TECH4GOOD
Monchito Ibrahim
Many have written about the current technology divide in our society; the “digital immigrants” and the “digital natives.” The difference mainly lies in the year people were born relative to the time digital technology became a way of life. While digital natives are assumed to be inherently technology savvy, digital immigrants are usually seen as having some difficulty with digital technology. Is there really such a divide today?
The year of reckoning is 1980 which makes the millennials ( born between the years 1980 and 2000) and Generation Z (born after the year 2000) part of those referred to as digital natives. They are the generation of young people born into the digital age and, generally, have spent nearly their entire lives surrounded by computers, digital devices, and the world of apps and social media. Digital immigrants, on the other hand, are those born before 1980 who, generally, have learned to use digital devices and tools at some stage during their adult life.
Digital native, as a term, was originally popularized by Marc Prensky through his article, “Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants.” The article was meant to highlight the failures of American education to understand modern students. He argued that the rate of new technology adoption has changed how students process information. The article also described two contrasting and generally visible differences in technology adoption between those who were born before digital technology became pervasive and those who have been exposed to the digital world for their entire lives. It can be compared to an adult trying to learn a new language as to somebody who is native and has been speaking it all their lives.
The common assumption is that, in terms of technology, digital natives may understand it faster or may even prefer to learn as they go while digital immigrants may take more time to understand and adopt a digital tool. This assumption is understandable considering that digital immigrants have had to adapt and go through the transition between an analog life and life as it is now. On the other hand, digital natives are very comfortable with and fluent in the use of technology because they were born in a digital world.
They are more adept at using it proficiently like finding jobs and preparing themselves for everyday life.
After popularizing the labels, however, Prensky joined others in criticizing them by saying that they are just generalized determinations of individual and generational gaps. Some are even contesting the criteria used for these categories. The cutoff year has been established as 1980, but is there really a difference between someone born in 1979 and someone born in 1981? Others are saying that perhaps the better criteria to use are the observable attitude and approach to new technology like level of understanding, exposure to digital platforms, confidence, or motivation to adapt to the new technologies.
The attitudes towards the use of the two labels are beginning to change. There is now a conscious effort to make sure that labeling is properly applied. Used incorrectly, as a tool for judgment rather than to enhance understanding, they can perpetuate harmful results and inaccurate assumptions. Age, for example, is not a fair basis for labeling one’s digital citizenship because a Generation Z person from a low-income background with very little technology in the home is unlikely to have the same exposure to digital tools as a Generation X member with adequate resources to spend in cutting edge digital tools.
We also need to understand that older people are just as capable of learning new technologies as young ones. The difference lies in the approach to learning and the time it takes for them to learn. It is also wrong to assume that, just because they have been exposed much longer to technology, younger generations have mastered it. In fact, a digital immigrant who has taken the time to learn the fine points of a new digital tool may be able to absorb it at a higher level than a digital native who assumes innate knowledge.
How do we then build a bridge between the digital natives and the digital immigrants?
We need to appreciate the methods preferred by both in terms of the use of technologies. We can start by offering them the flexibility to choose the best method for them. A simple example would be how meetings should be run. Would it be face-to-face or through digital communication? A hybrid meeting may be the answer. Should the training be in-person and step-by-step or through an online course?
The biggest value can be derived by having the two groups work together, especially in a work setting. They have a lot to learn from each other. The digital natives can benefit from the knowledge of the more experienced digital immigrants. On the other hand, digital natives can help digital immigrants transition and adapt to new technologies.
(The author is the lead convenor of the Alliance for Technology Innovators for the Nation (ATIN), vice president of the Analytics Association of the Philippines, and vice president, UP System Information Technology Foundation.)