CMED2 Practice

The Mobile Phone: an indispensible part of our lives. But does it hold creative production potential?
Victoria Georgiou

CONTENTS PAGE Introduction -Rationale -The Project: a documentary -The audience: digital natives Critical Theory -Technological determinism -Creativity Artefact -Creating the artefact Reflections -My reflection on the peer feedback -Outcome Bibliography Appendices (On blog) 1. Survey Results 2. Student interviews- Videos 3. Mobile only Task: Videos and Evaluations 4. Script- draft and final 5. Transcript of Peer Feedback received 6. Transcript of feedback left for others 7. Video references/ web URL pg.3 pg.3 pg.3 pg. 4 pg. 5 pg.6 pg.7 pg.11 pg.13

Introduction

Rationale As the daughter of an avid sci-fi fan, I have fond memories from my youth of persistently watching Total Recall on a Sunday afternoon. Despite the idea of life on Mars, unsightly alien creatures and an overly sized Arnold Schwarzenegger; I often think back to the feature of the film, which fascinated me most. A scene where he returns home and calls his wife on a mobile communication device, and they have a video conversation. In spite of the array of fiction present in the movie, I have vivid memories of thinking that such technology; a communication device where you could visually see someone was indeed the most fictional feature. It seemed to me unrealistic and unbelievable! However within the following years of my childhood technology evolved at such a rate that todays youth have at their fingertips a communication device which far exceed my Total Recall fiction. The Project: a documentary The mobile phone has evolved as one of the most converged pieces of technology- no longer just a portable means of communication, but now bringing together multiple technological functions. As with most fast growing technology, its evolution has not been without criticism, with many sociologist s claiming that its adoption has changed social behaviour. However I found that most of the research into the impacts of this device cited negative attitudes; assigning blame of many of the changes in society on this piece of technology. As an educator myself, within he area of Media Studies, I had hoped that I could enlighten young people as to the positives of Media technologies through exploring the potential for more positive outcomes- more specifically the notion that this device, with its improved functionality, could now encourage and promote creative production practice. While I was sure that the potential was there in terms of the technological capabilities, I wasnt yet aware that what was being currently produced could be deemed creative. Surely a device which has become so central to life had some positive production potential? My aim is to carry out research into mobile phone use, conducting my own series of interviews and surveys, and presenting this in the form of an artefact. A documentary aimed at students; presenting and contextualising the theory which surrounds technological growth and impact (technological determinism), while examining the concept of creativity. Within this documentary I will present the results of my own research and the outcome of a mobile only task which I will set a group of young people. Essentially questioning the use of mobile phone technology for creative production practice. Digital Natives: the audience Integrated into peoples lives, technology is today a more comfortable tool for some than others. Marc Prensky (2010), identifies technology as being central to the generational differences in society- separating us into two digital groups: the native and the immigrant. Prensky affiliates those who are born into the technological world as being naturally technologically able. while some Digital Immigrants are afraid of the new technology, and others may

