Learning for a complex world

Technology - stepping back for a moment

As I tidy up the backlog of my communicatios for SCEPTrE (and make this blog part of that process), I find I have space to think that i didn't have when I was employed full time Making Things Happen. Perhaps this is all part of the reason I needed to leave full-time working in higher education. In the busy, productivity-driven world, it's too difficult to carve out time for intelligent planning and impossible to question the drivers that keep us going forward. So, for now, this blog will continue and reflect on SCEPTrE and CETLs from a slowly increasing distance. I hope this will be useful for me, as a reflective process, and for readers (if there are any) as evaluation and research data.

Today, I have been adding to the Progress Report that we (I mean SCEPTrE team) produce for Executive Group. Headings have become fairly standardised over time and one is, as it always has been, 'Technology'. Now that I'm not in the process, but still able to add to it, a question arises: what do we say about ourselves by positioning 'technology' (in the singular??) as a subject worthy of comment? I think it somehow implies that we do not really consider technology to be a part of what we do, that it needs to be singled out as a separate focus for achievement. Perhaps it says that we are struggling to integrate ourselves (as a team and as a university) into the complex world that is dependent on computers, mobile phones, digital images, internet, social and formal tools and spaces, all underpinned by this technology stuff. We don't, for example, have a heading in our report for 'words and language' - as they are the stock-in-trade of committees, and of learning and teaching. There will be more on this, I am sure.

Only from a distance can I articulate my long-term discomfort with the way we intellectually and collectively make 'technology' separate from what we actually do. The consequences of this are worth thinking about. Fixing the tools becomes someone else's problem. The tools and the media distract us from thinking about how we make the ideas stick. The finger pointing at the moon is not the moon. As much of the literature on communication and change suggests, people and relationships are the key- these are harder to quantify or report on using two-dimensional technologies of type on paper.

Reasons to be unreasonable

“The reasonable man adapts himself to the world,” playwright George Bernard Shaw once said, whereas “the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.”

As i settle into this quiet month (hah!*) of reflection and future-scoping I am making sense of my reasons for leaving SCEPTrE as a way of thinking about what I want to be doing next. I think the great GBS, who has been my inspiration since I was in my early teens, has a very workable rationale. And it's worth noting that unreasonable women are nowadays having a hand in making progress, too, in the 21st century. Several (more than two!) of my (often male) colleagues and advisors suggested that I should comply with the bureaucratic structures in a low-energy way simply to free up enough time to do the important things! That was not good advice. Those compliance tasks can take up an awful lot of time - and life is short. I have never been too good with half-hearted working practices, and choose not to develop that particularly invidious competence.

Learning is not always reasonable. Nor should we necessarily expect it to be easy, comfortable or compliant.

* Who would believe how many things there are to be done in transition from one engaging job to another as yet undefined role!

The power of stories

I had a pretty rough week last week and found myself (again?!) raging about the bureaucracy and audit culture that get in the way of me just doing my job. No-one needs to know the detail - I know I'm not alone in this sense of frustration. How do I know? Well, since I've started telling people I'm leaving Higher Education ('to dig my garden') I have found myself giving reasons for leaving that sound fairly harsh - and people join in, whole-heartedly. I should say that my grumpy old woman act seems to have a remarkably limited effect on my enthusiasm for doing the things I enjoy about my work with SCEPTrE. Anyway, it has been reassuring to find that it's not just me.

This week I bothered Lewis Elton (a well-known proponent of 'Collegiality and Complexity' - the title of a forthcoming article accepted by Higher Education Quarterly) with my grumbling. He was sympathetic and, better than that, pointed me to the Times Higher where, he said, you will absolutely see that you are not alone. Here I found a short piece about an article published in 2007 by Andrew C. Sparkes in, believe it or not, Qualitative Research - not a journal regularly cited by our favourite source of scandal and intrigue in HE. There are copyright reasons for me not to simply attach this as a pdf, so you will need to hunt down 'Embodiment, academics and the audit culture: a story seeking consideration'. It is described in the abstract as 'a story about the embodied struggles of an academic at a university that is permeated by an audit culture'. Although it's written as fiction, and is based on 'partial happenings, fragmented memories, echoes of conversations, whispers in corridors ...' with not a questionnaire or chart in sight, academics who read it are usually able to recognise themselves and their situation. In the body of the article are several responses from a range of un-named individuals that illustrate recognition of an emotional and political nature. People to whom I have recommended it as bedtime reading instantly respond with recognition.

