This article was downloaded by: [University of Kent]

On: 23 November 2014, At: 10:57

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

International Research in Geographical

and Environmental Education
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rgee20

Young “netizens” creating public

citizenship in cyberspace
a
Margaret Robertson
a
La Trobe University , Bundoora, Melbourne, Australia
Published online: 22 Oct 2009.

To cite this article: Margaret Robertson (2009) Young “netizens” creating public citizenship in
cyberspace, International Research in Geographical and Environmental Education, 18:4, 287-293,
DOI: 10.1080/10382040903251158

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10382040903251158

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever
or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or
arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-
and-conditions
 International Research in Geographical and Environmental Education
Vol. 18, No. 4, November 2009, 287–293

Young “netizens” creating public citizenship in cyberspace

Margaret Robertson∗

La Trobe University, Bundoora, Melbourne, Australia

Collaborating with universities in Hong Kong, Finland, the United Kingdom and
Australia the research project outlined in this paper takes up one of the key initial
findings related to the importance of children’s online spaces away from school. The
project brings together complementary strengths from each partner nation to assist our
Downloaded by [University of Kent] at 10:57 23 November 2014

mutual need to understand the worlds of our young “netizens” – the new public citizens
of cyberspace. Differing in social and cultural context, each setting is recognised as a
strong contributor to understanding the competencies of young people’s digital exper-
tise. We work from the shared view that the arrival of Web 2.0 and 3.0 social networking
tools is educationally challenging and demands futuristic thinking for sustainable edu-
cation and social connectivity globally. Our research aim is to use a common research
design to discover how young people are behaving in the new online spaces; what guides
their decision-making; and what, if any, common values appear to emerge when results
between countries are compared. Locally derived knowledge gained from samples of
12-year-olds will be subjected to cross-cultural comparisons and validation. In doing
so, we make some assumptions about the homogenising process that shared global
networks may be fostering. Bringing together these contributions will strengthen the
decision-making process and provide new knowledge about meaning making, agency
and citizenship for the twenty-first-century e-democracy. This paper reports on the
conceptual process underlying the research and the research design.
Keywords: globalised space; social networking; future citizens

1. Background
This paper explores the worlds of our younger citizens. Born since 1995, Generation Z
“netizens” are agents of an e-democracy that is changing our concepts of nationhood and
national identity (Hauben & Hauben, 1997). Recognised as “self-actualising” citizens, they
differ from “dutiful” citizens of past generations. Social networks are their focus; they have
a high sense of individual purpose, less sense of political obligation, are market-oriented and
mistrust the media (Heppell, 2001). Young netizens can bypass public opinion, make public
opinion and contribute to public debate. The Web 2.0 and its successor Web 3.0 interactive
real-time technologies have bypassed all previously used tools. For relatively low cost, they
are deliverable to the hands of all individuals. The cost of a cup of coffee in a cybercafe
is all that it takes. No matter where the location in real space, the same web pages can be
accessed, enabled, and modified. Counter-codes related to their online social geographies
that may or may not match societal norms are entirely possible. Socialised in online spaces,
young people are the “new” mobile citizens. They share ideas and reflect on feedback;

∗
Email: m.robertson@latrobe.edu.au

ISSN: 1038-2046 print / 1747-7611 online

C 2009 Taylor & Francis
DOI: 10.1080/10382040903251158
http://www.informaworld.com
 288 M. Robertson

they react to public issues (Australian Democrats, 2007) and they reflect subjectivity and
eclecticism (Kerr, 2003). The global context of learning is steeped in imaginative and
creative possibilities for young learners, prompting schools to make new rules on online
codes of conduct. Lamentably, research shows that many solutions, including those related
to cybersafety education, stem from social paradigms of former times (Becta, 2007; Wyn
& Cuervo, 2005).
The global context for young people is unimagined and we need to think broadly about
the context. Space, place and identity as geographers have known in the past to have
been superseded or at the least radically transformed. Our attention is now drawn to the
discussion of being “of space” – always changing and in a continuous state of becoming.
In a scholarly exposition on this theme, Spring (2006), for example, reviews worldwide
responses to global forces in all major sociocultural contexts and finds that the dominance
of the “consumer-industrial paradigm” and penetration of English as the lingua-franca is
shaping education systems along similar pathways. Looking more widely some observers
Downloaded by [University of Kent] at 10:57 23 November 2014

