#USOM2008 Topic 1: Digital Visitors and Digital Residents
The titles ‘digital visitors’ and ‘digital residents’ are the evolutionary product of the previously contested titles of ‘digital natives’ and ‘digital immigrants’ devised by Prensky (2001). The previous concepts identified those who had been born into a technologically advanced society as natives who held a monopoly over the ability to utilise the web. Those who then tried to develop these skills would be able to gain some skills but would otherwise be fundamentally unable to connect in the same way; the immigrants.
Ignoring the implications being made about non-digital immigrants, this theory was flawed within a couple of years of improvements to software which made internet use etc. more accessible to individuals of all ages. White and Le Corneu (2011) explored how to adjust the definition to better fit the reality of the situation at Oxford University. They observed that those who were best versed at the use of the internet were not necessarily those who used it the most often. Being fluent in Facebook for example, does not assist in Google researching techniques. White and Le Corneu hence changed the criteria being used to define individuals from digital expertise to the individual’s purpose and the idea of digital visitors and residents was born.
For White and Le Corneu, to distinguish between a digital resident and a digital visitor is a question of how much an individual wishes to express themselves on the internet. Residents are identified as those who utilise the web as an extension of themselves with their online profile expressing their personality and beliefs. A resident’s social life is in a symbiotic relationship with the internet and there is no aspect of life which they do not utilise the internet for i.e. their personal life and professional life are both (at least) in part online. As for visitors the internet is not about giving an impression about the self, rather it is a tool to complete tasks outside of the net. White and Le Corneu give the examples of booking a holiday and using a web chat tool to contact friends abroad as actions that a visitor would use the web for. They show the difference well as the actions taken (i.e. communicating with someone in another country) could well have been taken without the use of the internet, however visitors understand that the internet facilitates these actions in a better way than the non-web equivalent.
As White and Le Corneau concede these two online personalities are either end of a spectrum and that sub-categories are more than appropriate to describe the middle ground being questioned. Personally, I’d argue that the need to subcategories is stronger than ever and that without a middle ground definition, the theory is lacking. Websites have learnt that building social networks into their framework (whether that be their own or using Facebook etc.) can be a good way to build brand loyalty as well as spreading their brand across social networks and has made more visitors into social networking users. Does this make them residents? I’d argue not. The individuals still use the internet for very specific functions i.e. watching a video on YouTube but improve their experience by joining and using (although not embracing) social networks i.e. Google+. Perhaps there is space therefore for a middle tier of internet use…
…if only I could come up with a name.
Bibliography
PRENSKY, M. (2001) Digital Natives, Digital Residents. On the Horizon, 9 (5), 1-3.
WHITE, D. and LE CORNU, A. (2008) Not ‘Natives’ & ‘Immigrants’ but ‘Visitors & ‘Residents’, Tall Blog (Accessed 4/2/2014) [http://tallblog.conted.ox.ac.uk/index.php/2008/07/23/not-natives-immigrants-but-visitors-residents/]
