Who are the digital natives ?

# POST 5

Finding a working definition for digital native… is the result of a process you acquire through procedures of learning and research

Radical educators have taken the web in hostage to criticize the term of « digital native ». These educators, describing themselves as « radicals », thus opposed the digital native to the digital immigrant and based the whole reasoning on the reading of one book published in 2001 by some guru of E-Learning, Marc Prensky (2001). Prensky defines the digital native as a generation of people who were supposedly born in between the 1980’s and the years 2000, the Millenials. Educators used this definition to pretend that this generation did not exist, has no specificity nor identity, which is like denying the impact of technology on society.

They targeted me because I was defining myself as a digital native in my Twitter profile. I wasn’t even adressing them. The problem with implicit is that it’s doesn’t allow to deal with the proper issue by referring to the accurate concepts as defined within specialized fields, as ICTs (Information & Communication Technology Studies), preventing students to access the debate and to catch a glimpse of what is actually going on by censuring, attacking and excessively polarizing issues.

The danger of fake assumption is to erase the claims raised during the debate maintaining a state of threat and coertion into social media which is precisely what is undermining the potential of the internet for empowerment. Then accusing someone of targeting you when in fact targeting a definition is defamatory and it’s not science as discussing a concept or a definition is part of the public scientific conversation and a call for equal access, and in any case is a judgement about someone. Then it is the social responsability of the scientist to denounce the instrumentalization of science into the hands of politicians.

And this is what these educators do when denying years of research and practice. To deal about the definition of digital native, Prensky uses a concept to categorize another concept, an at-risk scientific practice, especially when the legitimacy of the concept  – the proper concept of Millenials – is contested. It is quite obvious that categorizing users’ practices just by referring to their birth dates is quite simplistic, just as when we talk about Baby boomers, Generation x or in France “Mai-soixante-huitard” (the people who were students at the time of Mai 68). It is certainly a generalization.

Nevertheless, it is a social reality. Baby boomers knew the war. Most “soixante-huitard” knew Mai 68. And Millenials or Generation X or Y (which I belong to) knew the first developments of the technology in society. Even if some people did not know indeed the War, Mai 68 or the technology, a big part of the generation did…

Let me assure you I happened to learn quite recently I was part of this generation so I don’t think the people who were born at this time define themselves by referring to the term of digital native, like if they say :

-Hey, are you a digital native?


-Ok, fine.

-And you?

-Yeah, yeah, me too.

But let’s come back to the Millenials and the very idea that they should necessarily better master technology. This point is equivocated as before Millenials, there were also IT experts that invented the web. So why the hell are the media ignoring them today by calling the Millenials the leading generation. Because Millenials were the first at using mobile phones and computers at home or at school. By doing so, they fostered a social change into relationships and into ways to connect with others via interfaces of knowledge sharing as social media. They were maybe more numerous than the proper creators of the web also. But the real genius were the ones that made it work.

Digital natives historically and sociologically share a common set of values they identify to that is not only defined by their birth date but also, and mostly, by a culture that emerged from the social time they shared online chatting, gaming or writing codes. It creates a sense of belonging and of trust. I was part of this culture and I can attest it did exist. It’s my experience and my story, not only a marketing concept. Confusing technology and capitalism is ideological as ultra capitalist modes of production exist also outside the technology (see the sweatshops in Asia).  I met them online at a time whre you could interact with big heads and where the internet was not devoted to business. They helped me to grow. I miss that time a lot.

Then it’s a fact that ultra capitalism invaded the web. I couldn’t say what the internet has become under the pressure of tech giants still pleases me today. In fact, it doesn’t. But saying the virtual communities contributed consciously to that state of things is highly dishonest and might reveal a certain degree of frustration. Digital natives’ appropriations helped programmers and then, consequently, marketers to make the web more accessible without having to type lines of code. So yes, they did make it  « popular » by trying and inventing stuff with technologies onto their spare time – student time (and even work time sometimes) – and they democratised the access for the others. Does it mean they instrumentalized the web for becoming a tool for domination? Of course not.