of city form especially see this as a delayed rollout of postmodernist and post-colonial
influences with structural embodiment in similar histories of thinking and form. Maybe,
but the view that our schooling responses globally are being homogenised is one that seems
to reinforce the view of systems-driven responses that fail to see the reality of counter-
spaces and codes of individual behaviours. More thoughtful responses in the discipline
now see these responses as a separation of theory and practice. Other researchers of urban
form are also grappling with the emergent aesthetic of individualism, subjectivity and the
politics of infinite networked space. Globalised, networked mobile and personalised, the
knowledge economies created in the mega-cities of the world are indisputably the context
in which the next generation will conduct their daily lives. The theme is one which ought
to confront any professional educator concerned with shaping their capacity to be effective
future citizens. With the projected figure of 50% of the world’s people expected to be living
in cities by 2050, complacency is not an option. Put simply, if we fail to manage the urban
growth we may not be able to sustain our survival which at the level of fundamentals resides
with adequate food, water and shelter.
Taking the urban theme a little further, we see the urgency for educational reform. In
a fascinating study of six mega-cities – New York City, Shanghai, London, Mexico City,
Johannesburg and Berlin – the “Urban Age Project of the London School of Economics and
Deutsche Bank’s Alfred Herrhausen Society” published findings that suggest that the long-
term future of the city depends on the right education for our next generation of citizens.
The basic premise for the project was that: “All problems become more concentrated in the
close confines of urban areas, yet cities are poised for unlimited growth [the parallels for
dwellers in Australia’s largest cities are obvious]”; “Failing cities lead to failing states. . . If
the governmentality of cities, their plans and their architects cannot successfully adjust to
the changing conditions of the twenty-first century there is a risk that urban culture. . . will
die out. . . ” (p. 7). Specifically, “If cities are to succeed, we must build a generation of
generalists who see the connections between challenges and who work to devise and
implement policies that advance multiple objectives simultaneously” (p. 479). Described in
the book as the urban trinity of competitive, sustainable and equitable, solutions are linked
to matched agendas of power and politics. The way to deliver cities built on “economic
prosperity, environmental sustainability and social inclusivity” is linked with people with
knowledge of the urban agenda and competence to deliver its needs.
In brief, the call for rethinking pedagogies in the context of the external pressures for
daily living has delivered for geography educators an opportunity to refocus curriculum
 International Research in Geographical and Environmental Education 289
Downloaded by [University of Kent] at 10:57 23 November 2014

Figure 1. Generation Z – born after 1995 (original).

opportunities. To do this well, we need the cooperation of young learners as co-constructors

of a new and more sustainable educational dialogue. Figure 1 shows an attempt to capture
these background themes.

2. Liberating our thinking from flatland

Co-construction of the curriculum (Alexander, 2006), personalising education and building
communities of practice (Robertson, Fluck, & Webb, 2007) are emergent responses. We
know, for instance, there is little evidence of practical models to guide practitioners with
responses that will excite young minds in publicly recognised ways (Becta, 2007; OECD,
2003). What we recognise is that for Generation Z born after 19951 cyberdemocracy (Poster,
1995) is the comfort zone and play space. Our challenge is to liberate thinking from
“flatland” and reinvigorate imagination in education (Haralambous, Fitzgerald, & Nielsen,
2007). Hence, our research design works from the premise that top-down solutions are
not the answer (Penuel, Fishman, Yamaguchi, & Gallagher, 2007). Matters of agency and
governance must reflect the worlds of Generation Z – the only authentic digital age cohort.
Significantly (summarised in Figure 2), e-maturity research in Europe, United States and
Canada, Singapore, China, Australia and New Zealand is conclusive about the concept, but
far from agreed on the strategies for societal change (Becta, 2007; McKinsey & McKinsey,
2007).
Issues include:

r Infrastructure and resourcing: Generally localised school policies regarding ICT

usage indicate significant variation and a great deal of ad hoc policy (Robertson,
 290 M. Robertson

High

Reliable infrastructure
& resources
Enabling and dynamic policy
Community of practitioners inclusive of
Learner Engagement young voices
Forward thinking vision - wellbeing
Cultural strengths recast
Netizenship
Downloaded by [University of Kent] at 10:57 23 November 2014

Low High

Increasing E-Maturity – the actualising citizen

Figure 2. Towards an e-mature society.

