Angela Thomas, Youth Online Chapters 4-7

I think one of the major issues brought out in Thomas’s research is the differences between teen exploration of identity online and that of adults. An online, somewhat anonymous presence becomes a place to reflect on the self…in place of experimentation at home in front of a mirror. The online reflection is a much more social, yet still perceived as safe, place to experiment than behind a shut door at home. My question is that, as adults who have not grown-up immersed in technology as some youth of today, can we really understand how youth view/use their online presence?

I was struck by how rich and multi-sensory the online presence of the youth was; even in text based online worlds. Thomas says, “A social theory of learning, then, is connected with learning and knowing within social participatory experiences” (page 95). The examples that Thomas gives are certainly socially based. There are definitely balances of power online that would not be available to youth solely in the real world. I was interested in how the youth regulated aspects of their worlds; such as helping someone to fit in, defining rules for their interactions, and monitoring content experienced. I found it interesting to see how the youth regulated their “worlds” either successfully (Elianna, Tianna and Jandalf) or unsuccessfully (Kayle). How might this influence how the youths’ self-concept forms?

I found this discussion about “the edited self” to be interesting. An online identity can mirror oneself, emphasize portions of oneself, or allow the self to do things that would not be acceptable in real life. Thomas gives examples of Tiana being able to realize and find people via the Internet who have similar interests as herself. Thomas even gives examples of school culture alienating some participants. However, she also mentions that Tiana and Jandalf have “a healthy set of offline activities” (page 171). These offline activities may also serve to aid in identity formation. I wonder for youth who spend most of their leisure time online, how their online activities differ from those with a more balanced online versus offline time. Also, Thomas indicates that some researchers are concerned about online activities replacing real life activities. Is this similar, or different, from the argument of a bias toward paper texts versus online texts?

Additionally, on page 114 she discusses the conscience production of self through words and online text. Many of the participants mention that, “Everything’s generally easier” (page 115) online. Are there opportunities for youth to form such conscience productions of self in the real world? How does the ability to “backspace” and the possibility of review influence how youth see themselves?

Another issue I found interesting in the reading is that Thomas mentions that these are activities for youth who have availability of the technology and leisure time to explore it. Does this have significance beyond indicating “have” versus “have not” cultures?

There were a few areas where I wish Thomas might have included more information or done more exploring.

• One area is in explaining “the palace” models. While I am familiar with role playing games, fan fiction, chat rooms, message boards, and some other online presences, I am not familiar with this reference and to truly understand the context in which these youth are creating avatars and identities I think that we need to know the context of the virtual world.
• Thomas (on page 148) discusses “out of character” chat but does not indicate whether she places more or less emphasis or weight on role playing versus out of character chat. Are they the same weight?
• Another area is that of the avatar creation limitations. Thomas comments briefly on the lack of “fat” avatar models. To my knowledge there are very few, very recent games that allow a participant to create “fat” avatars. Applications are allowing for greater choice in how an avatar looks, yet there are still limitations. She mentions the differences in gaze of the avatars and hints at possible meanings behind the differences in gaze. My question is whether youth read the same meaning into the avatars’ gaze? Additionally, I do not feel that Thomas full explored the influence on visual online identities related to the limitations inherent in creating avatars.
• Finally, Thomas only briefly makes reference to one participant’s screen name. In most cases each person involved in an online application must create a screen name that is acceptable to the rules of the application and is unique. In many cases this screen name may represent multiple avatars within the application. It is possible that the screen name chosen may say a great deal about the self-concept of the person creating the avatars.

Here are some links related to the readings:

Gathering of Elves and Middle Earth Insanity. Both are asynchronus role playing message boards.