question its value, the Natives are never going back Prensky (2010, p.13) With this in mind I felt it was clear that my artefact has to be focused on and aimed at these digital natives, the younger generation for whom the mobile phone was now a tool of adolescents, those who had always been around such technology, and who supposedly used this tool effectively. Much of the criticism of this device is centralised around young peoples use, for whom it is claimed are unhealthily dependent upon technology. Digital immigrants have adapted to the digital world and are therefore able to see where it is needed. Critical theory The theory around the social consequences of mobile phone use and adoption will be presented briefly in the artefact. Myerson (2001: 7) argues, the mobilisation of the phone isnt really a technological process its cultural. The problem isnt to invent a machine, but to get us all to adopt it, to feel we need it. Technological determinism vs social determinisms new technologies do not come out of nowhere, they are indeed human creations in the first place and they succeed to the extent that they meet human needs. In other words, as much as communications media influence the way people of a particular time and place live, the reverse is also true: People have tremendous influence over how technologies evolve. (Perez 2002 p.2) Perez summarises the debate well, giving me a platform from which to investigate the use of the mobile phones in young peoples lives. We use technology, normally with a direct purpose. Katz (2003 p.31), explored this concept further when he writes about how communication technology affect human behaviour, stating that people continue to modify and control their own environment for their own advantage. While the purpose of the mobile phone remains to communicate, does it now encompass creative capabilities in the capturing which is now taking place through the inclusion of a camera and video function? Ling (2004, p.26) finds a more middle ground in tackling this debate, looking at the domestication of a new technology and its various consequences. A theory deriving from the process of consumption and what we do with technology. Technological determinism follows in the perspective of the effects theory and fails to address that technology was created in response to a social context. Lings domestication approach centres around what we do with it, not just owning it. Thus, our consumption becomes part of our own social identity and others consumption is a lens through which we interpret their social identity. (Ling 2004 p. 27). Concentrating on the relationship between technology and an individual, stating that the individuals are not solely responsible for their interpretation of technology, and that social factors hold a significant importance when understanding the use of technology. Students are not just using technology differently today, but are approaching their life and their daily activities differently because of the technology.

NetDay survey 2004, Conclusions cited in Prensky (2010). I have seen from my research that part of these daily activities involves capturing videos and images. But the question next is, is this creative practice? Creativity Gauntlett (2007, pg13), explores creativity and attributes the terms uniqueness to the labelling of creative production. A creative achievement means that someone not only thinks they are a distinct individual, but has actually got something to show for it. Defining creativity is a complex and widely researched sociological process, from which many have derived their own definitions. Gauntlett (2007, pg18), explores the two levels of creativity. The grand level, a level of achievement which has been socially recognised, and everyday creativity- the creative potential in everyday activities, where Gauntlett gives creative value to everyday activities, choices and designs and decisions. Csikszentmihalyi and Gardener, (cited in Gauntlett 2007, pg19), both studied creativity on the grand scale, hoping to identify the factors which enabled creative accomplishments. They identified the circumstances and environment in which grand level creativity took place, as important influential factors. Can such grand creativity take place with the capturing tool of a mobile phone? Perhaps. But as Gauntlett (2007, pg 21) points out, this kind of creativity which produces something special, unique and valuable is more usually the result of hard work in a supportive environment, so less likely to happen with the spontaneous capturing of a tool in your pocket. However the emerging genres of mobile phone film making could possibly move towards this grand creative platform if the creators began to establish a new domain for this, or even bridge the gap into the film domain. What is interesting is the idea of the creative triangle (Gauntlett 2007, pg21) and sense that an individual can hold creative talent and originality, but the chances of success in being recognised socially as grand creativity, depend on a knowledge of the domain, and a connection with the field. In this sense creativity or success within creativity, is a culturally constructed phenomenon, which lies very much with the environment and circumstances of the creator. The other form of creativity that Gauntlett states exists is everyday creativity. This more commonplace creativity give credit to different types of creativityartistic and scientific, and explores some of the frictions which exist between the two. But it is his definition of creative methods that I would like to draw upon. methods in which people express themselves in non-traditional (non-verbal) ways, through making something. He does however state that if someone does this all the time then we wouldnt acknowledge it as creative. Bringing us back to that element of uniqueness as an important factor in successful creativity on any level. This idea of expression seem to be reoccurring word in creativity. This make me wonder if when young people evaluate their work and justify their decision they are then being creative and opposed to just making something?

