The document discusses using social networks and mobile technology to provide equitable access to cultural resources. It defines cultural resources broadly as technologies, practices, and processes related to knowledge, skills, and understanding. The authors argue this conceptualization allows for assessing whether access to cultural resources is distributed fairly. They draw on philosophical and cultural studies theories viewing appropriation of cultural products as important for learning and development. The original work in the book chapter explores how social networks and mobile devices could bridge formal and informal learning by allowing internalization and representation of cultural resources. Key questions are posed about this framework and its ability to further understanding of cultural resource access and distribution.

1. Using Social Network Sites and Mobile Technology to Scaffold Equity of Access to Cultural
Resources
JOHN COOK
University of the West of England, United Kingdom
NORBERT PACHLER
Institute of Education, University of London, United Kingdom
BEN BACHMAIR
Institute of Education, University of London, United Kingdom
Background
Our original 2 page submission to the ARV Crisis Forum was based on a recent book chapter of the same title (in
Trentin and Repetto, Eds., Using Network and Mobile Technology to Bridge Formal and Informal Learning). In our
chapter1 and here the main aim is to take a wide ranging theoretical approach to reconceptualising ‘cultural
resources’ and use examples to illustrate our approach. It was never our intention to provide a “review of the
evidence” (c.f. review comment), although the book chapter does point to some examples in the literature. We don’t
want to be instrumental by, for example, just looking at the knowledge economy or at the ‘evidence’. Instead, we
want to encourage divergent thinking first, and following debate, we can move to more convergent thinking.
What do we mean by cultural resources?
We believe it is a democratic right to have equity of access to cultural resources (the second part of our title). By
focussing on the notion of ‘cultural resources’ we must first acknowledge that this term is often taken to be
synonymous with “cultural heritage” and “high culture”, i.e. museums, libraries, architecture etc. Furthermore, we
do not wish to revisit the centuries old ‘Two Cultures’ debate2, namely that intellectual life had become divided into
two separate cultures: the sciences and the humanities (although below we do draw on the work of Hall, who is part
of this debate). A different perspective (ours) on cultural resources is to view the technologies themselves (artefacts
such as mobile devices and social media), and the processes/practices attendant to them, as cultural resources for
learning. That is to say, cultural resources for us is a focus on individual and group processes surrounding
knowledge, skills and understandings that underpin an analytical engagement (practices) with media of all
descriptions (artefacts). We believe our reconceptualization of ‘cultural resources’ will allow is to describe how
cultural resources are distributed and provide an assessment of whether that distribution is ‘fair’. It is only when we
have reached this point that we would, in our view, then be in a position to propose a means (e.g. scaffolding) to
support individuals and groups in the use of such cultural resources in their everyday ‘life-worlds’. Thus we take the
view that equitable access to ‘cultural resources’ (both practices and artefacts) can be facilitated by digital media.
We believe in access for all to such cultural resources as: learning resources, health information, cultural events,
employment opportunities, etc. We also believe that digital media can mediate this access. However, the process and
practices surrounding such an undertaking needs further thought and debate.
Theoretical background or ideas you are drawing on, and how these relate to or illuminate the theme
Our notion of cultural resources for learning draws on various traditions for its interpretation. The philosophical
traditions of Idealism take account of cultural resources, for example in the work of Humboldt (1792/2002).
Humboldt integrated the notion of the appropriation of cultural products within cultural forms and the resulting
development into an education model, which sees appropriation embedded in the creative shaping of the world. This
creative shaping and forming is mainly a transformation of a personally experienced, unstructured, overwhelming
world into a holistic, coherent rich unity (Humboldt 1797/2002, p. 346). In modern terminology that this idea leads
to a ‘life-world’, the creation of which is a formative task for people; and, it is a risky task with high complexity.
The theoretical field of Cultural Studies inter alia contains a view of mass communication as a cultural form, which
is based on objectified cultural products and their appropriation, e.g. by way of modes of reading (Hall 1980, p.
1
Download chapter from http://www.academia.edu/attachments/30402434/download_file
2
Melvyn Bragg, Two Cultures, Episode 3 of 5, part of The Value of Culture, BBC Radio 4.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01phhy5, accessed 2 January, 2013.

