Comments on: Digital Native/Immigrant … or Resident/Visitor?

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Mon, 10 Oct 2011 08:10:00 +0000

Hi Katie.

I do think there is mileage in this, and would welcome reading your findings when you have them. What we currently believe is ‘resident vs visitor’ or ‘native vs immigrant’ is only one type of labelling that has been applied. As the Internet changes and grows (matures??) then our use and applied knowledge of it is also growing and changing. Therefore the type of people using it are changing – the age range of it’s users is widening; More and more parents are allowing their children on the Internet (supervised, I hope) and at younger ages too, and the number of senior adults (60+ years old) is growing too.

Labelling these new users as visitors or immigrants, natives or residents just isn’t appropriate any more … so, what is (and do we actually need a label)?

All the best, David.

By: Katie Piatt

Katie Piatt — Sun, 09 Oct 2011 20:27:00 +0000

Thanks for this useful summary post. I’m thinking of coming up with some questions for the students to vote on to help them think through for themselves if they are residents or visitors, e.g. have you ever commented on a blog? do you have any friends online you have never met in real life? Do you believe that an online only friendship counts as a real friendship etc? Do you think there is mileage in this…?

Thanks

By: Mark David Milliron

Mark David Milliron — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 12:47:21 +0000

I use the martial arts metaphor of belts — black belts (super savvy tech users), brown belts, green belts, and white belts (beginners willing or being forced to try new technology). It takes the generational stuff out of the mix–makes it much more about effort and experience. It works for Six Sigma!

By: Janet Clarey

Janet Clarey — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 12:32:23 +0000

I like the resident/visitor idea better than the native/immigrant (the latter hasn’t been supported by research on the generations). I’m a little put off by the class definitions though.

“… an individual who lives a percentage of their life online” implies that there is an ‘online life’ and an ‘offline life’ vs. a blending of the two. (at least I haven’t found the on/off button yet)

The second definition
“…an individual who uses the web as a tool in an organised manner whenever the need arises.” These individuals use the Internet for a goal, but do not need to, or have to, reply on it” sounds condescending. (I only use if for the serious stuff-goals, tools, etc. as the “others” don’t use it for the same purpose)

It seems to draw a line with “need/want” on one side and “don’t need/don’t want” on the other. Like an addiction.

I realize we try to name things to understand them and appreciates Ault’s new terminology. I’m just not convinced it’s right.

By: Greg Smith

Greg Smith — Tue, 15 Sep 2009 23:19:48 +0000

Disappointing that only five of my Introductory PR class (of 60) were willing (or keen) to try Twitter this week. Either they’re scared, or just lazy. I suspect the latter.