 creative activity is itself where the thinking through and the self-expression takes place, as well as being a process which creates an artefact which represents the outcomes of those thinking and feeling processes (Gauntlett 2007, pg28) Gauntlet seems to conclude, that creative production is driven by a desire to communicate feelings and ideas: and that such work will almost inevitably tell us something about their creator (Gauntlett 2007, pg 30) With this in mind I decide to ensure that the task is as open as possible, to limit creative constraints. I feel I will have to make the mobile only task related to the students themselves, as this sense of personalisation is important both for how they associate this device to their life and to promote creativity. We personalise the device, and in doing so we make a statement as to who we are and how we want to be seen Ling (2004, p.15) Creating the Artefact I was pleased that the research on mobile phone use which I conducted, appendix 1, showed clear parallels in my surveyed group and the national data. However I had to consider the social and cultural factors of my survey group, which would influence the outcome. From this research it was clear that students felt unable to imagine a time when you couldnt visually record memories, have a visual account of things as opposed to only having a mental memory. Even though most of those asked used their phone for texting, visual capturing was still massively important and they expressed that they would not feel satisfied with a phone which did not have that capacity. Images captured and shared formed a visual representation of the user. They also now serve as a means by which to present yourself to others, contributing to the creation of one self image. Katz ( 2003, p. 7) in addition to which video capturing proved to be more about documenting and storing memories, while embracing the idea of recording mostly humorous and shocking moments. From the recorded response it seemed that while they used the phone for mostly calls, texting- communication, it was a piece of technology that some of them felt they could live without- acknowledging a healthier life as the outcome, but rather choosing to have the phone to reduce boredom. In some ways touching on the idea of social determinism and domestication as they all talked about the place of this technology in their life. With regard to the video and camera function the purpose was mostly to record occasions and to capture funny and entertaining moments. Not really to make art- or films. What hit me as the main conflict as to its creativity was the sense of immediacy and authenticity of that captured. It seemed that in order for them to want to capture something, it needed to appear real and accidental. This made in seem, in my eyes, less creative.

Reflections The peer feedback period was extremely beneficial and really helped me to realise where I needed to make changes in my artefact. In addition it prompted

me to structure the narration to be more suitable for my target audience. My method of transferring notes from my essay into the script had caused me to somewhat blur the line of audiences. Consciously trying to keep the video on the same lines as my writing made it less engaging for the intended audiences. The full transcript of peer feedback I received, organised into questions, is available on the blog Appendix 5. My reflection on the peer feedback I received: Question 1. Given that the intended audience was A level students, I felt it was necessary to clearly establish the technological changes and historical context, if I wanted them to then reflect on the potential that this device now held. However when I watched it back myself I felt that the historical context was perhaps unnecessary. I was concerned that my views came from the fact that I had watched it several times during editing and also that I obviously knew this information- making it less interesting to me. So I asked my peers for their views on the length of the historical context. Claire Pollards views echoed my initial thoughts when she said, students don't necessarily have a sense of the developments in technology, which I guess is one of the biggest ironies of the digital native; that while they are immersed in technology, they in fact have little understanding of the time before it and how it came about. The remaining view was almost equally split, with some peers suggesting they it had the right balance and others suggesting that a slightly lighter approach with less historical context would be better. I cant help wonder however if this is because they, like me, are more aware of the historical changes. Vanessa Hughes and Liz Miller, interestingly both suggested that I include more focus on the convergence of other technology into the device. This made me think that actually, it was my initial intention to show that it was a converged piece of media with increased functionality. Although my aim is to focus on the particular functions of the video and camera, I did initially want to establish that the device had undergone a huge functionality increase, and I think this is an important fact that needs to be communicated to the audience. So Im going to add a visual representation, as this will be the best way of maintaining engagement, of all the different media converging into the phonei. I like Lizs phrase you couldn't do anything that creative with a mobile phone until relatively recentlyii, and think I will try to include this in my documentary narration. I feel that straight to the point and more summative remarks like this are lacking from the documentary and will help improve the understanding of the young student audience. I also acknowledge that due to the length of the video and the limited concentration span of the target audience, it needs to be engaging. Much of the feedback suggest including more visuals and even the inclusion of sound effects such as the kerching soundiii, which I will do in a hope to achieve further engagement. An initial concern that I had was that it had taken me too so long to get to my question, and I wonder if Claire Pollards suggestion about restructuring it could 7

