Growing Up Digital: The Rise of the Net Generation [Paperback]

Don Tapscott (Author)

Book Description

ISBN-10: 0071347984 | ISBN-13: 978-0071347983 | Publication Date: June 9, 1999 | Edition: First Edition

This text offers an overview of the N-generation, the generation of children who in the year 2000 will be between the ages of two and 22. This group is a "tsunami" that could force changes in communications, retailing, branding, advertising, and education. The author contends that the N-generation are becoming so technologically proficient that they will "lap" their parents and leave them behind. The book also demonstrates the common characteristics of the N-generation, acceptance of diversity, because the Net doesn't distinguish between racial or gender identities, and a curiosity about exploring and discovering new worlds over the Internet.

Editorial Reviews

Amazon.com Review

Don Tapscott, author of The Digital Economy, turns his attention to the way young people--surrounded by high-tech toys and tools from birth--will likely affect the future. In Growing Up Digital: The Rise of the Net Generation, Tapscott parlays some 300 interviews into predictions on how today's 2- to 22-year-olds might reshape society. His observations about this enormously influential population, which will total 88 million in North America alone by the year 2000, range from the kind of employees they may eventually be to how they could be reached by marketers. --This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title.

From Library Journal

Following right behind the Boomers are their children, the Baby Boom Echo, or Net Generation (N-Gen). This population is nearly 90 million strong and is the first generation to grow up surrounded by digital media. Tapscott (The Digital Economy, LJ 11/15/96) interviewed 300 N-Geners who participate in online chat groups such as FreeZone to identify the characteristics and learning styles of this already influential segment of society. Anticipating that over 40 percent of U.S. households will be on the net by the year 2000, Tapscott predicts how the N-Geners, many of whom are already expert net users, will be the catalyst for change in education, recreation, commerce, the workplace, the family, and government. His immediate advice is to listen to our children because we can learn from them. Recommended for all libraries.?Laverna Saunders, Salem State Coll. Lib., Mass.
Copyright 1997 Reed Business Information, Inc. --This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title.

See all Editorial Reviews

Product Details

• Paperback: 352 pages
• Publisher: McGraw-Hill; First Edition edition (June 9, 1999)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 0071347984
• ISBN-13: 978-0071347983
• Product Dimensions: 8.9 x 5.9 x 1 inches
• Shipping Weight: 1.4 pounds (View shipping rates and policies)
• Average Customer Review: 3.7 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (45 customer reviews)
• Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #464,804 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

22 of 24 people found the following review helpful:

4.0 out of 5 stars Growing Up Digital: The Rise of the Net Generation, September 26, 2000

By 

Sandi Ford (Pepperdine GSEP Doctoral Student) - See all my reviews

This review is from: Growing Up Digital: The Rise of the Net Generation (Paperback)

In this book, Don Tapscott discusses the differences between the baby boomers (those born between 1946 and 1964) and the "Net Generation" (those born between 1977 and 1997). In Growing up Digital, Tapscott reminds us that boomers consists of 85 million people in the United States and Canada and then informs us that the Net Generation now encompasses 88 million people. So not only are these kids more technologically savvy than the rest of us, they outnumber us also. Tapscott states, "To them the digital technology is no more intimidating than a VCR or toaster. For the first time in history, children are more comfortable, knowledgeable and literate than their parents about an innovation central to society." With this in mind, it is probably a good thing I read this book.

Interestingly, I have two teenage children who fit into the category of Net Generation kids, but who do not have as much in common with the kids described in the book as Tapscott would lead you to believe. The children I know in this age-group are computer literate, do have cyber-dates, are quite capable of multi-tasking, completing research via the net, and ordering products on-line. However, that is where the similarity ends.

