Left to Our Own Devices?

The traditional meaning of the idiom "left to one's own devices" means to be allowed to decide for ourselves what to do. It may imply that someone else is leaving us to our own devices without trying to help or control us, but not necessarily. But in our present world of "devices", is there a somewhat different meaning we can assign to the expression?

I'm sure many people of all ages would indeed prefer to be left to their own devices--i.e., to not have someone trying to "help" or "control" the ways in which they use their devices. There has been much discussion among our group about "alarmist" or "fear-mongering" rhetoric around the ways in which people do or don't use various technological devices. I've used the metaphor before, but it truly seems as if the pendulum of conventional wisdom about devices and social media has swung from the utopian extreme to the dystopian.

Let's not rush to judgment in either direction. I would suggest that both extremes are not true. It is undeniably true that the hardware and software have "radically reshaped out social lives" (Brown, 2011). But notice that Brown does not say "for the better" or "for the worse"--merely that our social lives have been reshaped. There simply has not yet been enough time for us to truly understand the myriad ways in which this has occurred and to create social codes and conventions around this phenomenon.

Despite the alarmist rhetoric, studies seem to be concluding that there is "no difference in either offline network size or emotional closeness between those that use social media and those that do not at all" (Pollet, et al, 2011). It is worth bearing in mind that "smartphones" and the various social media platforms have both only been with us for approximately a decade. The work of Brown and Pollet, et al was published in 2011. Their research may well have been conducted in 2010 or even 2009. This may not seem like that long ago, but it is half the time that these technologies have existed! Perhaps we should indeed leave people to their own devices and give ourselves a bit more time to think somewhat more calmly and reasonably about the benefits and/or risks of those devices and platforms.

On the other hand, I would hate to see a world in which people are "left to their own devices" when it comes to "assistive technology" or "bring your own device". Coleman (2011) does not speak directly to the issue of cost in her paper, but matters of cost are implicit throughout her discussion of issues around the availability and implementation of assistive technology--assessment, training, and so forth. We are all familiar, I'm sure, with anecdotes about families who have to raise many thousands of dollars to acquire various assistive technologies on their own.

Our most recent discussion of "bring your own device" or "student-owned devices" raises a similar spectre of social-economic equity or justice. Crichton et al are not specifically addressing student owned devices in their paper, but they do suggest that "personal wireless devices might be those nimble shape-shifters capable of putting opportunity into the hands of learners, significantly changing teaching and learning" (Crichton, et al, 2012). Nedungadi & Raman seem somewhat naive in blithely stating that mobile devices are affordable, widespread and egalitarian (Nedungadi & Raman, 2012). Widespread, perhaps, but by no means necessarily affordable or egalitarian.

From a systemic or institutional point of view, the allure of "leaving people to their own devices" when it comes to assistive technology or student-owned devices is easy to understand. If the onus can be shifted to the individual, there is no obligation on the part of the system or institution to provide anything, which in turn leads to massive cost and administrative savings on a number of fronts. But the socio-economic issues of any such thing are obvious and completely unacceptable.

Many post-secondary institutions now require incoming students to have some sort of device. They specify platform and minimum system requirements. Students must purchase a device before they can begin their studies. This is both laudable and entirely acceptable. Post-secondary education carries a number of costs, which are fully understood and accepted by all. Requiring a student-own device is simply another cost associated with post-secondary education.

But in a publicly funded compulsory education system, it is simply unacceptable to require individual families to equip their child(ren) with a device. If technology is to become a basic tool or requirement for full participation in such a system, the onus must reside squarely on the system to provide the necessary tools. Obviously, the "system" must be adequately resourced to do so. In other words, we--collectively through taxation--must provide sufficient funding to the system. 

Ultimately, this becomes a social and political issue. If we want each student in our publicly-funded compulsory education system to have a device, we must summon the social and political will to make it happen. What we cannot allow is a system in which individuals with sufficient resources receive one form or level of education while those less fortunate receive something lesser.

References:

Brown, A. (2011). Relationships, Community, and Identity in the New Virtual Society. Futurist, 45(2), 29-34. 

Crichton, S., Pegler, K., White, D. (2012). Personal Devices in Public Settings: Lessons Learned From an iPod Touch/iPad Project. The Electronic Journal of e-Learning, 10(1), 22-31.

Nedungadi, P. & Raman, R. (2012). A New Approach to Personalization: Integrating E-Learning and M-Learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 60(4), 659-678.

Pollet, T.V., Roberts, S.G.B., Dunbar, R.I.M. (2011). Use of Social Network Sites and Instant Messaging Does Not Lead to Increased Offline Social Network Size, or to Emotionally Closer Relationships with Offline Network Members. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 14(4), 253-258.