Like Annamaria I work in e-learning, currently as a researcher but for many
years as a developer i.e. working with often 'technophobic' staff to support
creativity around the uses of new technology.

I use 'technophobia' reservedly because I think we can learn a great deal
about the impact of technologies on people's practice, including creative
practice, by taking their reluctance seriously. For many teachers,
technology is problematic because it demands that much more of the learning
and teaching process is represented explicitly. For less reflective
teachers, this is painful because they are suddenly aware (for example) of
how little variety there is in what they do with learners, or how badly
thought-out their assessment strategies are. But for highly reflective
teachers it is also a problem, because what they value about their
relationship with students is its situated, contextualised nature - the way
they can change what they are doing on the fly, in response to learners'
emerging responses. Getting to do this fluently in a new medium is difficult
and time-consuming, and often the medium *as it is offered to teachers* e.g.
through virtual learning environments is inherently inimical to
improvisation of this kind.

In both caes, observing the quality of reluctance can lead us to designing
technologies, and embedding technologies into practice, in ways that are
more supportive of innovation.

I'd also say from my experience of development work with technologies that
mild technophobia is necessary for innovation. People who are not 'snagged'
by the technology, who are not aware of it as a difficulty or impediment,
have no impetus to examine and develop their practice. When we encounter
technology we are encountering a human artefact, designed for our use, which
always by nature of humanity's differences will always somehow 'miss'. It's
only by adapting ourselves, and what we do, to the mis-recognitions of the
'other' in the technology that we become creative with it.

Helen





----- Original Message -----
From: "Annamaria Carusi" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2005 11:10 AM
Subject: Re: [WDL] May Topic: Technophobia, writers and writing


> Hello,
> I too am a new subscriber to this list, and have already seen lots to
> interest me,  I'm in e-learning, but my main areas of interest are in
> philosophy (where I specialised in aesthetics), literature and arts. I'm
> fascinated by the new technologies and the way they change our experience
> of
> reading, writing and creativity.
>
> In response to the 'technophobia' discussion: this is something that's
> found
> throughout academia, with lecturers being very resistant to the idea of
> teaching online. This is something that I personally find frustrating
> because I think it's a very creative medium for teaching. But maybe we can
> turn the question around, and ask not 'why aren't they engaging', to 'why
> should they?'. I know that I didn't engage with it until sheer necessity
> forced me to, and only then did I discover this whole new toy box. But I
> can
> also understand people who say they're not done yet with exploring the toy
> box they already have. So I suppose I'm saying what positive reasons do we
> have for wanting people to get over their technophobia?
>
> Annamaria
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Ann Light" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2005 11:49 PM
> Subject: Re: [WDL] May Topic: Technophobia, writers and writing
>
>
>> Hi Amy, I can certainly second that. I tried to lead my magazine
>> publishing house into the digital age back in 1995 and couldn't believe
>> how little interest there was in interacting with readers. I then wrote
>> a PhD around the (often limited) attempts that media companies were
>> beginning to make to exploit the potential of networked communication
>> and the lack of vision that put many publishers several years' behind
>> other website providers in terms of 'experience design'. There were the
>> zealots (and I guess I was one) who left to go somewhere where it was
>> actually happening, and then there was everyone else in the company,
>> clinging to the old ways.
>>
>> Now, I see media workers behaving like cultural tourists in 'social
>> software' land instead of getting on with using the new tools. They know
>> there is something going on, but they are damned if they are engaging
>> with it for longer than it takes to be able to mention the right terms
>> at dinner parties... Which is why there is so much poor journalism
>> written about blogging, etc; so much inappropriate appropriation of
>> media forms without a regard for context; and so little understanding of
>> the changes that are happening to 'readerships' and 'audiences' and just
>> how these might be harnessed to create meaningful media of the future.
>>
>> In fact, some of the most obtuse conversations I've had about the
>> potential of networks have been with friends who are journalists.
>>
>> Strange behaviour, as you say, for people whose livelihoods depend on
>> it. Why?
>>
>> Ann
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>>
>> I never cease to be amazed at how technophobic most journalists are --
>> especially when it comes to new and better ways to communicate,
>> research, and collaborate online. This baffles me. These are people who
>> have perhaps the strongest reason (story deadlines) to learn to use the
>> net effectively and efficiently. Also, they are PAID to be curious!
>> However, every time I try to explain topics like feeds, wikis,
>> Technorati, etc. to journalists, it's like banging my head against the
>> wall. They totally resist having to learn anything new related to
>> technology. Drives me batty.
>>
>> - Amy Gahran
>>
>>
>>
>