Image source: https://www.marketing91.com/7-negative-effects-social-media/

During week 2, I had explored Frances Bell’s paper “(Dis)connective Practice in Heterotopic Spaces for Networked and Connected Learning” (Bell, 2016), the JISC report on the seven elements of digital literacy (Beetham & Sharpe, 2010), and Catherine Cronin’s study “Openness and Praxis: Exploring the Use of Open Educational Practices in Higher Education” (Cronin, 2017). What struck me most is how these three works — though coming from different angles — interlock to challenge the way we think about openness, connection, and what it really means to be digitally literate.

https://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/3096/4263

https://digitalcapability.jiscinvolve.org/wp/files/2014/09/JISC_REPORT_Digital_Literacies_280714_PRINT.pdf

https://www.lancaster.ac.uk/fss/organisations/netlc/abstracts/pdf/S3_Paper1.pdf

Bell’s central argument is that networked learning has been too focused on connection as a positive force — linking learners, promoting collaboration, extending networks — without enough attention to the importance of disconnection. Bell explores these ideas through two vivid vignettes:

1. Swami, an Indian PhD student who moves to the UK, finds freedom to explore his queer identity online — until his old and new social circles collapse into one another, unexpectedly outing him back home due to the interlinking of platforms like Disqus, Tumblr, and Facebook.
2. Bethany, a British PhD student, deeply committed to open access publishing, confronts the institutional and political pressures of academia, where publishing in prestigious, paywalled journals is still valued more for career progression.

These stories illustrate that even in spaces that feel open or liberating, learners must constantly navigate boundaries, audiences, and risks. SNS (social networking sites) are built for hyperconnection — and this design makes it difficult to maintain private or heterotopic spaces. Bell concludes that disconnective practice — the ability to strategically opt out, disconnect, delete, or resist — is an essential but underrecognized part of digital literacy. Without it, learners may lose control of their identities, privacy, and emotional safety.

The JISC’s report on Digital Literacies (Beetham & Sharpe, 2010) offers a widely used framework outlining seven key elements of digital literacy.

Image source https://digitalcapability.jiscinvolve.org/wp/files/2014/09/JISC_REPORT_Digital_Literacies_280714_PRINT.pdf

These elements show how students develop broad digital capabilities across academic, technical, and social dimensions. The JISC model assumes that literacy is built through increasing participation, access, and skill mastery.

But here’s where Bell’s argument hits hard: the JISC model focuses almost entirely on adding — more connections, more collaboration, more openness, more sharing. Bell argues we must also teach when to subtract. For example:

• JISC emphasizes “career and identity management” but says little about managing multiple, potentially conflicting identities across platforms.
• JISC promotes “communications and collaboration” but doesn’t address the risks of overconnection or context collapse.
• JISC encourages “media literacy” but doesn’t focus on how to critically resist commercial logics (like surveillance or platform monopolies) baked into SNS.

Bell’s paper suggests that digital literacy should not just be about becoming a better participant but also a more critical, cautious, and sometimes resistant actor in digital environments.

Catherine Cronin’s paper adds another layer. She studies how university educators understand and enact open educational practices (OEP) — not just using open resources (OER), but teaching openly, sharing practices, engaging students in public spaces, and negotiating new power dynamics. Like Bell, Cronin emphasizes the tension between openness and privacy, connection and disconnection, sharing and protecting. Both argue that the real work of digital learning happens not just at the macro level (deciding to go open) but at the meso, micro, and nano levels — managing daily, granular decisions about what to post, share, or hold back. This is the heart of open praxis: openness not as a blind default, but as a mindful, ethical, and constantly evolving practice.

Reading Bell alongside the JISC framework made me reflect on my own practices. Until now, I’ve mostly thought of digital literacy as a positive skillset: how to do more, share more, reach more people. But I’ve rarely been encouraged to think about withholding, disconnecting, or protecting myself.

The JISC flowchart gives me a great map of “what I should learn to do,” but Bell makes me ask:

• When should I not post?
• When is it better to shut down a connection?
• How do I navigate invisible audiences or resist platform pressures?

For example, Swami’s story reminded me how easily online spaces can overlap in ways we don’t control, especially when platforms cross-link. I’ve never thought about deleting old accounts or pruning my public posts — but maybe I should. Similarly, Bethany’s struggle showed that even “open” digital spaces are shaped by institutional and market pressures, which can limit true choice.
Openness and connection offer enormous potential for learning, but they also come with risks: context collapse, privacy breaches, platform exploitation, and identity pressures.

We can’t just equip learners and educators with tools and tell them to “go be open.” We need to support them in developing the reflective, critical, and sometimes resistant practices that allow them to thrive safely in complex digital environments. As I continue to reflect on my own digital practices, I realize I need to work not just on expanding my digital skills but also critically examining the platforms I use.

I’d love to hear if others have faced similar tensions in their own digital practices — drop your thoughts below!