The main problem with Prensky’s definition is he reduces the term of digital native to birth dates which creates an artifical dichotomy in-between “digital native” and “digital immigrant”. I think we might maybe raise a call here for over-interpretation. This definition, that was coined 15 years ago, is based on common assumptions about elder people that presumably are not good at technology or are excluded from the digital culture because of their pertaining generation.

In fact, the term “digital native” also refers to people who are fostering practices of information sharing with others users, as their parents, friends, relatives or kids, whatever be their age, gender, social background or color because no one can prevent anyone from using a smartphone or the internet (well, except in authoritarian countries). And who would like it ?

In my Ph D’s dissertation (2012), I coined, following Di Chiro and Eglash, digital literacy as an appropriation based on « strategies to bring together people with different level of technical expertise who would be interested in constructing alternative models » (Di Chiro, in Eglash, 2004 : 239). This definition of the digital culture is open to allow the integration of « aliens » to the digital culture. I was born an alien. I grew up without computer and no one ever taught me. I was born again a native but I never considered myself a digital native or an immigrant because these are conceptual categories I have never heard about and thanks to God because, if I did, I would probably never got to learn anything by doing.

I have met, in these years practising online, many people, including elder ones, who, for some reasons, learnt how to master the skills of the ICTs by themselves. « Do-it-yourself » motto. This is my definition at least even if not the one shared by the most westernized and unethical media.

I analyzed in my researches the ways this expertise can be acquired through intensive media experience, cultural context and social interaction to allow online collaborative sharing and learning (Debaveye, 2012b). It then defines a stage of intensive connectedness that give greater literacy to communities of learners connected with others learners. As I showed, media practices are empowering under certains conditions (Debaveye, 2012a; 2015). The exposure is not only the result of ingenuity but also the result of being the most tracked generation ever which led users to be inventive.

It would be very naive to consider that anyone in possession of a computer, mobile phone or internet connexion today could become an expert by switching on/off. Then ICT’s researchers also coined the term of « digital gap » to deal with the issue of the internet access (Jenkins, 2006; Debaveye, 2012) and many ICT’s experts (Which I belong to also. Have to recall it to some sexists’ revisionists) are today analyzing that problem by publishing studies or making recommendations to enable the voices of the ones who come from targeted communities, minorities, women, person of colours or person with disabilities to be heard. So instead of telling us what we already know, read what we write, keep busy or just shut up.

As with for any kind of other technical knowledge, if you spend your days at doing it, there are no reason you won’t learn and become each day better. Collins & Evans coined the term expertise (2007) as an « experience-based expertise » acquired through practice and interaction (thus technical AND relational expertise), not as something you innately possess resulting from some obscure genetical brain mutation as you sometimes read in Sci-Fi novels (Sci-Fi is great but come on it’s not science! As its name indicates, it’s also fiction).

In cases you enjoy your time cleverly enough to learn new tools and technologies by coding, designing, data doing, testing, researching, blogging, hacking or whatever doing except flatly resharing existing contents or cyber-harassing (yes you educators or assimilated :)), if you aim at collaborating for change, voices can emerge, technology appropriation can occur and new types of knowledge can appear. If not, well, it won’t. And I will surely go elsewhere.

By referring to inaccurate and ideologized definitions of the concept “digital native”, educators are behaving irresponsibly. They foster an unnecessary distinction between the people who master the internet and the others to serve their personal agenda (Yes you educators). They are not educators but creators of violence and they reinforce norms of exclusion as any of our educational institutions always did before. They also rewrite manuals as any of our educational institutions always did before. And they finally privatize knowledge as any of our educational institutions always did before.

Not only this mind framing (or should I say « mindset ») reveals a feeling of inaptitude that can prevent to embrace technology because it considers technologies as spaces of access for the digital native « generation » only but it also indicates a complete lack of distance with the silly production of media advertisers. By narrowing a definition that is open and flexible, by stereotyping technologies and by censuring and attacking content producers, educators deny the roles and status of the people committed into sharing what the internet culture means outside of the business-only culture (you know, intellectuals youhou).