Two things are worth noting, for me, particular with relevance to SCEPTrE. One is that (as I suggest in one of my digital stories about Fellowship) my research and evaluation job was offered following an explicit claim on my part that story has  power to change and influence in ways that 'impact measures' would not recognise even if they came up and slapped them in the face. (Well, I'm not going to apologise for a bit of rhetorical shock - it's what got Andrew Sparkes the mention in the Times Higher).

The second point - and I have to say that it's come as a bit of a timely revelation to me - is that such research does get published. I'm already working to encourage and support some 'creative' writing with the participation of the Fellows and colleagues / students.

Challenging the values and direction of higher education

I've just finished a rather subversive Skype conversation with Nick Noakes in Hong Kong. We
both wonder whether higher education can make the transition into 21st century without some very serious re-thinking of its values and processes. Will it survive, change or die?

Some readers will have met Nick in Second Life or through a digital story and his other contributions to the immersive experience wiki. One of the Open Education links he sent (this is a great way of extending a conversation!) refers to / quotes from a graduation speech given by Patton Oswalt. I guess he's a scurrilous American comedian, though I've never heard of him. Read it! If you get past the 'shocking' advice Oswalt uses to get the attention of students, teachers and administrators, what he says connects with an ongoing conversation I seem to be having with many people around and at the margins of higher education: what do we mean by authenticity, adventure, goals, success and failure? Are these relevant to higher education? Are they killed by learning outcomes and metric assessment? Should we be encouraging people to start asking these hard questions as they learn? Do we have a right to expect that lecturers and administrators are at least curious about these fundamental human questions?

This links with the books of our 'complex world' guru, Ron Barnett, of course. His latest book  has a more serious approach to the same questions. Having read a review of the book, we (SCEPTrE) have now bought a copy. Should be there for you to browse through before 30th July. Or order your own copy, if you aren't passing!

What do students know?

Yesterday afternoon, a group of 12 self-selected Masters' students from diverse disciplinary and geographical cultures designed and led a conversation with a group of self-selected staff. The group presented, in advance, a collective CV to the invitees - their supervisors and some familiar SCEPTrE friends and Fellows. They also provided a description of the project: an exploration of the possibility that Masters' students could be co-researchers of the 'Complex World' question that drives SCEPTrE's work. Invitees were invited to pose questions, in advance of the event, so that students / co-learners could prepare some responses over the few hours before 'going public'. The structure of this public 90-minute session was a balance between a 'market-place' (engaging people in the mid-point fruits of people's individual contribution to the project) and a 'conversation' with the whole group - around 30 people in all.

What I hope people were able to appreciate, over the afternoon, is the diverse experiences and expertise that these Masters' students bring to Surrey. Discussion certainly seemed to recognise the value of inter-disciplinary conversation, relationship and challenge. There was a sense that staff, as well as students, feel frustrated with the 'silo' culture and one of the students asked why we tolerate it. We are all learners. SCEPTrE was again identified as the place where these conversations CAN and do happen. I'd like to think that 'we' (the University / SCEPTrE / Faculty leaders and change agents) learned a little about the potential for 'the social life of information (Brown and Duguid, 2000).

Day 2 of Learning Through Enquiry Conference

I seem to have made the perfect choice for today's sessions. Firstly an example of critical reflexivity that set us all asking the important questions about what we think we are doing in the classroom - even when we are feeling good about being 'innovative'. 

Learning through enquiry conference

For the next few days, I am in Sheffield at the LTEA conference. This first afternoon, I'm really impressed with the planning, organisation, engagement etc. It's a pity the sun isn't shining, because I'm sitting on the 4th Floor of the Library / Information Commons, overlooking the city and its traffic. An interesting session introducing / reflecting on the developments of Second life. Someone has just questioned the presenter about the comment from students that interviewing in second life was found to be more 'authentic' - I think this is in the sense of 'real-world' connections: last year the students were interviewing each other and this time they were able to talk with people from across the world and draw on their 'real' experiences (of second life!)

A nice move in terms of the planning for the event was to get tables of around 6 - 8 people to form a small group and make a first entry into the conference wiki - questions about inquiry / networked. This group could continue to interact.

My other reflection is about the programme and my own journey through the event. Reading the abstracts on the train up here (as you do) I found it very difficult to make choices that followed one of the threads. I have decided to take a 'helicopter' view and to go to the sessions that seem to raise the 'big' questions around enquiry learning. Maybe this is playing to my weaknesses / strengths as a researcher evaluator. Perhaps it also reflects the ways in which SCEPTrE has that 'complex world' perspective?

