I was not sure what to expect at a conference called Qualitative Research in Management, of course the abstract titles and the organisers name should have proved some inkling, after all Anne Cunliffe is well known as an academic who thoughtfully and carefully pushes us to think about practice based research. However, I am a more accustomed to education conferences, and the word management in the title spooked me, and later I realised I had self-policed my own presentation on design, value and soft systems (see here), to make it into what I thought would be acceptable, I need not have.
Figure 1,Make America Great Again, Chad Browneagle, 2017. Macintyre, 2018, Santa Fe, CC BY NC SA 4.0
I am afraid I cannot do justice to the breadth of research on offer in sufficient depth, therefore I am just going to brush over the top. The first paper I went to was Lynn Beckles, it was an ethnography of the tourism industry in Fiji, Lynn is from Barbados, and she reflected on her own position as a researcher in Fiji, and how she negotiated the norms of ethnographic research within the academic community with the ways of knowing and being she observed in the field. In particular, how the dissonance between them led her to the work of Nabobo-Baba and the Vanua Research Framework, a framework developed to account for specific ontology and epistemologies encountered during educational ethnographic research Nabobo-Baba conducted with Vugalei Fijians (see here). I don’t know the field, or the writers, but it had a familiarity, which made me feel at home.
They do say, or at someone once did, the role of the researcher is to make the strange familiar and the familiar strange. There was certainly lots of opportunities to experience this. For example, the winner of the “best paper” Yvonne Black work on community gardens as therapy turned into something else when Hulls position as “City of Culture” led to the arrival of a playwright and through the play the ability to talk about things and to people whose stories would otherwise have been obscured. Or Michael Butler’s (co-authored with Ann) investigation of a coffin furniture factory in Birmingham, the pattern of work, and the patterns left on the material them, the image of the dent left in the flagstone floor by workers standing in front of a pressing machine resonate with me, as I look back, and it echoes forward. As does Jill Birch work on leadership, talking through her experiences as a practitioner and academic, the phrase “edge walking” will stick with me, as it seems to embody the difficulties in a way formulations like pracademic don’t.
Figure 2:I Love my Country: Anti Gun Demonstration, Santa Fe, 24th of March 2018, Macintyre, Santa Fe 2018, CC BY NC SA 4.0
Jack Harris was looking at networks in Disaster Relief in the US, the paper draws on existing and emerging work in Hurricanes Harvey in Houston Texas and Sandy in New Jersey (see here). Listening to Jack talk about networks I felt I had to talk to him later about the question he posed, why do we know so little about tie formation. Our clumsy thoughts were we only observe the presence of connections and what it enables. It is a conversation that probably means I am going to be thinking about the networks that don’t exist, and the ephemeral ones, for some time.
Finally this papers tour takes me to the familiar ground of distance learning. Jean Saludadez from the University of the Phillipines Open University was looking at temporality and place making in tutor student discussion, as a researcher and tutor I felt the gentle nodding of familiarity. At the end someone asked why she had inferred a particular thing from the data, as they didn’t see it that way. It seemed obvious to me, and I said so, but when Jean spoke about her process, how she unpicked the meaning, I felt the jolt, as my tacit routines, the ways I have of knowing as an educator were surfaced, and by extension how they conditioned my view of this research. Perhaps this was the main lesson from the conference, the jolts.
Figure 3:Black Mesa Landscape, Georgia O’Keefe, 1930. Macintyre, Santa Fe, 2018, CC BY NC SA 4.0
Those jolts were not just at the convention, as what might have been a placeless hotel venue at the Airport was in New Mexico, in Albquerque. While I could reflect on “Breaking Bad”, and the feeling I got on the train to Santa Fe as it passed over a dry river bed and the scene where the child is shot flashed, or the Georgia O’Keefe Gallery again in Santa Fe, and her resistance to the eroticising of her paintings under the male gaze. Instead I couldn’t help think about Kafka and his book Amerika, and wondering to what degree the books, Films and TV series shape my own sense of this place, just as my reading of the word management shaped my expecations of the conference.