Radical librarians should stop accusing others because of their own personal bias conveyed within the ultra capitalist media they’re immersed in and to short sighted to see. The internet actors and works were in far before corps and firms. Blocking the desinterested passing of information in order to better serve the interests of some private investors or sponsors is making things much worst. So, please, just, don’t. Really. You’re harming yourself.

I am not being paid for my blog and I deeply dislike the people who take my time off from writing.

Using a working definition based on an appropriate review of what’s been done in the past and now looking into the material freely available online would surely help into reaching some kind of knowledge and consciousness. Surely…

Collins, Harry M. et Robert Evans, 2007. Rethinking expertise. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 159 p.

Debaveye, Julie (2012). Emergence et institutionnalisation d’une expertise militante dans les micro-médias. Thèse de doctorat, Université Lyon et Université Laval.

Debaveye, Julie (2015), « L’émergence d’une écologie locale des nouvelles médiatée par @CLACMontreal, les audiences de Twitter et les médias d’information en contexte de (sur)veillance. », in Communication, 33/1, Université Laval, Québec, février 2015 (soumission : décembre 2013). @Debaveye, 2015.

Di Chiro, (2004), « Local Actions, Global Visions », in Eglash, Appropriating Technology, Vernacular Science and Social Power, University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis.

Jenkins, Henry, (2006), Convergence Culture : Where Old and New Media Collide. New York, NY : New York University Press, 336 p.

Prensky, Marc, (2001), Digital Native, Digital Immigrants.


Licence Creative Commons
Ce(tte) œuvre est mise à disposition selon les termes de la Licence Creative Commons Attribution – Pas d’Utilisation Commerciale – Partage dans les Mêmes Conditions 4.0 International.

Boutons de partageEmail this to someoneShare on FacebookShare on Google+Tweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedInShare on Reddit

How autoritarism and corporatism have ruined our internet culture

# POST 4

[PART 1]


Corporatism and ultra-liberalism as a threat for the future of knowledge and humanity

The Fight

I believe in open culture. During my academic researches, I analyzed the emerging usages of Twitter by coalitions from 2010-2011 when, in the same realm that the Arab spring, citizen journalists appropriated information production skills to counter the silence of the media.

I defended my thesis with the politics of accreditation with the aim of giving more visibility and access to the precarious workers in media, technology and creative industry (2012: 189). I am convinced that Internet and in some ways well intended machines can help us to build a better future.

Nevertheless, I was forced to adopt a cautious approach during the research process as I observed that we might have reached, with the development of progress and wealth, a state of permanent oppression with still high concentrative markets, with the permanence of low access to areas of power colonized by centralized hubs of pre-existing power and with liberal and conservative agressive politics producing deep inequalities with their corporate logics infused via tech tools and software monopolies.

Before to be an ideologized concept used by marketers working for for-profits American multinationals, sharing economy and open knowledge meant something else than business only practices. I would define it as sharing knowledges, expertises, ideas, concepts and discoveries selflessly, with desinterestment following the post-colonial project (Freire) to fix what is wrong by reflecting all together and potentially globally.

This framing comes from the principles of pastoral educators in tech from the 2000’s at the time I managed my way to IRC moderation and personal observations.

I was born and immersed in the digital culture since at least high school (I had no computer home before that). I had bad experiences with the internet. I had huge ones, nevermind… I kept believing that people working cooperatively can make a social change. 

(Since 2006), I have observed in the media the way partisan polls, instrumentalized haters or trolls and networks of collusion had ruined our world, our peaceful lives and probably the future of collective knowledge, news and humanity as we might like it.

For denouncing these logics embodied with feminism and racism, I have been repeatedly targeted by moral and authoritarian institutions as mainstream media and universities with surveillance and assaults on the internet and IRL starting with my researches and then interfering with my professional and social life.

