Powell, Annette Harris. “Access(ing), Habits, Attitudes, and Engagements: Re-Thinking Access as Practice.” Computers and Composition 24.1 (2007): 16-35.
Summary: “Government efforts to universalize access have resulted in narrow constructions of access as ownership of technology. This article posits a more substantive dialogue of access, one that goes beyond connectivity issues, to consider how the “practice of access” influences technology-use, examining attitudes and ideas about communication and computing technologies. Looking at one effort to address the digital divide in a technology camp for middle school students, I argue that access is practice and that if we examine the “practice of access” in our classrooms and in our research, we look not at the technology but at the practices—what gets reinforced, valued, and rewarded by local communities. The “practice of access” is a more useful way of understanding how social and economic infrastructures mediate access. In this way, access is re-cast as a mutable practice that is influenced by real, everyday practices.”
Area Clusters: 106
Methodology: New Literacy Studies, Critical Race Theory, Activism/Service Learning
Citations: DBell ABanks CSelfe GHawisher JGrabill DBrandt DBarton MHamilton
Quotes:
A substantive, meaningful access recognizes social, political, and economic factors implicated in the literacies individuals bring to technology and the circumstances under which these literacies are deployed. (17)
I argue for an exploration of what I call “access as practice.” As compositionists, if we consider the “practices of access” in our classrooms and in our research, we look not at the technology but rather at the actual practices—what gets reinforced, valued, and rewarded by local communities. If we consider “access as practice” not static but rather as rich, complex, and not easily categorized, or if we think of access as an on-going process, we might better understand access as the way that one uses technology in a given context. (18)
I found that simply having a computer available to them did not completely open access for these students. Access was continually in flux and predicated upon these students’ negotiation of everyday social and literacy practices. As the camp unfolded, I became interested in the assumptions that we, as instructors and researchers, made about the participants, their technology use, and how those uses shape their access. In order to move beyond simplistic notions of access, where “getting in is enough,” we need to focus on the pedagogical and practical aspects of technology: How can we meet students where they are? (23)
Looking at Erica and Kevin, one might be inclined to ask, where is the Divide? There is an assumption, I think, that literate practices are easily analyzed in terms of race and socio-economic background. However, social and economic backgrounds are distinct categories though they are often combined to suggest that they explain “class” and “culture.” These terms need to be unpacked in order to understand the full meaning of adaptation. Pierre Bourdieu’s (1984) notion of “Habitus,” a set of understandings and expectations, provides a way to do this. What represents cultural, economic, and social capital in one’s home community dictates access to a large degree. This form of access is not controlled by outside forces but rather, by internal/communal ones. (26)
How these students use the computers—their practice of access—is related to the kinds of skills, habits, culture, beliefs, and assumptions they have prior to turning on a computer. This social context of access is neglected in the Digital Divide discussions. By recognizing and valuing these students’ practices of access, researchers and teachers can begin to understand something about how technology functions in their lives and productively reflect on how to better engage these students’ practices of access and extend the possibilities available to them. (30)
The issue really is how teachers and researchers can use the discursive narrative of the Divide to theorize and enact a meaningful and agentic access that opens contested spaces and expands opportunities for a multiplicity of “discourses”—diverse ways of thinking, speaking, relating, reading, writing (Gee, Hull, & Lankshear, 1996)—that might occupy digital spaces. How students negotiate these digital spaces—both engage in and resist them—is crucial in helping us to address this and other divides. We need empirical and longitudinal studies that examine actual practice in technologized contexts, to both measure the varied effects of differential access and to develop a template for African American technology use that is not based solely on deficit. (33)