work to solve this. The more I consider this, the more I can see the value in altering the structure, perhaps bringing in the theory earlier to allow students to reflect on how that theory ties in with the examples they are presented with later. I can see the benefits of changing the structure iv but the possibility will now be subject to meeting the deadline. Question 2. The feedback that surprised me most was the response that I should include more of the student tasks and interviewsv. Its refreshing to hear that my own research is considered interesting, as during the editing of the video, this was the part which, for me, felt the least interesting. I had quite carefully selected comments and relevant phrases from the mass of student interviews to edit into the documentary, as many of their answers were long and irrelevant. But perhaps I need to go back and look into including more. I am conscious however of making it too long. It brought me to think back to Gauntletts (2007) views around creativity and uniqueness; that sometimes when you see something often, it becomes less unique and you miss the creativity in it. I hear analytical comments from these students all the time, and as their Media teacher, it is my job to encourage more articulated and thoughtful responses. Perhaps I had in this instance, let my professional relationship hinder how I valued their responses. Richard Sanders commented that some of the quotes were on the screen for too long, however I had purposefully made these parts longer as I was concerned that students would not have time to read them. In response to this comment I asked a few students what they felt. They commented that its too long, we wasnt really reading them either and its this big silence and makes you lose concentration. Perhaps I had asked the wrong students! Nevertheless I am now going to look into the duration of the quotesvi, and also the frequency of them. Maybe there are too many and they are not all necessary for a student audience. Question 3. I was really in two minds about asking this question because I feel quite strongly that the examples were needed, but I realised that much of my resistance to ask stemmed from my reluctance to undo all the hours of work it took to edit them in. In spite of my reluctance I realised that the feedback would be honest and in the best interest of the artefact working. Thankfully most of my peers felt that the inclusion of the range of examples of mobile footage use was necessary in showcasing the range of ways in which this kind of video capturing is currently being used. Richard Sanders felt that I needed a narrower range of examples, but his reasoning that There are so many different ways that can be considered as a creative use of mobile technology, was in fact exactly my point! There are so many different examples of mobile video capturing and in order to question if this practice is creative they need to see the full range. Prior to this I think that students would envisage Youtube uploaded home videos as the only possible creative production from a mobile phone. However I think, as Claire Pollard pointed out, I need to make clearer links and make it explicit to the students the relevance of these examplesvii. I dont think it is as clear-cut as labelling this as uncreative capturing, as Claire had suggested. But instead I had hoped that these clips would be a stimuli from which students

can debate whether this type of capturing is in fact creative practice? Although I guess this is Claires interpretation and in some ways the clips have been successful in prompting this very discussion between us. Question 4. I really struggled with selecting which quotations to include in the video, as I carried out a lot of reading and it all felt so relevant- although at times taking me off path. Richard Sanders comments on the portrayal of Jenkins were such an eye opener as to how, through the narration and the selection of quotes, I had possibly mis-portrayed Jenkins. After a brief moment of discomfiture, I actually felt a huge sense of relief that Richard had taken the time to watch my draft video and been able to point this out to me. I had not read any of Jenkinss work before this assignment, and his feedback made me really wish id invested more in sharing my work beforehand. Yes, there is the fear of exposing your weaknesses and mistakes, but the sharing of viewpoints was invaluable. I am changing the narration at that point and will ensure that I have portrayed Jenkins as I had intended. viii Otherwise it was reassuring to hear that my peers, the kind of educators who would possibly use my video to inform their students, felt the theory was explained well for the intended audience. I did take note of the fact that its still a lot to take in and would suggest that when using the video there is the need to pause at points for discussion to take place. I considered sign posting PAUSE for discussion but upon reflection decided that that is a decision which individual teachers would want to make themselves, drawing on aspects that held more relevance to their group. Question 5. Im glad that the comments on the question of creativity were so varied; drawing on the conclusion that I had hoped to for- that the interpretation of what creative means, is ever complex and individual, and continuously open to debate. Richard Sanders comments on the creativity of the task were reflective of the students feelings. They had wanted to edit and manipulate what they had recorded to make it creative. A student from Group 4 had said in his evaluation, it would have been better if we could have used FinalCut cause its not possible to make something good without editing. I think a big part of this was the fact that they were Media students and I wonder however if I had conducted a similar task with a group of Sociology or Maths students, they would have felt the same? In addition it made me consider the task itself and its limits. I had attempted to leave the task as open as possible, in an effort to avoid hindering any creative ideas. But as Liz Miller pointed out this open brief caused panic and in some ways a delayed reaction. In hindsight I think the task would have benefited from more time. Due to the obvious curriculum constraints, I asked them to do this in a two hour lesson, but in essence for any real thinking to have gone into it I should have perhaps given them the task a week prior to the lesson. The general consensus seemed to be well there wasnt really one. Some felt it was creative in ways, others felt not at all. But what was clear was that the individual interpretations were in fact influenced by their own views on the creators. Judith Evans felt that their age meant that this was as 'creative' as