About Inequity in Ressources access

Even if women’s movement advocated for the role of new media as a way to give access to education and empowerment (and I agree) (Di Chiro, 2004), equal access (Habermas, 1978, 1987) , equal opportunity (Fraser, 1992) and visibility (Thompson, 1995) are necessary to maintain the situation of communication (Debaveye, 2012b, 2015). Unfortunately, we are totally lacking of distributed ressources in our post-capitalist «societies».

We always have been aware that these issues were not easy to solve. But what We ignored or maybe underestimated 5 years back was the obsessive behavior of the colluted networks into reaching material ends that would lead to the instrumentalization of technologies and moral disengagement.

We are supposed to be laic democracies but we’re contained with moral judgement and stigmatisation of the powerless communities.


(Whilst being a precarious worker at academia), I was the captive witness of how hidden things started to crack about the infamous reality of people’s struggles, arts and works being instrumentalized by ultra- capitalism. 

My researches were a disenchanting work where I recorded how a group of students’ activists opposing global order and contesting restricting access to education sousveilled the power to finally eventually got their ideals of social justice and critical awareness appropriated by news media, encrypting firms and tech companies, collaborating with financiary oppressive power. How media manipulated networks of resistance for caution and visibility.

Later, by 2013, I noticed how the privacy movement deprived people from equal rights as all people were not having the ressources for protecting themselves from surveillance and control at a time when information was the new oil.

In academia, it was a battle to handle the idea that our works could be used by global platforms for market, with the compliance of universitary corporatism. I was concerned also by the intrumentalization of surveillance and privacy notions for financial benefits.

The Securitists were questioned for their lack of accountability. After Snowden’s revelations, we heard that Tor for example could be a tool used for surveillance in the hands of universitarians.

Then the proper ones who advocated for people’s online safety and privacy were exposing them to targeted surveillance (I am explaining about that notion in my last paper, 2015). After we have asked for the origins of funding sources, it came to news that TOR was being funded by the American Defense Department.

Then Snowden launched Signal, a chat app with double encryption tool.

This said, we have no evidence than encryption tools can actually protect users from piracy.

They failed. They failed the elections. They lost people’s voices and caution.

Because their storytelling was a lie.

Snowden’s Party was feeding the own perfect dreams of the Western control. No one asked what the database would become into the hands of unethical scientists or politics nor would encrypting tools, researches and works would become if used for profits. But the day we did, they lost credibility.

Yes, we surely, certainly, overestimated the ability of the internet to grow collective intelligence and underestimated what a bunch of crap people would do with it for fame and money once they get the potential… And so, as humanitarians we trusted humanity.

It was all project and no business and it became all business and no project.

They actually won the app market with lucrative benefits. Tech companies, political leaders and news media forgot their public mandate and silented under the lobbying of financial players (banks, real estate). They eventually showed clear despise for the social contract (socialism, what or), became trustful of themselves and arrogant. They forgot that in western democracies you cannot reduce people to silence…

Our plans were to maintain an ideal of equity by calling for public, institutional and corporate transparency, by fighting the multiple frauds from colluded networks and the use of brutal force and coercion on civilians that generates social exclusion.

With the information passing, citizen movements came more empowered than ever to critically analyzing news media and whistle blowing facts and news, but it was undermined by the configuration of the media in high concentric markets whose stake holders wanted to keep the privilege of governance.

They reacted with military forces.

They stabbed us to death.

The run

Colonialism & Voices

Neo-rationalism allows colonial revisionism to erase each day the minority’s voices that historically shouted loud and clear at their own perils, the stories of whose who have been racially or sexually offended, physically assaulted, jailed and tortured for defending democracy and social justice.

With the violence of the algorithms and norms, the drifts of quantitativism and the sanctification of online violence, trolling and cyber-harassment, these web mercenaries quietly paved the way for fascist politics, while social forces conveying sexism and racism and the miserable cohort of individualism were, putting hands in : indifference, lack of support and empathy.