Despite having banked with the Co-op for most of my adult life, being a member, and using its services, I don’t know much about the Co-op Group, and as Chrissi Nerantzi and I walked to the Co-operative Quarter in Manchester it was odd to pass 1 Balloon St Manchester, whose only previous life for me was in the completion of direct debits. We were heading towards the Co-operative College along with 90 or so others to attend “Making the Co-operative University: New Places, Spaces and Models of Learning” .
Figure 1: The Co-op Uni, A long time coming, An idea whose time has come, Ronald Macintyre, CC BY SA 4.0
I admit I struggled through the day with the question that kept rattling through my head, if a Co-op University is the solution, what was the problem in the first place. It was a question that arose from a sense that many of the people here were disaffected with Higher Education, and articulated it through the lens of losing their own jobs. A mood that obscured other problems, and for me clouded the day somewhat until, I was able to read the blog Chrissi put together, and go away and think about it. In thinking about it I pulled “Building a Co-operative: A Business History of The Co-operative Group, 1863-2013” of the shelf. Written before some of the groups recent troubles it has a tone of, this is our time, and I recollected how at the start of the day we were told the time was right for a Co-op Uni, a tone that reminds of many struggles in a state of becoming, where success is perpetually immanent.
So, having thought about this immanence, my mind settled on the pedagogy workshop I attended, and the question of whether I attended the right one, should I have gone to governance, a thought process I tease out below.
One of the key aspects for me from the day were the questions around co-design/production, when people talked about it I couldn’t get the sense whether it was brought up as a novel approach, or a just as good practice. I suspect the former, and this was a surprise as it has been fashionable with the Higher Education Academy and Quality Assurance Agency for some time, albeit with little traction within the academy, a thin participation I blogged about a couple of years ago (see here ). Where I suggest learner co-design as articulated in a context where the learner is a customer, leads to the application of co-design models from the private sector, so called Service Design Logic, which is thin participation and does not address underlying social and structural relations within education. However, that simply describes the problem, how do we move beyond that.
Figure 2: The Pedagogy Subgroup Questions, Ronald Macintyre CC BY SA 4.0
One view, which I have tried to explore in the past in relation to widening participation, is to see learner’s engagement as academic labour, learning involves everyone doing work, they need to have the skills to do the work, the opportunity to express that skills, and to be able to benefit from the value which accrues through this shared labour. My original analysis focussed on the barriers experienced by some learners as the look to do this work (see here ), it was really a thinly veiled Marxist analysis of adult learning. However, having attended the event I see where co-operation could lead, and perhaps unblock some of the issues which have made co-design/production in HE an unreachable aspiration.
I have long been interested in participatory design, in particular its roots in labour movements in Scandinavia, here it was called co-operative design focussed on how workers, managers and academics might work together to design work process’s (for a critical reading from OU academic and Co-op Tech person Steve Walker see here). I do not draw attention to the historical development of participatory design, or the connection to labour movements idly. Could a Co-op University be an organisation that was just as concerned with the organisation and power relations in work finally see the application of co-operative/participatory design to Higher Education. Perhaps it could. Perhaps the thin sense of this approach that has informed co-design, which takes some of the practices but filters them through a commercial logic will be undone by a co-operative logic. I take Richard Hall’s point regarding the sense in simulating a thing whose image of itself is predicated in unequal power relations. However, perhaps the co-operative model, the flattening of power relations within the whole academic community might be the thing to turn learner engagement into something more than a rhetorical device. With the flattening of labour relations within the broader academic community, i.e. a change in governance relations, ushering in many of the pedagogic ones that remain unrealised.
Clearly lots of things need to align before perhaps becomes real. Some of the things that seem to clear to me are a need to connect with Labour movements more broadly, Workers Education Association of course, but also Trade Union Learning. I would also ask those in this space to reach out to those in Open Education, not just the Open University, or those in Open Education Resources/Practices, though clearly they have much in common, in particular similar challenges. With lessons from the former about sustainability and the latter about emerging models of provision and accreditation as organisations like University of the People and OERu look to establish challengers as well. But also the wider Open Education movement, for example, “The Jane Austen” series by Casey and Greller (see here for a recent update) which draws inspiration from Art Schools to combat neoliberalism , or Alex Dunedin harking back to ragged schools though the Ragged University , or the miners libraries and weavers reading groups.