teenagers get, Richard Sanders felt that the collaboration of media was necessary and perhaps expected youngsters to embrace this, Vanessa Hughes saw a lot of positive in what they produced while Liz Miller wondered if the task had hindered the results. The person who saw the least creativity in what they did was my own work college Claire Pollard, someone who knows these students as individuals and, like me, had a pre determined set of expectations for them. Everyone person highlighted a different factor and in some ways I agreed with all of them. An agreement which forced me to reflect on the complexity of variables amongst the conditions of the task, the individuals involved and also the individuals passing judgment. These views were further evident in the second part of the response. Judith Evans re-affirmed her view that age was the key factor which determined the outcome of the task, dismissing culture and class. While most people expressed a view that creativity would differ due to such factors. Claire Pollards comment on the impact of this on technological determinism was interesting and brought to the equation the factor of choice- just because something good is available, doesn't mean people will take it. I think this is a real issue in some places, the decision to possibly be consciously un-creative, to reject creativity in an artistic, everyday form, as less valued than the scientific grand creativity than wins Nobel prizes. Gauntlett (2007, p.18). In all, the feedback from question five was, in my eyes, a huge success. The outcome of the task had prompted a very interesting reflection into what creativity was and how it is defined. The individual responses allowed an insight into how personal this definition is from on person to another, and all the factors that influence the definition. 6. The feedback on the additional task I set helped me to redefine my intended outcome. I think Vanessa Hughess comment about sharing is key, was crucial. They shared what they felt others would want to see, so perhaps when trying to encourage them to use their mobile phones creatively, I needed to encourage them to create something they would want to share. Possibly funny sketches, or scary clips would have been a better idea. Much of the sense of immediacy in the research examples I found derived from the concept that what is captured is shocking, unique, and realistic footage. However capturing something like that in reality is accidental, and requires no prior thought, no decision other than pressing record; therefore making it, in many ways, uncreative. I think Jude Evanss comment on spontaneity was also right and something I had overlooked. The challenge was to create something that embodied those characteristics of humour, and immediacy, which in turn would make them more enthusiastic through the motivation of sharing and receiving likes. I have since altered the task slightly and given them a longer period in which to do this. Dina Akeels feedback consisted of more specific editing suggestions, many of which I have taken on board. Most of Dinas suggestion were in regard to visual adjustments and seem to follow the same consensus that it needed to be more visually engagingix. Hopefully through re-editing I can do this.

