Communicating for Sustainability in the Digital Age: Toward a New Paradigm of Literacy

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the opportunity to think through this work! At the heart of this article, I can see an attempt at drawing a framework for a critical understanding of digital media literacy that foregrounds the role of technologies in shaping not only how we interact but who we are as people. I especially appreciated the categorization of social media in section 4 and how it can provide the critical insight you aim for.

That being said, I think there are some larger issues that undermine this work and what it attempts to accomplish. First, I don’t agree with you that digital media literacy is “typically not concerned with the habits of mind or modes of consciousness unique to digital communication technologies.” This may have been true of earlier literature, but especially within recent years there is plenty of research taking this into consideration. I am especially reminded of work on Black Twitter (Hill, Tanksley, and McArthur all write incredibly well on this subject) and the online discursive practices of the alt-right (Ali, Munn, and Tebaldi are good people to look too). From the world of education research, Antero Garcia, Pangrazio & Selwyn, Burdick & Sandlin, and Nagle all directly work from this starting place. In a similar vein, you state that “To understand the central idea or set of ideas that a technology conveys, one needs, first, to examine its basic structural features and underlying form,” (4) but Burnett & Merchant (2011) already considered this.

Along the same line, I want to push back against this statement: “While digital natives – persons who have grown up entirely in a digital world – tended to possess strong digital competencies (i.e., practical and technical skills), they sometimes had less pointed critical sensibilities, at least, in the early years of the digital revolution.” (3) You don’t actually cite anyone when you say this, so I’m wondering where the idea comes from. Because if you look at research into shitposting and especially Douglas’ piece on the internet ugly aesthetic, it seems that there is a critical and active engagement with the ways that digital media ecologies shape us as internet users push back.

Second, I am not sure what the history of language component language adds to this piece. I don’t necessarily disagree with the analysis, but how that helps us understand the ways that social media/digital tools shape us is not clear. The discussion of bits touched on this, but I would rather just see an extended analysis of this argument.

Finally, more work needs to be done to connect structural biases and habits of mind. Again, I don’t necessarily disagree with the analysis (even though I also thought the evidence for this categorization was relatively thin), but you seem to lay out the seven structural bases, the seven habits of mind, and then assume that the connection is inherent. And I don’t think it is! You need to show how and why these aspects are connected and in what ways.

To this end, there needs to be a major overhaul of the paper if it is going to be publishable. It needs to be better couched in the critical media literacy literature with much more nuance, the eras section focused on what contributes to the overall argument, and the categorization of social media expanded to focus on the connections between structural elements and habits of mind. If you take on this challenge, it feels like it will be a pretty major overhaul of what is presented, but I can see the paper being quite helpful if accomplished.

Good luck with this work!

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 1:

Thank you for reading my essay and offering a series of suggestions about how to improve it. I very much appreciate you engaging with my argument, and I have tried to be responsive to each of the central concerns you raised in your review.

As I read your review, you specifically articulate three central concerns. I will reproduce those concerns here along with the steps I have taken to address them.

CONCERN 1: “First, I don’t agree with you that digital media literacy is ‘typically not concerned with the habits of mind or modes of consciousness unique to digital communication technologies’.”

On this point, you direct me to a wide range of scholars that you suggest undermine my central claim. Since you suggest a litany of scholars, but no specific scholarship, this was a somewhat challenging suggestion to respond to. Nevertheless, I tracked down research on digital literacy from all the scholars you mention. In my reading of their work, while several of these scholars, especially Burnett & Merchant, recognize that digital messages possess unique properties and characteristics that differ from earlier forms of media, their own research continues to be overwhelmingly concerned with message analysis and critique rather than media ecology. This situates them firmly in what I have called the “critical model” of digital literacy. I appreciate you pointing me to an array of additional sources that further reinforce my central argument, and I have incorporated them into my existing manuscript, including a full paragraph dedicated to Burnett & Merchant’s work on page 3.

I do, however, not wish to overstate the intervention I am making. So, I have reworked my main purpose statement in the introduction of the essay and added an endnote designed to clarify what I see as the central contribution of the piece. I hope these additions and changes resolve any concerns about overstatement.