Tapscott describes a world where children work for pay creating web sites; expect to be included in the decision-making of major purchases with their parents, (because the children have been able to download the product research that their parents could not), and speak at conferences on the use of technology. I believe there are many instances in the book where Tapscott suggests a behavior that appears more precocious than intelligent. Even given this, the book is very interesting, but at times reads more like science fiction. This is especially true when Tapscott talks about a "cyber Niki" running around the web searching for the best buys or when he gives an example of being able to order his bread from the Stone Mill bakery with just the ingredients he wants. At times, it is hard to tell whether this is currently available via the web or, if it is all part of a future vision.

Because much of the information for this book came from a chat room for teens and pre-teens called "FreeZone" it tends to preclude those children of the same age who are not growing up digital or, who have limited access to this medium. Moreover, if this is so, are we any wiser to the behaviors and thought processes of the majority of American children? I am not so sure. According to Mr. Tapscott we are. He states that, "This book is based on the belief that we can learn much about a whole generation which is in the process of embracing the new media from the children who are most advanced in their adoption of this technology." Maybe he is right, because the information gleaned from this particular group of kids is rather enlightening.

In the book, Tapscott discusses the different ways N-Gens learn, play and work. Supposedly, this group prefers interactive entertainment (video games and web surfing) to passive entertainment (television). In fact, Tapscott estimates that by the year 2000 children will be watching 100 hours less television per year than they were in 1997. Based on discussions with the kids in FreeZone, it appears that N-Gen children prefer to play video games, and spend time on the web because they can control what they see rather than having content pushed at them. Tapscott believes that this is actually good, not bad, as many would have us believe. This is probably true, because in order to navigate the web, you must be able to read and write. In the chapter on N-Gen learning, Tapscott discusses that these children will want to learn in an interactive mode rather than a broadcast mode. One- way to do this would be for these children to discover information on their own via the web instead of listening to lectures. And, when it comes to the work environment, watch out, "Just like the boomers in Michael Dell's company who are perceived as losers if they aren't media-savvy and new-enterprise-comfortable, boomers in the new economy will be left behind as the N-Gen tsunami rolls into the workforce. The message: boomers, get going and learn from the children." According to this, the workplace of the future will be highly technical and if we are not prepared, the N-Gens will leave us behind.

With so many kids already working in technology fields, how should colleges and universities prepare? Well one thing is certain, as long as kids feel the need to go to college to advance within an organization we are okay. The following quote from an 18 year old makes this perfectly clear. He states: "Right now the Internet department is doing some shuffling and I could easily become a full-time employee. My boss loves me and she knows I am more than capable for the help line, but without some kind of college degree I would not go far in the organization. I hope to return in four years." Let us all keep them thinking this way and maybe we can keep our jobs.

Overall, I found this to be an excellent book and feel it may be helpful for many who are dealing with or may soon be dealing with these kids, especially the techno-savvy ones.

12 of 13 people found the following review helpful:

3.0 out of 5 stars A Few interesting Points for Parenting and Teaching, January 16, 2000

By 

EKnox (Seattle) - See all my reviews

This review is from: Growing Up Digital: The Rise of the Net Generation (Hardcover)

Don Tapscott's " Growing Up Digital" starts out as a compelling look into how children growing up in interactive rather than passive medium will change society. However, in order to make his point he resorts to making adults sound slightly stupid and his own child sounding like a mini genius. The major points he makes in his book are good but take too long to develop and are then stated repeatedly. (I got it the first time!) He does manage to help change the perception that many kids are going in Hell in a handbasket, and at the same time makes the point that using the Internet is a positive activity. I am glad that I read the book , but do not plan on picking it up again.

11 of 13 people found the following review helpful:

1.0 out of 5 stars Future Schlock, December 4, 2006

By 

tudnut (Chicago) - See all my reviews

This review is from: Growing Up Digital: The Rise of the Net Generation (Paperback)

As a long-time net user AND baby boomer, I found much of what Tapscott says completely wrong, be it his unscientific conclusions regarding the so-called "N-Gen" (his own invention, which I find so distasteful and misleading that I'll not use it from now on), his predictions for the future, or his dim view of the technological abilities and intelligence of the boomers.