10

The Outcome From the process of receiving feedback for my own artefact, and indeed leaving feedback for others on their work, I have grasped the value of peer reviews. Such to the extent, that I am going to encourage peer feedback in the same way among those students who have carried out the pocket the moment task. Its a very daunting experience, allowing others to scrutinise your work, but in the same way its refreshing and reassuring when you realise that your views are shared. I found that many of my concerns were shared, prompting me to act upon these. And even when they are not and the feedback is opposing your view, the process gives you a platform to re-justify your decisions, which is a very selfempowering. I felt great anticipation and anxiety when logging back in to read what others had written, but this was softened somewhat by the knowledge that I would review their work too. I reviewed everyones work; see my peer feedback appendix 6 on the blog, trying to be as supportive and positive as possible while giving honest and constructive feedback. Viewing videos , reading research and playing games, were all time consuming (the last one perhaps not so much), but this helped me appreciate the time that others had taken to watch my video and encouraged me to leave feedback which was as valuable as possible. On completion of my edited artefact I am feeling a real sense of achievement. My final reflection is in relation to my own creativity. creative activity is itself where the thinking through and the self-expression takes place, as well as being a process which creates an artefact which represents the outcomes of those thinking and feeling processes Gauntlett (2007, p.28) In this respect, I feel I have been part of a creative activity. I am content with the outcome of my artefact in demonstrating the critical theory I had wished to explore, and challenging the concept of creativity in the practice of mobile phone capturing. Had there been no deadline to work towards I would undoubtedly still be editing the video, searching for perfection. But then without the constraints of this project perhaps I wouldnt have been creative at all? I set out to look into how technology had or could encourage creativity. But I have concluded that creativity is a concept far too personal to assign merely to technology and its influences. And while, as Gauntlett suggests (2007, p.24) the symptoms of creativityare surely present in more everyday manifestations, a more concrete or definitive example of creativity is far more difficult to define. In the video my own view of creativity was blurred. I had used the term creative when I reflected on the outcome of the mobile only task I was expecting a far more creative outcome. Showing how flippantly this term is used. But the truth is, what was I expecting? I hadnt in fact given them speculated instructions so then what exactly was I judging their creativity against? Upon reflection I realised that what I had in fact hoped for something that I could deem unique and special. Which interestingly point back to Gauntletts theory of grand creativity.(2007, p.13 )

11

Society will always fear the changes that technological influences bring, fearing the unfamiliar and new- but the impact is not so straightforward. The theory of digital immigrants and digital natives is an example of how opportunity and environment can influence this relationship. But effectively society and technology are two sides of the same coin- both directly impacting on each other, and both skimming the surface of creative influences but in a pool of far too many variables to define. Changes I have made to my artefact after receiving peer feedback and writing this reflections I have tried emphasising the idea of convergence more- the enhanced functionality; I have used a visual collage of the converged technology to achieve this.
i

I incorporated Lizs phrase You couldnt do anything that creative with a mobile phone until relatively recently, and in general tried to summarise more of the points to make it more student friendly and easy to absorb.
ii

I included the sound effect as suggested for the announcement of the shocking price of the Motorola DynaTac to enhance the impact.
iii

After realising what a great idea this was I felt I had to at least attempt to restructure the video, but there was also the time constraints to consider and a growing fear of changing it too much. However in the end I went with my instinct and completely re-drafted the narration- re recording the whole narration and structuring it so that the main question and the theory are introduced at the beginning. I also used this as an opportunity to tackle another suggestion of simplifying the historical context. However the whole video still ended up being longer. But hopefully better.
iv

I have taken on board the comments that people liked the student interviews and have selected a few more to include.
v

I have taken out quite a few quotes and tried to focus on those that are clearly linked to the points made in the video. I have also made the duration that the quotes are on the screen shorter,
vi

I tried to make clearer links to the relevance of the examples used news footage, viral marketing etc, in order to maintain the focus of the video. I did this through script changes to the narration.
vii

I have restructured some of the theory and amended the representation of Jenkins. I used Richard Sanders feedback as guidance for this.
viii ix

I have made visual alterations as suggested by Dina Akeel.

12