Reflection as part of media literacy

The term reflection has been used extensively within many different fields of social science, in particular in education and teacher education (Bengtsson, 1998). However, the concept of reflection is often vaguely defined and applied to a number of processes, actions and characteristics in people. According to Bengtsson (ibid.), the diverse uses of the term make it unclear what reflection really is. Thus, I agree with Bengtsson in finding it important to be specific as to what aspects of reflection are explored, and how it is grasped and made the object of research. In the present study the focus is primarily on reflection understood as a component of media literacy, where critical reflection often is highlighted.

Reflection is often seen as an essential part of media literacy (Bélisle, 2007; Buckingham, 2006). Erstad (1997, 2007) describes media literacy as consisting of two main competencies:

communicative competence and analytical reflection. Communicative competence is about being competent in expressing oneself through one’s own media participation and production. Analytical reflection is the ability to reflect over both media content and expression and one’s own media use. Although a critical stance to the media, media messages and influence has been emphasised in media literacy theories, the focus in recent years has shifted more towards production and creativity (Burn & Durran, 2007; Erstad, 2010c). According to Burn and Durran (2007), this shift is due to a number of factors, one of them being that digital authoring tools have become largely accessible and affordable, which has ‘democratized’ media production. Another point is that the mindsets of teachers, scholars and people in general have changed; creativity and production are no longer seen as subordinate analytical work. However, as Burn and Durran (ibid.) point out, critical understanding might very well emerge from creative production, and critical reflection should not be neglected even though a larger proportion of students’ work is organised as participatory and productive learning activities. This is a point that is relevant for the present thesis, and which is pursued in the text below. In the mediagraphy project the students’ work is also highly productive and creative, but the activities are organised in such a way that they must

be analytical and critical in solving the task at hand. The analysis aims to explore which kinds of reflections emerge from the students’ work, and what these reflections are about. This means that reflection and critical aspects implicit in the students’ creative work are illuminated, as well as the more explicit critical expressions found in texts, discussions and interviews.

Nevertheless, there is no doubt that the critical perspective has been important in media literacy and media education theories. Part of the reason for this is the historical background of these research fields, for example from cultural studies, that has informed the research of such scholars as Buckingham (2003; see also Buckingham and Sefton-Green, 1994), who argues that media literacy includes critical literacy. Analysis, evaluation and critical reflection are in turn important parts of critical literacy. In this context, Buckingham emphasises the acquisition of a so-called ‘meta-language’ (ibid., p.37) that enables people to describe and understand the structures of different communication genres, and also gives them a broad insight into social, economic and institutional contexts of communication and how individuals’ practices and experiences are affected by this. Media literacy in this perspective includes creativity, active media use and interpretation, but also a broad analytical understanding and critical reflection. When discussing the content and meaning of digital literacy, Buckingham (2006) again turns to the importance of the critical perspective, with particular emphasis on adopting a critical stance towards sources and media producers, and towards the political, social and economic contexts and technological developments that characterise the media world.

For Bélisle (2007), critical reflection encompasses self-reflection and self-awareness.

Through self-reflection we can establish distance to ourselves and to our social practice, and thus learn and make decisions about our own actions (see also Bengtsson, 1998). Jenkins (2007b) lists a number of areas of competence that constitute ‘twenty-first century skills’. He highlights the importance of being able to evaluate information sources in terms of reliability and credibility, where the ability to navigate between different communities is emphasised. This means discerning and respecting different points of view, and understanding various sets of norms, and requires independent reflection and critical evaluation. Burn and Durran (2007) refer to research showing that children and young people are critical when, for example, they watch movies – they discuss and express their opinions. However, they do not always ‘see through’ all the layers of meaning and complicated intertextuality. This means, according to Burn and Durran, that while children and young people participate in critical practices, there is also a need for a media education that includes and emphasises critical reflection, together with creativity and cultural awareness.

3.3.1. The distinction between reflexivity and reflection

Contemporary society has in recent years been described as both complex and reflexive (Beck et al., 1994; Castells, 2010a; Qvortrup, 2004). Qvortrup (2004) articulates a link between complexity and reflexivity. He describes society today as hypercomplex, characterised by increasing uncertainty, and therefore requires more complex knowledge and reflexive competence from the people living in it. This is closely related to the technical, cultural and social developments that fundamentally have changed the way we communicate and practise our social selves. The Internet revolution is a key factor in this image (Castells, 2010b).