As it happened with the website opendemocracy, IT workers derealize and neglect the social dimension of online production. They for instance colonized my website and my stories with their softwares and decontextualized trying to privatize my personal data without giving credit. They also tracked my personal Twitter account without asking consent. They eventually attack me and mock me via social media.

There’s nothing absurd in my story.

They replace people with numbers and goals with SEO ranks, statistics, almost anecdotical. They erase contexts of production falsifying data. They process data and convert human in bits and then they assert with the authority of numbers. They instrumentalize stats, data and anthropology to manipulate communities. It is not only big data that is under scrutiny but the whole knowledge apparatus.

As a french female researcher disagreeing with established power, I was not that visible, using the only tools that the average citizen can find at her immediate disposal, what makes her much powerless than whose she opposes, more rich, more obscure, more manipulative and more connected and organized among preestablished networks of collusion. 

The privatization of people’s lives and stories is scary for the future of our humanity and as well for the free internet. My experience and the one of my peers are, in a way, a « classic case » of the fact that our scientific, political and educational institutions are not feeling concerned at all with justice, equity or education. Most media are rather used as way of conveying power. Divided and disempowered are the opponents.

So here I was, as starving and afraid as a lonely wolf. It was tempting to accept offers. And I almost did.

Because of corporatism and with the corruption of the elites, the ideal of sharing culture based on the principle that anyone can get access to ressources have been left go to seed. Everyone running away…

We have to keep on track. The technical access is still an issue but it has proven its advancements each year, with 69% of 3G covering and the increasing of cellphone owners as it clearly is an emerging market for business (that’s why).

The main concern now is about how to get the symbolical access to ressources due to the stables elements of power that the tyranny of apps and softwares maintain above all.

Social researchers and intellectuals are supposed  to voice claims about this unsustainable economy but of course they mostly don’t. It is easier to play the games. Political leaders and intellectuals are not found of crowds either. They perpetuate the reproduction of power.

The lack of solidarity and political commitment among global citizens might be also the cause of the lack of structure among opponents to corporatism. Now, global order maintains the injonction of open sharing cynically intrumentalizing political ethos and minorities’ struggles for profits. And the hardest part to chew is that these established structures have now gained legitimacy through « science » and politics with liberal leaders following hidden agenda : moral cruelty used to reach profit.

Everyday, Networks of power commit abuses in the name of the public good and of democracy. They bring common citizens into the hands of an incessant productivism led by web mercenaries that endorse without a say users’ online identity, collecting private data (names, addresses, ID, security number, credit card number) and stamping it with their brand names. They force people into zones of containments and submission.

What these mercenaries have in common is their fake sense of control. They agree on the belief that, in their immense talent, they can offer solutions to securize the net and control the living (Earth, Women’s bodies, kids!). They use our claim for access and equity within rhetorics of representation as privacy, anti-islamophoby and migrants for legitimizing their exactions. Let’s say it : intellectual dishonesty, data frauds and authority of science (or what they call so).

While at a global stage, EU governements sell private data from European citizens to foreign investors, infringing the duty of protecting citizens, big corps sell sophisticated technology of encryption to warriors (isn’t war the new trendy business?), women and kids get raped somewhere without the issue raising concerns, while mainstream media over expose citizens to the systematic monitoring and tracking of their acts by the militia of trolls used for social control.

It’s a sad sad world they designed where everyone might fit into the most dominative culture and adopt its codes (western culture).

The exit

Clearly there isn’t.

But remind that The internet cannot be controlled and is site for disruption. The internet is shizophrenic (Deleuze et Guattari, 1980), made of many accidental and incomplete data (Debaveye, 2012a, 2012b) and users cannot control the information about themselves online (Debaveye, 2012a; 2015). Then, online identities are fluid. There are chimeras.

The global biopolitics that control information, data, ressources and means by centralizing everything are slow and old. They colluded with fast racers. But they’re focused on materiality. Chimeras are powerful. and I am a delusive player.