2007). Top-down decisions reflect ICT as a tool and not as a pedagogical change
agent (OECD, 2006).
r Policy and professional support: Generation Z views the world in ways not known to
even Generation Y (Aroldi & Colombo, 2007; OECD, 2001; Wyn & Cuervo, 2005).
Research supports situated responses to curriculum development (Wenger, 2002). As
Roberts et al. (2005) found with 8–18-year-olds: “Except for time spent reading, the
least contented kids report more media exposure than those classified as belonging
to either moderately or highly contented groups” (p. 48).
r Visioning e-democracy: The 2003 OECD study of ICT engagement in 12 member
countries including Australia suggested 10 guiding principles for “successful online
consultation and 5 major challenges for policy making including levels of consul-
tation, organisational and constitutional matters” (OECD, 2003, pp. 3–15). Young
bloggers create their voice in online public space – hence the need for educational
practices to engage them on their “turf ” (Rheingold, 2008).
r Culture, citizenship and democracy: For Generation Z the central link is their identity
as citizens and democratic participants within our social structures. Civic Educa-
tion studies indicate the difficulties involved. See Kerr (2003); Howard and Patten
(2006); the IEA2 review; and the Civic Education Study (1995–2005). The latter calls
for multi-dimensional approaches, including personal, social, spatial and temporal
(Dejaeghere &Tudball, 2007). We know that young people’s concerns for environ-
mental and humanitarian issues as reflected in their online behaviour and voting
patterns are major points of engagement (Australian Youth Facts and Stats, 20043 ).
As Chan and Moore (2006) conclude from their longitudinal study of Years 5–9
in New South Wales, the close relationship between “attributional beliefs, strategic
learning, and achievement” (p. 163) is cause for reflection on how better to involve
learners in their learning. The process is the key to success – not the content per se
(OECD, 2007a, 2007b).
 International Research in Geographical and Environmental Education 291

3. Approach and methodology

Capturing the thinking processes of young netizens requires imaginative online settings.
If we assume the trends shown in the research literature, private spaces are part of theirs
and “our” emergent public space. E-democracy, public pedagogies and education are inter-
twined. Reflecting this view, the research approach starts from the perspective established
in previously funded research4 that the habit zone in our behaviours is dependent on our
programmed knowledge or experience; our skills (meaning here competence with a range of
digital technologies); and our attitudes or beliefs (such as level of e-maturity). As indicated
in the seminal work by Max van Manen (1990), researching lived experience requires study
of the nature of the phenomenon and its links to the life world. Hence, the habit zone is
that space in our behaviour where decisions are taken as a matter of subjective judgement.
The approach taken in this study seeks to locate new knowledge about the “habit” zone of
Generation Z related to four central research questions. Specifically:
Downloaded by [University of Kent] at 10:57 23 November 2014

(1) What codes of conduct govern young people’s use of online spaces?
(2) How do these codes of conduct influence their decision-making and opinions?
(3) How can we integrate youthful voices into education and public citizenship?
(4) What pedagogical model best “fits” the responses?

3.1. The research process

The project commenced in 2009 with pilot studies currently under way. The sample popu-
lations within each country are 11–12 years of age. This age group represents the upper age
limit of Generation Z. A gender-balanced sample group of minimum 50 children located
in each locality is required to meet the design requirements. A seven-step process is pro-
posed based on principles that have emerged from previous cross-cultural studies of young
people’s “favourite places”. This earlier study highlighted their passionate interest in the
environment and wildlife; their personal spaces of “own bedroom”; as well as their online
social networks with friends. Hence, we see wisdom in our research design to adopt these
themes as sources of Generation Z’s passions that are most likely to access their beliefs
and habits and be likely predictors of their citizenship e-democracy behaviours. Utilised
in a set of online discussion boards, the research sample is asked to make contributions
that in turn are categorised for subsequent steps in the consensus process. The technique
combines frameworks from both qualitative (naturalistic enquiry) and quantitative methods
based on a Delphi iterative technique of contribution-coding-consensus (Denzin & Lincoln,
2005; Robertson et al., 2000). Hence, two major theoretical research approaches are used
in complementary ways to arrive at a set of empirical outcomes that are rigorous and can
stand the test of scalability or transfer to much broader samples of the general population
of our future citizens.

4. Summary
In this paper, I have outlined the terms of reference for a new and exciting cross-cultural
research project. With its focus on citizenship issues and determinants of young peo-
ple’s attitudes and beliefs to issues of sustainability and future lifestyles, we hope to
develop evidence-based research for sharing with the wider research community in geo-
graphical education. Additional research partners will be welcomed at any stage of the
project.
 292 M. Robertson

Notes
1. Generation Z are born after 1995.
2. International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA) Civic Education
Study (1995–2005). See www.acer.edu.au [accessed December 8, 2007].
3. See http://youthfacts.com.au/civics [accessed December 5, 2007].
4. ARC Linkage grants LP0667694 “Always on” Learning Communities: M-Learning landscapes
transforming school cultures, 2006-08; LP0210823: Children, online learning and authentic
teaching skills, 2002–04.

