Civic dimensions of critical digital literacies: towards an abolitionist lens

References

• Alexander, M. (2010). The New Jim Crow: Mass incarceration in the age of colorblindness. The New Press.
   Google Scholar
• Allen, D. S. (2016). Education and equality. University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Apple, M. W. (1990). Ideology and curriculum. Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Au, W. (2009). Unequal by design: High-stakes testing and the standardization of inequality. Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Barlow, J. P. (1996). A declaration of the independence of cyberspace. https://www.eff.org/cyberspace-independence
   Google Scholar
• Barton, D., & Hamilton, M. (2000). Literacy practices. In D. Barton, M. Hamilton, & R. Ivanič (Eds.), Situated literacies: Reading and writing in context (pp. 7–15). Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• boyd,d . (2018). SXSW EDU keynote: What hath we wrought. SXSW EDU. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0I7FVyQCjNg
   Google Scholar
• Benjamin, R. (Ed.). (2019a). Captivating technology: Race, carceral technoscience, and liberatory imagination in everyday life. Duke University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Benjamin, R. (2019b). Race after technology: Abolitionist tools for the new jim code. Polity Press.
   Google Scholar
• Browne, S. (2015). Dark matters: On the surveillance of blackness. Duke University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Brunton, F., & Nissenbaum, H. F. (2015). Obfuscation: A user’s guide for privacy and protest. MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Collins, P. H. (2000). Black feminist thought:Knowledge, consciousness, and the politics of empowerment. Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• de Roock, R. S. (2019). Digital selves, material bodies, and participant research tools: Towards material discursive video ethnography. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 199–213. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645579.2019.1669926
   Google Scholar
• de Roock, R. S. (2021). On the material consequences of (digital) literacy: Digital writing with, for, and against racial capitalism. In Theory into Practice, 60(2), 183–193. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2020.1857128.
   Google Scholar
• de Roock, R. S., & Baildon, M. (2019). SkillsFuture, STEM learning, and the design of neoliberal citizenship in Singapore. In Special Issue “STEM learning: For whom and toward what ends? Cognition and Instruction, 37(3), 285–305. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370008.2019.1624545
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education: An introduction to the philosophy of education. Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Eubanks, V. (2018). Automating inequality: How high-tech tools profile, police, and punish the poor. St. Martin’s Press.
   Google Scholar
• Fanon, F. (1970/2008). Black skin, white masks. Grove Press.
   Google Scholar
• Freire, P., & Macedo, D. (1987). Literacy: Reading the word and the world. Bergin and Garvey.
   Google Scholar
• Garcia, A. (2018). Space, time, and production: Games and the new frontier of digital literacies. In K. Mills, A. Stornaiuolo, A. Smith, & J. Z. Pandya (Eds.), Handbook of Writing, Literacies, and Education in Digital Culture,  198–210. Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Garcia, A. (2019). Centering analog literacy in an era of digital harm. Research in the Teaching of English, 54(4), 192–194.
   Google Scholar
• Garcia, A., Luke, A., & Seglem, R. (2018). Looking at the next 20 years of multiliteracies: A discussion with allan luke. Theory Into Practice, 57(1), 72–78. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2017.1390330
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Garcia, A., & Mirra, N. (2020). Writing toward justice: Youth speculative civic literacies in online policy discourse. Urban Education, 56(4), 640–669. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085920953881
   Google Scholar
• Google. (2017). Consumer Barometer Study 2017. Google. https://www.thinkwithgoogle.com/intl/en-154/marketing-collections/mobile/consumer-barometer-study-2017-year-mobile-majority/
   Google Scholar
• Group, N. L. (1996). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures. Harvard Educational Review, 66(1), 60–92. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.66.1.17370n67v22j160u
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gutiérrez, K. D. (2008). Developing a sociocritical literacy in the third space. Reading Research Quarterly, 43(2), 148–164. https://doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.43.2.3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hafner, K., & Lyon, M. (1996). Where wizards stay up late: The origins of the internet. Simon & Schuster.
   Google Scholar
• Isaacson, W. (2014). The innovators: How a group of hackers, geniuses, and geeks created the digital revolution. Simon & Schuster.
   Google Scholar
• Jackson, Z. I. (2013). Animal: New directions in the theorization of race and posthumanism. Feminist Studies, 39(3), 669–685.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jarvis, J. (2011). What would Google do?: Reverse-engineering the fastest growing company in the history of the world. Harper Business.