Talking of further reading Joss Winn from Lincoln University has produced a bibliography see here
In this second post in the series (for the first see here) I continue the theme of using notable novels to examine aspects of how we imagine the public. Looking along my shelves I thought I might focus on “A Grain of Wheat” or “Petals of Blood” by Ngugi wa Thiong’o, or “Seasons of Migration to the North” by Tayeb Salih, or perhaps “The Beautyful Ones are Not Yet Born” by Ayi Kwei Armah. Having looked at them again, and in particular read the back covers of my mostly Penguin Classics or Heinemann I was struck by how much the reviews were less about the writer and the locale than Western Influences, for example Kwei Armah is described as a Ghanaian Sartre. So in the end I picked a book by the writer whose essays I knew, and knew to forcefully resist this inclination, Chinua Achebe.
Things Fall Apart
In his 1958 novel “Things Fall Apart” Nigerian author Chinua Achebe tells the story of Oknonkwo an Igbo man who attempts to resist the creeping colonisation of the British, as it encroaches on the land, the culture and spiritual beliefs, looking to shape politics and identity. Oknonkwo seems at first to be a typical “strong man”, a wrestling champion, who owes his renown within the area to his physical prowess, and a general sense that he is unwielding. His position is tenuous, his father was lazy, and such was his poverty he never got to marry the woman he loved, only later when she ran away from her husband did they marry. They produced a daughter, who he favours over his son, a son he sees as weak like his grandfather. He is often harsh, Achebe does not pretend that his protagonist is an easy person even a good person as he seeks to protect traditional ways form the influence of the “white man”.
Oknonkwo is asked to take a boy into his compound who is a hostage from a neighbouring village, given as recompense for the killing of the women from that village by the boy’s father. They grow close, becoming more of a son than his own. So when “the spirits” decree the boy should be killed, Oknonkwo seeks counsel from a village elder, Ezeudu. The elder advises him not to take part in the killing, but Oknonkwo is deeply conflicted, and in the end he strikes the final blow himself. Somehow in this scene, when he must sacrifice what he wants most, a strong son, for the ability to remain the defender of Igbo ways, Achebe manages to pivot the narrative.
When Oknonkwo’s gun explodes during Ezeudu funeral and he friend’s son is killed he is exiled. Returning after seven years he tries to remake himself, as a focus for resistance against the three prongs of colonialism, administration and private property, symbolic and actual violence and the church as supporter and apologist for the primacy of “Western Values”, while he is able to call some support his attempts to make himself up once again fail, and rather than be captured he kills himself, something forbidden in Igbo culture. Achebe does not give us a neat story of redemption, Oknonkwo does not stand against, or absent himself from killing his adopted son, neither does he come back as the village saviour, he is not redeemed.
What is Achebe trying to do in this novel, what is it he wants to show us? In a talk about Africa in the imagination Achebe (1978) suggests that where Africa appears in Western literature and thought it does so as a counterpoint, an example of what somewhere without the social political and economic structures of Europe looks, which is somehow other and universal. When he examines “The Heart of Darkness”, he focused on the characterisation, where the local people are at once uncivilised and inferior, but with recognisable universal human traits which civilised European only a slip away from. Thus he suggests, Africa its land and people, are treated by Conrad as a neutral backdrop, where narratives are set to play out very Western concerns. He admits his analysis of Conrad is concerned with recognising the superficial way Africa is represented. However, just like in “Things Fall Apart” he is not about to offer “… bribes to the West in return for its good opinion of Africa (p14-15 Achebe 1978). Instead we must give this up ourselves, it is up to us to stop, and ceasing will be our reward.
Achebe shows us the way we tend to think we know more about Africa than the African, with this knowing itself part of the colonial project, for to know is to control. In Oknonkwo he has a character who beats his wives, who it is hard for liberals to sympathise, a spectre of domestic violence that “Western Values” exorcised. Achebe ( 1990) rejects this assertion from critics, he is also at pains to take aim at universalism, in particular the trope that sees African authors seen as making a break through when they are able to universalise the African experience, of course Euro-American authors never have to universalise, as “Western Values” are universal.