Debaveye, Julie (2015), « L’émergence d’une écologie locale des nouvelles médiatée par @CLACMontreal, les audiences de Twitter et les médias d’information en contexte de (sur)veillance. », in Communication, 33/1, Université Laval, Québec, février 2015 (soumission : décembre 2013). @Debaveye, 2015.

Debaveye, Julie (2012b), @CLACMontréal, émergence et institutionnalisation d’une expertise militante dans les micro-médias, thèse de doctorat en Sciences de l’information et de la communication, sous la direction de Bernard Lamizet et François Demers, Université Lyon 2 et Université Laval, UMR Triangle et DIC Laval, 422 p. @Debaveye, 2012.

Debaveye, Julie (2012a), « Relinking expertise : De l’expérience privée à l’expérience médiatique du partage de vidéo en ligne. », Revue Canadienne d’Etudes Médiatiques, affiliée à la faculté des communications et des études médiatiques de l’Université de Western Ontario, numéro thématique automne 2012 « Experts et amateurs en communication et culture », pp. 115-140 (soumission : août 2011). @Debaveye, 2012.

Deleuze, Gilles et Félix  Guattari (1980), Mille Plateaux, Capitalisme et Schizophrénie 2, Les éditions de Minuit.

Di Chiro, Giovanna (2004), « Local Actions, Global Visions », in Eglash, Appropriating Technology, Vernacular Science and Social Power, University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis.

Fraser, Nancy (1992), in Calhoun, Habermas and the public sphere. Cambridge Mass. : MIT press, 510 p.

Habermas, Jürgen, (1978), L’Espace public : archéologie de la publicité comme dimension constitutive de la société bourgeoise. Coll. Critique de la politique. Paris : Payot, 324 p et 1987. Théorie de l’agir communicationnel. Coll. L’Espace du politique. Paris : Fayard, 480 p.

Thompson, John (1995), The Media and Modernity: A Social Theory of the Media. Cambridge: Polity; Stanford : Stanford University Press, 324 p.

This article is inspired from a blog post I published in my blog of research in March 2015.


Licence Creative Commons
Ce(tte) œuvre est mise à disposition selon les termes de la Licence Creative Commons Attribution – Pas d’Utilisation Commerciale – Partage dans les Mêmes Conditions 4.0 International.

Boutons de partageEmail this to someoneShare on FacebookShare on Google+Tweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedInShare on Reddit

Alt-Ac, les nouveaux chercheurs au service de l’information numérique

# POST 2

L’économie de l’information digitale renouvelée par des chercheurs en technologies de l’information favorisent l’émergence des savoirs en ligne

On les appelle les académiciens alternatifs ou post-académiciens (« Alt-Ac » pour « Alternative Academics » ou « Post-Ac »). Ils contribuent, par le transfert des savoirs scientifiques, au renouvellement de l’économie digitale en favorisant la circulation des textes alternatifs, de l’information et des pratiques d’apprentissage en ligne dans la société. Ce sont des chercheurs en technologies de l’information (Infocom) qui permettent, par leurs activités professionnelles et leur connaissance du monde de l’entreprise, à la production des savoirs en ligne dans des environnements d’apprentissage hybrides situés entre l’académie, l’économie et la société.

Ces alternatifs ont satisfait aux plus hautes exigences universitaires, à travers la qualité scientifique de leurs dossiers, de solides expériences d’enseignement, des publications dans des revues classées, des expériences internationales et, le plus souvent, des analyses de thèse en prise avec l’actualité et les réalités sociales, puis ont choisi de se réaliser ailleurs que dans le sérail académique.

Et s’il fallait quitter les milieux académiques pour mieux réfléchir?