A second critique you raise under Concern 1 is related to my characterization of the difference between digital natives and digital immigrants during the early years of the digital revolution. While there is strong data to support this position, it was entirely tangential to my central argument. So, I simply cut it to resolve this concern. I no longer make any argument about digital natives vs. digital immigrants.

CONCERN 2: “Second, I am not sure what the history of language component adds to this piece. I don’t necessarily disagree with the analysis, but how that helps us understand the ways that media/digital tools shape us is not clear.”

Let me draw attention to two important aspects of this concern and describe the steps I have taken to rectify it.

First, the question appears to (mistakenly) assume that “language” is not its own communication technology or medium. But, of course, it is and, there is a long history of treating it as such by media ecologists such as Jack Goody, Eric Havelock, Walter Ong, and Marshall McLuhan. Understanding the technology of primary orality and the distinctive modes of thought and expression it creates is absolutely crucial to demystifying digital technologies and the very different modes of thought and expression that they foster and create.

This is related to my second observation about the question, which is that it seems not to recognize the importance of establishing anti-environments to the project of media ecology. I recognize, of course, that many readers of my essay are also likely not to be media ecologists. So, it is incumbent upon me to explain the importance of this maneuver. Consequently, I have revised the manuscript in several places to highlight that mapping anti-environments is one of the central endeavors of media ecologists. These revisions are highlighted on pages 3, 4, 9, and 15. I have also incorporated additional citations about the importance of anti-environments to doing the work of media ecology.

CONCERN 3: “Finally (third), more work needs to be done to connect structural biases and habits of mind.”

I have worked to address this concern in two ways. First, on page 11, I have clarified that while technological biases are universal, habits of mind are cultural. Consequently, there is no necessary correspondence between the two. I had already raised this issue in the previous version of the essay in the concluding section, but I realized that this point needed to be stressed in the body of the analysis as well. So, I have done so. Second, I have included additional analysis and scholarship concerning both the structural biases of digital media and the habits of mind that comprise section 4 of the essay in the hopes of making those connections clearer.

As I hope is clear from my response, I have worked to address each one of the concerns you have raised. Thank you for your feedback. Responding to your concerns has helped to both clarify and strengthen my argument.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

First of all, thank you for the opportunity to read the paper. The essay presented proves to be very interesting and pertinent, taking a fresh look at digital literacy and the biases that underlie it. It's a good document for further and broader reflection on the subject.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 2:

 

Thank you for your enthusiastic reception of my paper. I appreciate you taking the time to read it carefully and to recommend it for publication.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. The manuscript is developed as an essay that raises a new paradigm of digital literacy rooted in media ecology. This theoretical and conceptual paper furthers our understanding on the topic, describing how the current models of digital literacy (competency and critical) do not allow to understand the biases of digital media.

2. The article has a clear structure, which is not always common in essays. The author maps the intellectual domain of digital literacy, exploring later alternative ways to conceptualize literacy and the structural biases of digital technologies.

3. Since several social problems are fueled by digital technologies such as disinformation or affective polarization, the essay points out an approach based on consciousness and media ecology, which is related to culture. In this sense, social environments of different areas are examined. This analysis show how habits are shaped by digital media, undermining our rational humanity.

4. The list of references is up-to-date and suitable for the present study.

5. Lastly, the section of critical implications works as an insightful discussion, connecting the main findings with prior scholarship and current discussions on digital literacy. I just would like to suggest providing limitations of this conceptualization as well as future lines of research connected with a new paradigm in digital literacy.

6. In short, this paper is a noteworthy approach that highlights the need for a transformation of digital literacy in order to achieve a sustainable digital age. According to the proposal, the current models perpetuate the myth of technological neutrality. Not all technologies are created equally, which demands an appropriate paradigm that furthers an equal communication.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 3:

 

Thank you for your enthusiastic reception of my paper. I especially appreciate you acknowledging and highlighting (1) that I offer a new paradigm for digital literacy (2) that the essay is clear and well-structured, (3) that my analysis is discerning and productive, (4) that the research I incorporate is comprehensive and recent, (5) that my implications are insightful, and (6) that the essay offers a “noteworthy approach.”