Personhood and Political
Reading the book again, as I did for this post, my mind started to wander over all I had read in the intervening years, in particular “Theory from the South” by Comaroff and Comaroff (2012). In particular, the question they ask “is the idea of an autonomous person a European invention?” (p 51). It was a question they were asked, and a trap they felt they ought not to fall into, is the person asking the question suggesting the absence of a sense of the autonomous self as somehow an indication of failure, a deficit, is it where we are all going, it is universal. After all most of our ideas about society, democratic structures, the public are based on these autonomous individuals. On the other hand to suggest that it is a European invention whose application as a universal value is inappropriate, as it ignores complex constructions of personhood outside Europe.
I want to draw two examples from their collected essays, which have a bearing on this question and also on our previous exploration of “Things Fall Apart”. The first concerns the concept of personhood as it relates to the democratic process in South Africa through the exploring Tswana experiences in the late colonial period. Settlers first arrived in the 1820s’, then gradually the apparatus of the British state, which created hybrid identities between European “sekgoa” ways and Tswana “setswana” ways, while also clearly demarcating a line between white and black, between the rulers and the ruled. Setswana ways were socially fluid, while gendered and not without inequities, a person’s status was largely of their own construction, even though relatedness played a part, self and status needed to be constantly made – either you do to the world, or the world does to you. Personhood was not being, but becoming. This personhood was made and manifest materially through work and the land and property you tended and maintained, and symbolically how one made oneself through relations with others.
The second from is post-colonial Botswana. Botswana is generally reckoned to one the best examples of a functioning democracy in Africa, so the occasions in the 1970’s and 1980’s when there appeared a demand a move away multi-party democracy, in particular by opposition parties, and a wish for one party rule, seems odd. Prior to the colonial period what is today Botswana was organised into about eight chiefdoms. Chiefs were hereditary, but it was unstable, the chief was understood as being separate from the chiefdom, he was judged and how well he performed “good governance”, subject to open challenge in the many public forums he was expected to hold to discuss decisions, and unsatisfactory performance would see his birth status challenged. The chief was chief with the people, and expected to set around him key advisors and hold public forums where these could be challenged. His exclusive right to wield power was based how inclusive the decision making process was.
While these spaces were filled with factions, and many of the actions followed a set formulae, often concerned with reminded the chief of his duties and the “setswana”, people did speak out against the chief, alliances made and remade off stage. These discussions were understood as being a reflection of the chief’s ability and also determined their ability. This was the reason that people started to become disillusioned by party politics and the dominant Botswana Democratic Party (BDP), cycles of elections only to give life to these discourses when there is an election. While the parliament itself often behaved like these spaces, with members from all parties including the ruling one criticising the executive as they saw fit. It did not foster open debate. Interestingly the BDP rejection of one party politics made others suspicious of it, with the sense that they wanted to hold onto Western democratic models so they could get on with government away from public scrutiny.
It is not been my intention to hold up Oknonkwo’s story or the ones from Comaroff and Comaroff as some exotic other, nor indeed to argue for some kind of universalism, instead I merely hold them up in order that we might examine them. Reflect on them in relation to the how well, or badly, or our own political process function.
Of course I am being disingenuous. I framed the argument in a certain way, picked the books, in particular Comaroff and Comaroff, with its subtitle “How Euro-America is Evolving towards Africa” is very deliberate. I want you to look at how “strong men” look to make themselves up, and remake themselves, how well the stages debates within our cycles of democracy and party politics function as a means for us to assess good governance. Let us examine the recent UK election in relation to “setswana”, For the Conservatives it was a series of staged and controlled debates, often through the media. It spoke of a party that is concerned with how it might appear and what people might say in these forums, in closing these down it shows its weakness. It resulted in the Conservatives asserting a mandate they don’t have, and our “sekgoa” ways, our focus on procedural democracy, mean we have to live with it. The party political machine fights to stop challenges from inside and out, looking to shore up power and undermine political debate, so here we have what we call democracy.