De nombreux observateurs sortis du sérail ont souligné les conditions dans lesquelles travaillent les universitaires aujourd’hui : manque d’équité dans les ressources allouées à l’analyse de données et à la publication des résultats, réallocation du travail des enseignants-chercheurs qui ne consacrent plus que 11% de leur temps à la recherche, institutionnalisation des réseaux de cooptation et bureaucratisation à outrance des procédures. Cette rationalisation empêche la prise en compte  d’une diversité culturelle dans la science et l’inclusion de la créativité sociale dans des réseaux trop élitistes et opérant avec des modes de communication fermés.

Libérés des barrières académiques, ces nouveaux chercheurs nourrissent leur passion de contribuer au passage des savoirs, ailleurs et autrement, dans des environnements connexes aux espaces de savoir traditionnels, générés par les regroupements d’utilisateurs dans les collectifs et les organisations sociales ou professionnelles.

Les chercheurs notez-bien, sont, comme le souligne le site Cheeky Scientist de très bon leaders ainsi que d’excellents orateurs disposant de capacités de management de projet élevées, notamment ceux, dont je fais partie, qui ont eu la chance de réaliser leur thèse à l’international. En effet, ces derniers ont réussi à arrimer des traditions, des réseaux, des logiques nationales et des cultures très distinctes à travers un projet ambitieux de longue haleine : leur thèse. S’il est aisé de s’inscrire en première année de thèse, mener une thèse à sa soutenance est souvent un parcours du combattant pour le doctorant à qui incombe la lourde tâche de motiver ses troupes dans un contexte de haute léthargie et d’immobilisme institutionnel.

Ultra-spécialisés et dotés de compétences en technologies de niche, ils sont aussi des généralistes de la communication et de la politique, de part les expériences de recherche et d’enseignement acquises pendant leurs thèses, ils savent innover en transférant l’expertise acquise dans les réseaux d’excellence aux besoins socio-économiques des organisations (en premier lieu l’université et ensuite dans les organisations). L’aptitude à analyser finement, à étudier de manière critique, à recomposer des ensembles de données hétérogènes issues des pratiques organisationnelles et/ou numériques et à synthétiser sous forme de rapports d’étude des préconisations d’aide à la décision notamment des recommandations stratégiques, sont des compétences rares qui se révèlent utiles à bien des domaines. D’après les statistiques en effet, 9 gestionnaires sur 10 ont une image erronée de leur organisation, car ils l’interprètent à partir de leur vécu et de leur environnement social.

Pour cette raison, les pays pionniers de l’innovation, comme les Etats-Unis, la Chine, l’Australie, les pays d’Europe du Nord ou le Canada, font souvent appel aux chercheurs en sciences sociales pour réaliser des études et faire des propositions. La finesse d’analyse d’un docteur (de l’anglais « fine-grained » et non au sens dérivé!) permet aux financeurs de dépenser plus stratégiquement un budget qu’en faisant appel à des sociétés de bench marketing qui ratissent large. Même si ces entreprises se révèlent utiles pour votre communication, elles répondent à des demandes ciblées et n’ont pas les ressources humaines et matérielles pour conduire une stratégie de conseil basée sur une enquête contextualisée en vue d’offrir un suivi approfondi des besoins et de répondre à des attentes de plus en plus personnalisées.

Dans le domaine de l’information et de la communication, de nombreuses carrières sont possibles, en raison d’un besoin évident des entreprises et de la société en technologies numériques, comme, par exemple, l’ingénierie pédagogique en ligne, les laboratoires d’apprentissage hybrides, les systèmes d’édition numériques ouverts aux non-scientifiques et, dans mon cas, l’analyse des données issues des processus d’apprentissage en ligne et la gestion de projet interactif reposant sur l’usage des technologies ad hoc. La connaissance du milieu entrepreneurial permet de participer aujourd’hui, par la mise en relation d’une expertise pointue aux réalités des entreprises, à l’émergence d’une éducation en ligne hybride.

Ce billet a été originellement publié sur mon blog de recherche (octobre 2014).

Boutons de partageEmail this to someoneShare on FacebookShare on Google+Tweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedInShare on Reddit