The perspective of contemporary society as fundamentally reflexive is found in the conceptualisation of reflexive modernisation, a term coined by Beck et al. (1994). In this view, reflexivity is a defining characteristic of society. Society is more complex due to a multitude of concurrent processes, such as traditions and authorities losing importance while the media gains importance, cultural and economic globalization, and multiculturalism. Beck (2000) argues that the reflexive characteristics of society require that people become knowledgeable and self-conscious of their position in a transformative world. Similarly, Qvortrup (2004) holds that we must be able to think reflectively in order to reduce complexity and uncertainty. Reflection enables us to critically distance ourselves to reflect on our actions and act reflectively, which in turn makes it possible to make choices and judgments.

The concepts of reflexivity and reflection are often applied as equivalent terms (Alvesson

& Sköldberg, 2009). The two words also have the same origin, from late Latin reflexio(n-), as in the act of bending or turning back, and Latin reflectere (Oxford Dictionaries, n.d.). As such, reflection and reflexivity both give associations to mirroring, as in thinking directed towards oneself, and to retrospection, as in thinking directed towards something in the past. However, there are some differences in reflection and reflexivity relevant to the present study that should be pointed out.

Beck (1994) distinguishes clearly between the two conceptions. In his view, reflection is a conscious and intentional thought process involving evaluation and critical thinking. Reflexivity is more complex in his view as reflexivity includes reflection but is not necessarily conscious or intentional. Rather, it is seen as an inevitable trait of modern society. Beck (in Rantanen, 2005a)¹⁰ provides an example to illustrate why the reflexivity of contemporary society can be characterised as ‘new’. Cultural mix and social interaction on a global level are processes that have always been present in human societies, what is new is our awareness of them. This awareness is part of an unavoidable reflexivity that has emerged through the historical development, where media developments are particularly significant. This is relevant to the present study, as awareness of the

10 U. Beck was interviewed by T. Rantanen in 2005, published in Global Media and Communication, 2005, 1(3).

social conditions of one’s everyday life is crucial to the participants’ process. However, there is a need to include views on reflexivity more relevant to educational settings.

Temporality constitutes one important difference between reflection and reflexivity.

Giddens (1991) defines reflexivity as a process that takes place over time, and connects the reflexive society to individual practices (see also e.g. Biesta & Tedder, 2007; Hibbert, Coupland,

& MacIntosh, 2010). He argues that in the present, people’s identities are not something stable but rather a reflexive process, an endeavour that people continuously reflect on. However, reflexivity is a more comprehensive process involving different meaning making activities and reflections, whereas reflection can be associated more with thought actions more directly related to the individual. In the present study, reflexivity and reflection are applied as interdependent concepts, but with significant differences. Individuals’ reflections are primarily analysed through the concept of mediated action.¹¹ However, as the sociocultural concept of mediated action implies, the social and collective aspects of reflection and meaning making are also important. As such, reflection is regarded as having both individual and social dimensions. Mediated actions in a classroom and in interaction with mediagraphy as a learning activity inevitably involve both individual and social reflection, as I see it.

Bearing Giddens (1991) and Beck (1994) in mind, the most significant differences between reflection and reflexivity in this study are that reflexivity includes a time dimension and that reflexivity is seen as a more complex concept than reflection. Reflexivity is interpreted as a process that can involve reflections, but also other aspects, such as awareness, identity, attitudes and ways of relating to the world. Reflexivity is thus regarded as a process over some time, or a practice that is not necessarily easy to observe empirically. However, as a theoretical concept, reflexivity can be applied to help describe and analyse the overarching perspectives and general impressions from the research on the classroom processes and the practices that might be revealed in the present research. Thus, reflexivity can be a characteristic of a learning activity as a practice. Although a specific learning activity takes place over a limited period of time, it can be seen as a process with a temporal dimension. Therefore, a reflexive learning activity would typically involve constant negotiation and renegotiation between actors, continuous changes and evaluations, and reflective thinking from the actors throughout the entire process. In the concrete analysis, reflection stands out as the most important analytically sensitive concept. In the next section I will present an analytical framework for reflection.

11 Mediated action is elaborated on in 4.3.3.