 

Thank you also for pressing me in point 5 to be a bit clearer about future avenues. I have added several new paragraphs of material to the conclusion aimed at addressing this concern. Specifically, I reflect on how we might implement a consciousness model of digital literacy in education and what the potential implications of that might be.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper without any doubt has merits and it is very well written.

In thick lines the author suggests a shift towards a new paradigm of digital literacy that is rooted in media ecology, moving beyond the traditional paradigms of competency and critical thinking. The paper aims to foster a deeper awareness of how digital media shapes our habits of mind, such as narcissism, impulsivity, and confirmation bias also, advocates for a consciousness model of digital literacy that encourages individuals to make responsible and ethical choices about technology use, considering the structural biases of digital media and their potential negative effects on relationships, politics, education.

On the plus side of the paper, the author adopts an interdisciplinary approach integrating media ecology with digital literacy broadening the scope of understanding digital literacy beyond mere technical skills, including cultural, psychological and societal impacts of digital media. Also, the paper offers a detailed examination of the negative impacts of social media on relationships, politics, and education.

On the other hand, the paper even though offers a robust theoretical framework, lacks empirical evidence to support claims and arguments, particularly regarding the negative impacts of social media on relationships, politics and education, which may lead to overgeneralization.

Furthermore, regarding the practical implementation of the paradigm, I would suggest a more detailed paragraph on how this model can be practically implemented within education and learning organizations. I would also suggest a more thorough engagement with counterarguments, especially those that might highlight the benefits of digital media or question the feasibility of adopting a consciousness model in a highly digitalized society.

 

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 4:

 

Thank you for your thoughtful reading of my paper. I appreciate you acknowledging that, “The paper without any doubt has merit and is very well written.” I take pride in my craft and this observation – despite the concerns you have – is meaningful to me. I also want to say that your paragraph summarizing my argument absolutely nails what I’m up to. It demonstrates that you have carefully read my paper and taken it seriously. So, thank you!

 

That having been said, you raise a number of concerns that I have attempted to address through my revisions. In my reading of your comments, you stress two issues of concern in particular.

 

The first issue has to do with “empirical evidence to support claims and arguments.” This concern arises, I think, as a consequence of some key differences between our research paradigms. I am – both by training and practice – a critical humanist. This means that I employ critical interpretive methods as opposed to quantitative or qualitative methods. Operating from this perspective, evidence comes in the form of carefully grounded argument not empirical data-testing. Such arguments are, of course, not merely personal opinions or idiosyncratic impressions. They are based on the critic’s ability to observe patterns, to name those patterns, and to link them to other cultural forces. All media technologies possess structural biases; those biases foster particular habits of mind unique to specific cultural contexts. My job, as a media ecologist, is to identify those structural biases based on direct observation of technologies and to organize them into meaningful categories, which I then link to larger cultural forces. I have attempted to do this by carefully grounding my arguments theory, analysis, example, and existing empirical research. Since my central argument is that digital media undermine this very type of reasoning, in my estimation it is crucial that we value it. Indeed, as I suggest, the future of “humanity” depends on it.

 

The second issue has to do with “the practical implementation of the paradigm.” Thank you for highlighting that I do not spend sufficient time reflecting on this in the previous draft of my essay. I have revised the conclusion, adding several new paragraphs of material, to address this matter explicitly. As I have tried to be clearer about in the revised manuscript, the “critical model” of digital literacy dominates the educational sphere. That model, as I suggest, is problematic because it perpetuates the dangerous myth of technological neutrality. I am suggesting that we ought to replace the critical model with a consciousness model in educational settings. In the revised manuscript, I am clearer about both what that would entail and some of the issues or challenges it might pose.

 

Regardless of the outcome, I want to express my sincere gratitude for the careful reading of my manuscript. I very much appreciate the opportunity to try to address your concerns, and I believe it has resulted in a stronger manuscript. Thank you!

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for taking the time to address the issues I brought up in my response to the earlier draft of this piece. The argument and how it builds on previous literature is significantly clearer, the historical argument is much more situated, and the connections between the categories you propose are much more intertwined. I therefore suggest that the work be accepted in its present form.

 

Well done and congratulations on this piece!