the seducing thought of my work being consumed by strange eyes, (or both), the fact remains; I’m continually drawn to the screen as a writer and as a media maker. I don’t deny feeling somewhat aroused by the idea that my work is alive acting as a connector to people I know and do not know. That I am afforded opportunities to create through alternative way of communicating ideas makes writing on the screen just seems better.
"So, You're Getting an EdD?"
That's what the little person in my head says as an attempt to cast doubt about my chosen academic path. The snide remark does and sorta doesn't work because I don't doubt my path as much as I'm annoyed at the thought about "explaining" my chosen academic path to others. I'm totally used to it though. When I decided to pursue my master's in Women's Studies I was hit with a lot of dumb ass questions like this one: "Women's Studies, huh? So what do you plan to do with that degree?" It's not only that the question itself is annoying but so is the tone in the person's voice when s/he asks me the question. Oh, that tone grinds my gears (cc Peter Griffin) like nails across a chalkboard! Granted, I could be totally misinterpreting the tone; projecting my own doubts on to the questioner. I'm willing to admit that I am a paranoid perpetual projector. However, as one who has a way of reading between the lines in a culture that devalues "gendered disciplines" like in the humanities, social sciences, and especially education, I'm willing to bet that it's less about my issues with paranoia and projection, and more about people's dumb ass assumptions toward my chosen intellectual journey.
Which brings me to the EdD "issue". Last year I spoke with one of my mentors about the "PhD (Doctor of Philosophy) versus EdD (Doctor of Education)" question in education. He was honest in telling me that when looking for a job some universities might have conflicting perceptions about the EdD route. However, they tend not to question the degree as much if it comes from an "Ivy League" institution. *eye roll* Another one of my professor's noted that it would not necessarily be in the best interest of a university to question an EdD from Harvard let alone a cousin school like Teachers College, Columbia University. The EdD is generally recognized as a research degree, whereas the PhD in education is, well, I'm not quite sure how, in relation to the EdD, it's recognized if not similarly to a high level research degree in education (but you can read more about the differences and similarities HERE). In the end, as my mentor told me, it's about the dissertation. If you produce a quality dissertation that contributes to the field, or fields, then it's likely that the "PhD versus EdD" problem (of perception) won't be an issue when looking for a job in higher ed.
If someone asks why I chose to pursue an EdD over a PhD I can honestly tell them that Teachers College, Columbia University was the only school that was offering a doctoral program I was interested in, which happened to be an EdD program. That's really it.
But unfortunatley, perception is becomes reality. Broadly speaking, people perceive a PhD differently than they do an EdD; where the former holds more value or prestige for some reason. Perhaps one reason could be because the term "PhD" has been reappropriated in popular culture to connote certain things about higher education whereas the term "EdD" has not. In reality, at least in my program, there is no difference between an EdD and PhD. I put in the same, if not more, research and inquiry into pursuing my degree as a PhD student. So while the rest of society continues to institutionalize the idea of degrees, I'd rather get down to what really matters; the intellectual path of the scholar and how s/he contributes to scholarship.
As I was sitting in class today it dawned on me why I do what I do. (I'm sending virtual apologies to my professor for zoning out during her lecture, but this epiphany was just too good to ignore!) Here's what I realized:
If you don't know, I'm currently pursing a doctoral degree in Computing, Communication, and Technology in Education (CCTE) at Teachers College, Columbia University (read more about my program here). My degree plan is somewhat interdisciplinary if you consider that I am studying research and theories spanning multiple disciplines of communication, media, and education. Until today, I was never really satisfied with how I articulated why I chose to interrogate research that intersects with (at least) three major disciplines in both the soft and hard (or rather stiffer) sciences. But I figured it out. I enter into the field with a background in feminist theory and as a practitioner of education and media. 'Gender' and 'race' studies are my preferred areas of theoretical scholarship. Media are my preferred sites to study identity and knowledge production. And education, namely literacy, is the domain in which I choose to engage my activism as an educator, media maker, and feminist scholar-in-training.
So, why the EdD in CCTE you ask, oh-little-snarky-person-in-my-head? Because this is the one program where I can combine all that I am and do with what I love to study and practice. Plus, the name of this blog sounds way cooler than would "Breakfast Ph.D. Omelet". o_O