References
Alexander, J. (2006). Letting students choose their own history. Professional Educator, 5(4), 26–33.
Aroldi, P., & Colombo, R. (2007). Generational belonging and mediascape in Europe. Journal of
Social Science Education, 6(1), 34–55.
Downloaded by [University of Kent] at 10:57 23 November 2014

Australian Democrats. (2007). Federal Election Youth Poll Results. Retrieved January 10, 2008, from
http://www.deomcrats.org.au.
Becta. (2007). Harnessing Technology Review. Progress and impact of technology ineducation. Re-
trieved January 2, 2008, from http://becta.org.au
Chan, L., & Moore, P. (2006). Development of Attributional beliefs and strategic knowledge in year
5–9: A longitudinal analysis. Educational Psychology, 26(2), 161–185.
Dejaeghere, J., & Tudball, L. (2007). Looking back, looking forward: Critical citizenship as a way
ahead for Civics and Citizenship education in Australia. Citizenship Teaching and Learning,
3(2), 40–57.
Denzin, K., & Lincoln, Y. (Eds.). (2005). The Sage handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed.).
London: Sage.
Haralambous, B., Fitzgerald, R., & Nielsen, T.W. (2007). You are now leaving flatland thinking: Why
we need imagination in education. Professional Educator, 6(4), 38–41.
Hauben, M., & Hauben, R. (1997). Netizens: On the history and impact of Usenet and the Internet.
Retrieved January 12, 2008, from http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/
Heppell, S. (2001). “Preface”. In A. Loveless & V. Ellis (Eds.), ICT, pedagogy and the curriculum (p.
xv). London: RoutledgeFalmer.
Howard, C., & Patten, S. (2006). Valuing civics: Political commitment and the new citizenship
education in Australia. Canadian Journal of Education, 29(2), 454–475.
Kerr, D. (2003). Citizenship education in England: The making of a new subject. Retrieved December
16, 2007, from http://www.jsse.org/2003-2/england kerr.htm
McKinsey, M., & McKinsey, M. (2007). How the world’s best performing school systems come
out on top. Retrieved August 31, 2009, from http://www.teacherqualitytoolbox.eu/news/4/
mckinsey report how the world s best performing school systems come out on top
OECD. (2001). Schooling for tomorrow. What schools for the future. Paris: OECD.
OECD. (2003). Promise and problems of e-democracy. Retrieved November 15, 2007, from
http://www.oecd.org/document
OECD. (2006). 21st century learning environments. Retrieved November 15, 2007, from
http://www.oecd.org/document
OECD. (2007a). Improving school leadership – Participating country background reports. Retrieved
January 20, 2008, from http://www.oecd.org/document/
OECD. (2007b). Economic survey of the United Kingdom 2007: Raising education achievement within
a tighter budget constraint. Retrieved November 15, 2008, from http://www.oecd.org/document
Penuel, W., Fishman, B., Yamaguchi, R., & Gallagher, L. (2007). What makes professional de-
velopment effective? Strategies that foster curriculum implementation. American Educational
Research Journal, 44(4), 921–958.
Poster, M. (1995). CyberDemocracy: Internet and the public sphere. Retrieved January 6, 2008, from
http://www.humanities.uci.edu/mposter/writings/democ.html
Rheingold, H. (2008). Using participatory media and public voices to encourage civic engagement.
Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Roberts, D.F., Foehr, U.G., & Rideout, V. (2005). Generation 235 M: Media in the lives of 6–18 year
olds. A Kaiser Foundation Study. Retrieved October 10, 2007, from http://www.kff.org
 International Research in Geographical and Environmental Education 293

Robertson, M. (2007). School governance and pedagogical reform. International Journal of Learning,
13(12), 111–120.
Robertson, M.E., Line, M., Jones, S.M., & Thomas, S. (2000). Improving learning environments for
international students: A case study using the Delphi technique. Higher Education, Research
and Development, 19(1), 89–102.
Robertson, M., Fluck, A., & Webb, I. (2007). Seven steps to success with ICTs. Camberwell, Victoria:
ACER Press.
Spring, J. (2006). Pedagogies of globalisation: The rise of the educational security state. Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum and Associates.
van Manen, M. (1990). Researching lived experience. London: State University of New York Press.
Wenger, E. (2002). Cultivating communities of practice. Harvard: Harvard Business School Press.
Wrigley, T. (2006). Selection, selection, selection. Improving Schools, 9(1), 5–6.
Wyn, J., & Cuervo, H. (2005). Young people, well being and communication technologies. Retrieved
December 16, 2007, from http://www.vichealth.vic.gov.au/assets/Technology Report.doc
Downloaded by [University of Kent] at 10:57 23 November 2014