Achebe C. ([1958 2001) Things Fall Apart, Penguin Books: London
Achebe C. (1978), An Image of Africa, Research in African Literatures, Vol. 9, No. 1, Special Issue on Literary Criticism. (Spring, 1978), pp. 1-15
Achebe C. ( 1990), Hopes and Impediments: Selected Essays, Penguin Random House: London
Comaroff J., Comaroff J. L. (2012) Theory from the South: How Euro-America is Evolving Towards Africa, Paradigm Publishing: London
In this series of posts I want to explore the notion of the public, the public within public services and as articulated within discourses in public administration. While I do not make explicit reference to scholarship in the area, as this is not a review of scholars in public administration real or imagined publics. It is an attempt to frame similar issues, like democratic process, and the public sphere that concern researchers in this area. In particular to think about how designers imagine the public.
It is an attempt to frame them in relation to different ways of knowing, and I am indebted to post-colonial writers and those who write about what is sometimes called Southern Theory, specifically the feminist thinker Connell, who write about the dominance of western sociology, assumptions and about individuals and publics and their application in the global south through the colonial projects and the role of academic research in subjection and/or exotic othering. Her work and others like Comaroff and Comaroff have led to me question normative accounts of the public, and the dominance of a particular notion of the relationship between the self and society, and I wanted to explore this in relation to literary and academic sources.
In this first post I want to explore Ketman, or Kitman an idea I first encountered through the work of Polish Poet Czeslaw Milosz. Milosz lived through the Nazi occupation of Poland and then the subsequent communist state that followed its “liberation” by the Red Army. He continued to write poetry under the communists and indeed served as a public servant in Poland and the US. His book “The Captive Mind” is concerned with creativity under totalitarian regimes, regimes which seem to use and encourage openness and debate as a way to manage conformity and weed out errant thought. Kitman is concerned with hiding ones true thoughts from the public, and comes to Milosz from the work of a French public servant and is based on his writing about Persia and Islam. Khan (2008), in her examination of selfhood and secrecy in Islam examines Kitman in the work of al-Jahiz (circa 776AD to 868AD) and his book “Kitab Kitman al-Sirr” (the book of concealing the secret), he suggests Kitman is the watcher within. Khan suggests we read al-Jahiz text on concealment of true beliefs, of care about what one says, and the need to match utterance to context in relation to the heated political period it was written (the complex Abbasid politics of Baghdad) and the audience for whom it was meant, administrators and those in what we might loosely call “public office”. While read in this way it seems little more than Hamlets father advice to “lend everyman your ear but few your words”, however according to Khan, for al-Jahiz it goes a lot deeper. She notes the interest in embodiment, in the way the body represents thoughts, and the way bodies can betray that which words attempt to conceal. The suggestion is not that we need to act in ways that help us conceal our true thoughts or beliefs, but we should also be concerned with how we censor the inner self in relation to the context in which we live. Here the public self needs also to become the private self to avoid our bodies betraying our real thoughts.
It is an interesting idea, and not without political baggage, one only need google it to see the right wing vitriol and anti-islamic sentiment that goes with it. With lazy commentators of “The Captive Mind” and Kitman suggesting it is a prime example of the lies and falsehood within Islam more generally. It is probably because it is actually quite a difficult idea to grasp that right wing propaganda can grasp onto it as a marker of untrustworthiness in Islam. It deals with a slightly different relationship between the public and the private from the one we are used to. For example, Feinberg (2017) notes reviews of “The Captive Mind” in the US often failed to grasp the nature of the argument, reading it in relation to ideas around self, “the American Dream”, binary opposition between the freedoms of capitalism and the heavy fist and control of communism. It read the text as concerned with the ability of the creative mind to resist control. While Kitman is concerned with resistance and Milosz makes much of the pride in those practicing Kitman in knowing “the truth” of not believing while performing as a believer, it is also about how the self changes, the difficulty in understanding your self when you police the internal self as part of presenting the public self. Where the self you are when alone becomes the public self, where any creative or resistant acts can only be understood in relation to the public face you have turned inwards. Your public self now structures your sense of who you are. For Milosz the ambiguity also came from the sense of wonder amongst intellectuals and writers in Poland at the time as to whether this act served a broader political goal of creating a more equal society – that it was for “the greater good”.