   Google Scholar
• Jasanoff, S. (2015). Future imperfect: Science, technology, and the imaginations of modernity. In S. Jasanoff & S.-H. Kim (Eds.), Dreamscapes of modernity: Sociotechnical imaginaries and the fabrication of power (pp. 1-33). University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Jenkins, H. (2006). Convergence culture. New York University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kahne, J., & Middaugh, E. (2008). Democracy for some: The civic opportunity gap in high school (Circle Working Paper No. 59). Center for Information & Research on Civic Learning and Engagement.
   Google Scholar
• Kress, G. (2003). Literacy in the new media age. Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• la paperson. (2017). A third university is possible. University of Minnesota Press.
   Google Scholar
• Levinson, M. (2010). The civic empowerment gap: Defining the problem and locating solutions. In L. Sherrod, J. Torney-Purta, & C. A. Flanagan (Eds.), Handbook of research on civic engagement (pp. 331–361). Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Levy, S. (2010). Hackers: Heroes of the computer revolution - 25th anniversary edition. O’Reilly.
   Google Scholar
• Lewis, C., Enciso, P., & Moje, E. B. (2007). Reframing sociocultural research on literacy: Identity, agency, and power. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
   Google Scholar
• Light, B., Burgess, J., & Duguay, S. (2016). The walkthrough method: An approach to the study of apps. New Media & Society, 20(3), 881–900. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444816675438
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lorde, A. (1984). Sister outsider: Essays and speeches: The crossing press feminist series. Crown Publishing Group, Random House.
   Google Scholar
• Love, B. L. (2019). We want to do more than survive: Abolitionist teaching and the pursuit of educational freedom. Beacon Press.
   Google Scholar
• Luke, A. (2003). Literacy and the Other: A sociological approach to literacy research and policy in multilingual societies. Reading Research Quarterly, 38(1), 132–141. https://www.jstor.org/stable/4151697
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Luke, A. (2004). On the material consequences of literacy. Language and Education, 18(4), 331–335. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500780408666886
   Google Scholar
• McLuhan, M. (2011). The Gutenberg galaxy. University of Toronto. (Original work published in 1962).
   Google Scholar
• Mirra, N., & Garcia, A. (2017). Civic participation reimagined: Youth interrogation and innovation in the multimodal public sphere. Review of Research in Education, 41(1), 136–158. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X17690121
   Google Scholar
• Morrell, E. (2008). Critical literacy and urban youth: Pedagogies of access, dissent, and liberation. Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Noble, S. U. (2018). Algorithms of oppression: How search engines reinforce racism. New York University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Passe, J., Drake, C., & Mayger, L. (2018). Homophily, echo chambers, & selective exposure in social networks: What should civic educators do? The Journal of Social Studies Research, 42(3), 261–271. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jssr.2017.08.001
   Google Scholar
• Philips, W. (2015). This is why we can’t have nice things: Mapping the relationship between online trolling and mainstream culture. The MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Robinson, C. J. (2000). Black marxism: The making of the Black radical tradition. University of North Carolina Press.
   Google Scholar
• Scott, J. C. (2017). Against the grain: A deep history of the earliest states. Yale University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Shedd, C. (2015). Unequal city: Race, schools, and perceptions of injustice. Russell Sage Foundation.
   Google Scholar
• Shirky, C. (2008). Here comes everybody: The power of organizing without organizations. Penguin Press.
   Google Scholar
• Srnicek, N. (2017). Platform capitalism. Polity Press.
   Google Scholar
• Tuck, E., & Yang, K. W. (2012). Decolonization is not a metaphor. Decolonization: Indigeneity, Education & Society, 1(1), 1–40.
   Google Scholar
• Tufekci, Z. (2017). Twitter and tear gas: The power and fragility of networked protest. Yale University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Van Dijck, J., Poell, T., & De Waal, M. (2018). The platform society. Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Watts, R., & Flanagan, C. (2007). Pushing the envelope on civic engagement: A developmental and liberation psychology perspective. Journal of Community Psychology, 35(6), 779–792. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcop.20178
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Westheimer, J., & Kahne, J. (2004). What kind of citizen? The politics of educating for democracy. American Educational Research Journal, 41(2), 237–269. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312041002237
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Woodward, C. V. (2001). The strange career of Jim Crow. Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar