Last Friday I broke my holiday up to take part as an invited panelist for a 3 hour Guardian Higher Education Panel about the impact of new technologies on academic research. The structure of Guardian live panels canbe a little clunky as they are situated in the comment thread of an article (think comment is free on crack) but overall, there was an interesting discussion at play. You can read the five pages of comments over here.
There are several points that I took away from the discussion and I wish to note when we are discussing ‘new’ technology in the context of academic research (or education in general – as the panel did touch on this):
- It is very different to have a discussion about ‘technology’ without simply listing tools to fulfil a particular task – especially when the format of discussion is in a non-threaded way. I’ve noticed this happen in several dedicated discussions (such as #phdchat or more specifically, conference presentations relating to education & technology). This is all very well, and I am happy to offer technical advice on what platforms that I have used in particular circumstances, but often the technical supersedes what it means to introduce a new technology into a space and fails to offer the political and social implementations of promoting such a tool in a neutral and objective way. Therefore, although I cannot ignore the ‘training’ and the ‘technical’, and it won’t be ignored because the discussion happily defaulted to this way, but I’m kind of interested in “why?” that happens. For instance, what does it mean to offer a list of tools (which are essentially brand names, commercial businesses) in a way that implies is a ‘new’ (innovative? progressive?) technology, when technology means simply a social media platform or piece of software.
- In the same breath, I’m also glad that that the discussion touched on the restrictions of the university (or institution) in what it allows students and its employees to use when on their on the infrastructure. There seems to be a lack of trust (reflected in what is allowed to be installed on a computer – or what devices can be connected to a wifi network, for instance) but in same light, those making the decisions (much like any authority) are made by people who do not understand nor require to use it. How can, if it can, ‘new’ (and when I say new, I am thinking things that aren’t yet installed or used widely) be ever introduced apart from when an individual purchases their own equipment and works in a way that is on the periphery of the institution. And what does it mean when they do that?
- Similarly, I got asked a question about social media policy and university marketing and what this meant in terms of promoting work and constructing an academic online identity. It’s a difficult one for me – as I work in many places, often on short contracts, with a reduction in workers rights but with a greater element of autonomy if I was to represent only one place. Perhaps again, my position on the periphery allows me to be more critical of educational marketing departments, who have their own agendas when it comes to staying ‘on message.”
- Finally, we touched on the idea of training and workshops for technology for research. As I begin my second year of teaching PhD students about social media for research, I’ve thought long and hard about the best way in which I can offer them an introduction to the technology – but also the social context, keep them engaged through a face to face session – but also offer support beyond that session so that they simply don’t see it as a tick-box exercise. It is hard to give support when you are paid only for the hours that you are in the classroom, but I have seen interesting ways in which this can be done that is a little more than digital chalk and talk. For me, it is about challenging expectations and not accepting that there is a standardised approach to thinking about technology within this context. In this case, it makes me have to work a little harder to carry these ideas through (because it is much easier to take on the ‘technical’, ‘training’ as an interpretation of this idea) by making sure that the wider discussions are there.
The full discussion is available here – you can read more articles on the Guardian Higher Education Network here.
“but in same light, those making the decisions (much like any authority) are made by people who do not understand nor require to use it.”
But there are two sides to the coin. In the same vein I could say that those asking for software and services are people that do not understand how to deploy, manage or support its use for thousands of people at a large institute. What may seem simple for one person on their own PC does not mean it’s simple (or desirable) when scaled up to thousands or tens of thousands of people and computers. :)
It’s not really about trust. It’s about costs, time, ability to support, ability to manage, deployment, security, data protection etc.. Those are things most people don’t consider when they ask why X bit of software can’t just be made available to everyone.
That’s a very true – but I think it is also worth considering what it means to offer it to *everybody* – What I need to do my job (which is explorative by nature) is different from other people in my department, let alone different disciplines – and I don’t think I’ve ever managed to grapple with what is actually available to me from my University. The easier way to get around the barriers of institutional IT is to buy your own equipment. But why do we have to talk about barriers? I have plenty of friends who work in IT – and I can understand (and relate to) all of those concerns – there is also the joys of management to contend with, the contractual obligations somebody has made on behalf of the whole organisation and a number of political decisions at play. It is contradictory sometimes to be asked to deliver workshops about tools that you can use for free online, when you aren’t allowed to surf particular websites and download them onto your machine. I wonder if experimentation only allowed on ‘leisure’ time?
If you are being asked to deliver workshops using tools that are restricted by IT then there is obviously a lack of communication happening. Restrictions are generally there for a reason.
Most institutional IT is there to provide a managed, controlled environment for the majority of its users. Some people such as yourself may not fit into that environment. Depending on the IT department, you may get help working the way you wish but if exceptions are made for too many people like that, you may as well not bother having a managed environment in the first place.
Yup – these are all fair points but I don’t think it can be reduced to this level of simplicity. There are people on different types of contracts – with different levels of access and expectations – and then of course, there is the difference in roles between students, academics, administration, management. I’m just not happy with accepting that the infrastructure should dictate the actions – although I can’t remember the last time I’ve asked IT for support, apart from when I’ve found out I *can’t* do something. How can things adapt and change to newer technologies when the notion of institutional IT is to maintain a status quo? Exceptions shouldn’t wipe out the need for institutional support, but it should be a more transparent process so that things can be adapted and changed more frequently and more fluidly.
And internal communications? The best thing that has ever came along in terms of sharing what is happening and knowing what your colleagues are up to has got to be things like twitter. I wouldn’t have the opportunity to do as much as I’ve been able to without it. The existing hierarchies just don’t support that level of niche information sharing and cross-pollination.
I would agree that better communication is essential. My job would be much easier if people had better ways of passing on feedback or suggestions and I had different channels to distribute information. It’s a double edged sword though as I also see channels such as Twitter being used to pass around instructions to do things people shouldn’t be doing or false assumptions on stuff. Sharing information is only good if the information is correct.
A good institution won’t be one that wants to keep the status quo but I think the pace of change has to be slower which is what annoys people. But if someone says Second Life is the future of teaching do you instantly spend tens of thousands of pounds on equipment capable of running it and devoting weeks of staff time getting the software to work (and I’d know, I have spent weeks getting it to work) or do you leave it a year or two?