THERE IS NO ALTERNATIVE
One cannot help thinking about the work of Arendt, in particular the “Origins of Totalitarianism”, where she suggests what totalitarian regimes do is attempt to colonise every part of one’s life, to fold the private into the public discourse. Nancy Fraser suggests that while Arendt was concerned with the way these regimes destroyed public space, the sense of individuality, and also the notion of plurality, her work was not simply critique of these regimes, but also a commentary on the “free world” (Fraser 2004). While Fraser is careful to situate the work of Arendt in her time, Arendt contribution to our understanding of how nation states as breaking with its geographic boundaries through colonialism which led to things like stateless people, persecution of minorities, the delegitimisation of democratic process, and the “view from nowhere”. The sense of a totalising view of world events, which in treating things as global issues outside the scope of the nation state and its democratic process, depoliticises actions. The views from nowhere which are often presented as being apolitical are all around us in institutions like the World Trade Organisation, The World Bank, The International Monetary Fund. The degree to which these bodies depoliticise decisions can be read in the consternation (see the UK Guardian here) around a recent report from the IMF that acknowledged there was such a thing as neoliberalism and it might not be a good thing. This from the body whose sole prescription for economic ills was a short sharp shock of the stuff (Harvey 2006). In that sense what Fraser is suggesting is a situation which Arendt might recognise, and even wonders about, totalitarianism beyond the nation state, the feeling There is No Alternative.
What has this got to do with Ketman and Design
The connection of Ketman is whether and how we voice our dissent. For example I have often observed a dissonance amongst hard and soft advocates of neoliberalism, in part this is created by the disjunction between the assumptions within neoliberalism that we are all rational self-interested individuals and as Game Theorists suggest any altruism is simply a product of that self-interest – e.g. herd theory in animal behaviour, and how people actually live. These self-interested rational consumers are not them, or me, or the people I know, they are someone else, it is a view from nowhere, it does not reflect how people feel, or act, nor how they would imagine themselves being in the world. However, if we do build systems that assume people are all rational and self-interested, then we should not be surprised when people behave as if they are. Or at least perform as if they are. Therefore should we understand the fact political discourses rarely alight on the dissonance between a neoliberal view from nowhere and our own lived experience as a form of Ketman?
So what has this got to do with design, as this just seems to be a critique of neoliberalism, and of course it is. However, it is also concerned with framing, and how ones imagines the public. As governments become increasingly interested in using design in the development and delivery of public services I think we have to ask, just how are they, and indeed how are we, imagining the public.
Feinberg M. (2017) Curtain of Lies: The Battle over Truth in Stalinist Eastern Europe, Oxford University Press: Oxford
Fraser, N. (2004). Hannah Arendt in the 21st Century. Contemporary Political Theory, 3(3), pp.253–261.
Harvey D. (2006) Spaces of Global Capitalism: Towards a Theory of Uneven Geographical Development, Verso: London
Khan R. Y. (2008), Self and Secrecy in Early Islam. University of South Carolina Press: Columbia
Milosz C. ( 1981) The Captive Mind, Penguin Books: London
After a busy couple of days at the Porous University event in Inverness on the 8th and 9th of May I went back to “the croft”, Keith, Frank and I had spent a lot of time thinking about how to structure an event that was not structured, unconference seemed too fashionable for us, but something like that was what we aimed for. In the end our gathering started slow with people reaching out beyond their own context, sense making, find their place, and I think in part getting a feel for how safe it was to say what often is left unsaid. Left unsaid not because people think it is unimportant, left unsaid because it is vitally important, because these are thoughts, opinions and reactions to our contexts that might leave us exposed.
