ABSTRACT
By using the term “literacy” to describe digital work, this collection asserts that there is both an intellectual and a professional responsibility for maintaining the knowledge base of the field; that is, knowing not just how to do things with technology, but also why and when action needs to take place. That understanding of how and when to deploy knowledge is part of selfreflective (critical) professional practice. Using the word “literacy” carries with it an obligation to develop practice that is the result of thoughtful education in how best to construct or configure technical communication that should supplement training in current tools and practices. “Functional literacy” is a term used by literacy scholars to describe basic levels of literate activity, such as understanding words and initiating actions supported by those words (see Kanpol, 1999, p. 54). But full participation in any community requires higher levels of reflection, engagement, and understanding. Full participation, which we call “critical literacy,” requires that one comprehend not merely the words, but also the purposes or uses for the selection of those words in a given context. Achieving critical literacy, of course, takes special effort because it requires the development of self-awareness of those aspects of practice that generally go unexamined and unarticulated. Articulated here as reflective practice, critical digital literacy has antecedents in the work of scholars like Gurak (2001) and Warnick (2002). Both Gurak and Warnick argue that to engage in digital literacy, one must have not only an ability to use new media technologies, but also a critical self-awareness that questions why and explores purposes digital communication technologies serve in culture.