For example:

1. He assumes that boomers will always remain behind the young when it comes to using the net. There is endless talk of the growing percentage of youthful net users, while ignoring (and thereby discounting) any corresponding growth in boomers using it. He mentions more than once that because youth "assimilated" the net whereas boomers had to learn to use it, youth has an advantage in that respect. (I suppose that some kid raised in a car and thereby "assimilating" how to drive would have a great advantage over all of us dummies who had to learn by taking driver's ed, too.) Now, I don't know how technologically adept or otherwise he might be, and some allowance must be made for the time the book was written (1998), but nowadays I've got news for him: It ain't that hard!!!

2. He stereotypes boomers as being one-dimensional and ignorant; only youth is imaginative, unselfish, open-minded and resourceful. He predicts either a terrible clash between the generations or (in the unlikely event that the boomers wake up in time to cede control to youth) something of a utopia run by the young. It's funny, but a lot of people from that generation that I've encountered hardly fit that profile (and yes, I'm talking about people online)...and I never thought I was all that closed-minded (though I'm sure his advocates would disagree after reading this). Besides, isn't youth traditionally more imaginative, etc., etc.? What proof does he have that this generation won't turn out as all the others have? It's called "growing up." (And I don't mean that it's a 100% good thing!) And he contends that in that generational clash the young will have the advantage, having mastered the greatest tool for mass communication ever: the internet. Evidently the boomers will still be sending telegrams and will thereby be left behind.

3. He mentions that the young have some nebulous advantage in that they espouse so many different points of view, while boomers (there's that stereotyping again) see everything in black and white (I'm not kidding, that's exactly what he says at one point). Not surprisingly, he offers absolutely no proof for either of those assertions. As someone who's spent most of his life finding shades of gray in everything, I think he's confusing the word "different" with "differing," blissfully ignorant of the possibility that all of those contending viewpoints might result in nothing but cacophony.

4. His insights on the young seem to mostly stem from those kids he's spoken with on less than a handful of websites. Evidently he thinks that these websites provide a completely scientific sampling of that generation. Believe me, there ain't no such animal! I'm happy for those sites in that they were frequented by a very nice segment of the younger generation (though even here, some things--like the continuous protestations of teenage males that they would never, ever even think about visiting a porn site--seem somewhat disingenuous, to say the least), but I've been to many sites and participated with many from that generation who, I assure you, were hardly the little angels he's making everyone out to be (and I'm certainly not saying they're all bad, either...but these are rather sweeping generalizations, proof that HE thinks in black and white, anyway).

5. His usual, completely unscientific, means of arriving at a proof of one of his theories is to first introduce it, then to provide some truly scientific though barely related evidence (a chart that shows internet growth or something), and finally to submit a few quotes from his kids to bolster his standpoint. None of this, of course, proves anything, and I'm quite certain that anyone with a professional background in statistical analysis could easily rip his logic to shreds.

6. He sees the net as the road to the truth, and the new generation as particularly discerning of it. Yet everyday I find another hoax in my email, many of them passed on to me by gullible youngsters.

All of which amounts to his own utopian view of youth, a somewhat curmudgeonly distaste for the opinions and abilities of the boomers, and a blatant force-fitting of his transparent opinions (and, in the end, that's all they are) upon the actual, both slimly provided and barely relevant, facts.

It doesn't surprise me at all that younger people have given the book so many positive opinions on here; they're being told what they want to hear. What does surprise me is how few people have seen how poorly constructed his arguments are (regardless of how true or false his conclusions may be). What does that say about the ability of this new generation to discern the truth with a critical eye?

If the proof is in the pudding, keep in mind the year this was published: 1998. That was almost a decade ago (as I write this), long enough for a good part of that generation to come of age, long enough to begin to see some of his sweeping changes, long enough for many of his predictions to have come true. Where are they? People are talking about the book on here as if it were just published and he's showing us the world as it will be 10 years from now. He IS!...only that "10 years from now" is NOW!