2. 1363). The old mass communicative push system is an expression of producing media in the centralised form of
industry; this is a process of encoding. Appropriation is decoding with different modes of reading (Hall 1980). But
there is the obvious risk of getting lost in the overwhelming world of mobile, individualized consumption and mass
communication. With reference to Vygotsky (1978/ 1930, p. 84) and his concept of ‘zones of proximal
development’ we argue that development needs sensitive and responsive contexts to enable reflective
appropriation/analytical engagement, for the provision of which education and the school are responsible.
Scaffolding extends the socio-cultural approach of Vygotsky, although he never used this term – it was coined by
(Wood, Bruner, & Ross, 1976). Social class differences in the relevance of language to socialization (Bernstein &
Henderson, 1973; Bernstein, 1987) are important to us.
Are cultural resources accessed, in terms of their educational function, by being appropriated? Other key
concepts could be explored in the ARV Crisis Forum using the above key question as a lens: cultural capital
(Bourdieu, 1986), social capital (Bourdieu, 1986; Putnam, 2001), informal learning in Schools and Higher Education
(Pachler & Cook, 2009), using mobile devices to bridge the gap between learning in formal and informal contexts
(Cook, Pachler, & Bradley, 2008) and scaffolding (Pol, Volman, & Beishuizen, 2010).
An account of our original work (the book chapter)
Using social media and personally owned mobile devices as a means of providing a bridge from media use in
everyday life to the expectations of school and higher education potentially has enormous attraction. The book
chapter discusses access to ‘cultural resources’ facilitated by digital media from a wide perspective (e.g. learning
resources, health information, cultural events, employment opportunities, etc.). As stated above, the purpose of this
position paper is to reclaim the notion of ‘cultural resources’ for educational discourse as it seems powerful to us in
the context of discussions about social mobility and fairness of access. Key concepts are defined in Cook et al.,
(2012), particularly forms of ‘capital’ through the lens of the following question: how can we enable learning
activities in formal and informal (F/I) contexts undertaken by individuals and groups to become linked through
scaffolding as a bridging activity mediated by Social Network Sites and mobile technology? An example of access
to cultural resources is given in the book chapter based on a case study. The cultural resources on the Internet are
images, written texts for a Rap lyric or the mobile photo app for the teacher’s portfolio. Images, text, photo app etc.
are becoming personal resources by being internalized and externalised (or represented) within the school context.
We combine the dynamic of internalization and externalization with the term appropriation. Appropriation has three
dynamic components: firstly, bringing cultural resources into a person’s inner horizon of preferences, values,
arguments or feeling etc., secondly, processing e.g. the images of the Internet and, thirdly, bringing out the results by
expressions within the context of the school.
Related questions for stimulating debate at ARV Crisis Forum
Key questions for next step debate
 Is our reconceptualization of cultural resources helpful? Could it help us articulate a research agenda?
 Are cultural resources accessed, in terms of their education function, by being appropriated?
 How are cultural resources distributed? Is this a fair distribution? Is there a crisis?
 What potential does Social Network Sites and mobile technology offer as a genuine bridge for people with
few other social/cultural resources (e.g. NEETs) into informal learning with high value cultural resources?
 What potential do digital media offer for sustainability and scalability in the integration of informal and
formal institutional dimensions of learning?
 Where is the evidence? The suspicion must be that despite the widespread adoption of digital media, their
use to access life-changing learning opportunities will remain unevenly distributed. Perhaps this kind of
informal learning will be even MORE unevenly distributed. Will access to further and higher education,
being more dependent on resources in the home and immediate environs and less subject to socially
centralised efforts (if there are any) to democratise educational opportunity? What is the evidence that
‘digital’ is a route not just to greater access but also to greater educational and cultural opportunity?
 How can we inform educational and political/strategic actions for responding to the crises?
3
Hall, S. (1980) ‘Encoding/Decoding’. In: Hall, S. et al. (eds.): Culture, media, language. London: Hutchinson: pp.
128–139.