People did open up, and there is an excellent selection of blogs and resources, some on this blog here, and many on the Ragged University see here for some talks (more coming) and here for some reflections from Alex. I see no need to add my own summary of the day to those excellent accounts. One thing I did want to pick up was a comment by Alan Levine who joined virtually, he suggested Porous was incorrect as a description or an intention, we should really be talking about permeability. Where porous describes the qualities of the thing (the amount of space), where permeable describes the ease by which things can pass through – see here from Alan. It is interesting, not least as the graphic I used to “advertise” it on the OEPS blog was of a semi-permeable membrane. The phrase porous university slipped out of my mouth at the OE Global Conference when presenting on “The Hidden Tariff” in OER in response to a question asking what I meant by openness as a dialogical process. As someone with a biological sciences background I think I used in the sense of whether a plant or animals has pores, i.e. a membrane is porous, it has pores, from the same Greek, Latin Old French root, and perhaps also from literary theory, the idea of boundary crossing. But still I was being slippery in the way I understood it, is is the flow itself or the thing (the pores/structures/systems/process) which enable the flow.
However, his comment stayed with me, not just because I wondering about the right P, but because it highlighted the U, was the day really about Uni. Actually it was, and I think one of the issues was we often ended up talking about and for those outside the academy, with the best intentions we made visible the barriers and the problems, but from within HE. While as people within HE we have no choice but to speak for, we are also people in the world, with opinions, with views, with families, who engage socially and politically, who form groups, volunteer and campaign.
Figure 1: The Elephant Not in the Room, Macintyre 2010, CC BY SA 4.0
We are in the world, so perhaps what we need to do is take out the University and add some extra P’s. This is by no means a definitive list but I would like to suggest permeable (to accept Alan Levine comment), but I think the important ones are pedagogy and praxis. Praxis because one of the things that ran through the two days was how our education practice transforms and is itself transformed though our actions, and in turn how those practices are used (or not) to create change. Pedagogy, because of the sense, if we are looking at shifting locus of knowledge creation and production, of opening up, then we need to understand and develop appropriate pedagogies to support those changes.
I think dropping Uni, or University might also help with another thing that made me worry post event, I have already alluded to the tendency to “talk from within”, at least at first, in part this related to talking about what we know, but its dominance at the event was because most participants were from HE, as you can tell from the way I use “we”, I assume are most of those reading this post. If we are serious about reaching out and reaching in then we need a broader community, the “we” needs to be more inclusive. Otherwise the assumption is that “reaching in” is in the gift of those within the academy. When lots of the examples of reaching is those outside barging in, rowdy, unplanned, rudely asking those within to listen. I am not saying Uni is acting as some sort of barrier, “this is not a network for me”, but instead a change to better describe not what we are at present but where we want to be.
So with this in mind and getting where you are meant to be can I say
“Oh kind friends and companions come join me in rhyme,
And lift up your voices in chorus wi mine;
Let’s drink and be merry all grief to refrain,
For we may or might never all meet here again
Here’s a health to the company and one to my love,
The call for papers for OER17 on the 5th and 6th of April is open, and the data for abstracts is looming, midday on the 16th of November as this “goes to press”. It is interesting to see politics in the title, as openness is seen “as a good thing” and there is often something oddly apolitical about the narratives around openness.
Occasionally one sees a paper in the OER world that looks critically at issues of participation. They are rare, and can tend to look at simple causes like digital literacy, individualising exclusion, treating not knowing as a deficit, rather than exploring the causes of the causes, exploring; social capital, intergenerational aspiration, social and cultural barriers or underlying structural inequalities. These different readings of exclusion, from the individualised, through social to structural, stretch us, they insist we make hidden causes visible.
Likewise, narratives on free platforms talk about creative destruction, disruptive innovation, or casualisation of work, of outsourcing of risk, how much for your data, and business models built on shareholders expectations of future value. Sometimes these things seep into discussion on Open Educational Resources and Open Educational Practices, but not often enough. After all, the promise was equity, not just equity of access as that is a plain numbers game, but equitable participation. This means taking a critical perspective on the rhetoric and the reality, looking at what this means for policy, in practice, and crucially pedagogically.
I think this conference may be different, OEP is changing, maybe this is “when worlds (finally) collide”. However, it is only going to be that kind of conference if it attracts papers from the unusual suspects. From scholars working in widening participation, with “critical perspectives” on free and open, it is only through developing those creative tensions that OER and OEP can start to become political. So submit a paper.
OEP is changing, is it a changing external environment and Darwinian adaptation through natural selection, or Lamarckian, passing on characteristics acquired during its life, or a bit of both?