So now I'm sitting in a session on 'an ethics of inquiry based learning'. A very creative cross-disciplinary collaboration between literature and social work training. A positive experience for students and for the presenters. The students seem to have developed a critically informed reflection, starting from their own experience. The group process and the practical enquiry 'with' service users seems to have enabled students to have developed in remarkable ways. The only anxiety (for me) was the potential threat presented by the University's ethics committee (and other institutional / local government / health service regulations. This was one of the questions - though it was asked very much in a way that suggested these structured regulatory procedures could perhaps learn from this process. I liked that very positive view ... it made me feel I was among friends.

Sustaining the dream

Returned from the CETL conference with many of my expectations realised - not all for the best. Sustainability is seen in financial, business planning terms - corporate plans and senior managers seem to be the key focus. Impact is about measurables rather than ideas. Dissemination involves us in presenting our work in the best light.

But the Open Space event allowed space for me to ask whether anyone would be interested in 'sustaining the dream'. It was encouraging that a good-sized group came and stayed to 'play'. A representative of the Academy came to 'observe' but not participate.

There is a conference wiki and there will be a version of the dream we created - and our (my) compliant response to the feedback prompts about 'enquiry' and 'issues / solutions'. The link - or the document itself will be added to this page. I think the wiki needs a 'dreams' section.

Notes from session: How do we sustain a dream?

Jo invited all participants to draw or otherwise represent their ‘dream’ university - to transform our limiting beliefs, fears and structures into creative aspirations.

Images generated included a couple of beaches, several interplanetary cosmic settings - university in the widest sense - and many messages about connection, respect, autonomy and individuality, equality and communication between managers, teachers and students, time and duration for learning and so on. Imagine two beneficent suns - research and learning/teaching, both providing warmth and light also stored in solar panels.

These ideas were tempered by salutory reminders from / for the group: caution can be an important part of the dream process.
•    Create spaces of safety (pools) for learning, allowing for process and progression
•    Take account of the whole education process - higher education is not an island but part of a political and economic system, including schools and workplaces.

The group then looked again at their personal university images and, individually,
•    noticed where they already do (or have created) something that they see in their picture
•    observed where there are opportunities - where they might or could create something - either in their immediate context or in an area where they have influence.

Enquiry

•    What are my personal dreams / ideals?
•    What do I already do to create such a reality?
•    What else could I do?
•    Who could do it with me?
•    What are the barriers - are they real or imagined?
•    How do we manage our own fears and vulnerability?

Ideas and solutions
•    Make it so: ignore or dismantle the voices (in our heads or in our institutions) that tell us we can’t do something different.
•    Work the system - use language carefully to take advantage of creative opportunities to realise or grow a bit of our dream. (e.g., drop the word ‘excellent’ in favour of ‘wonderful’).
•    Start to choose our actions based on our dreams - while allowing enthusiasm to be moderated by a realistic ability to say ‘no’ to some things.
•    Speak truth to power. Tell people (in positions of ‘consumer’ and political power) that real education is: an engagement not a purchase.
•    Listen to students and find ways to allow them / help them to influence and grow the curriculum.

How do we know?

I have heard many people, in the past few years, struggling with the nature of the research they need to undertake as a key part of their CETL project. [For those who have come in from outside UK Higher Education, CETLs are government-funded, practice-driven centres where successful learning and teaching initiatives are encouraged to flourish - there are 74 CETLs in England and Wales].

I'm looking forward, with some scepticism, to the annual CETL conference at the end of this week. The sorts of questions that are being addressed seem, as far as I can see, to focus on
                'How do we evaluate and demonstrate impact?' 
This question seems to me to be a self-referential, closed hypothesis that is really about justifying effective use of funds - in no way is this a research question. The other question we apparently ought to concern ourselves with involves 'dissemination', as if sprinkling seed from our work is the nature of the task.  I should not refer here to the strangely masculine nature of this seed sprinkling activity, or the biblical disapproval of such wasteful acts. Unless we are able to talk with some confidence about contexts for risk, learning and change - the conditions for successful germination of seed - the issue of dissemination truly is not worthy of further attention.

In my view, neither 'dissemination' or 'impact' are useful focus for evaluation or research.There are some hard and messy questions: 'How does change happen in xxx University with yyy sorts of students?' 'What conditions seem to enable learning in aaa discipline?' 'What processes help people think more creatively and work better with their students under bbb conditions?' Of course, these aren't 'proper' research questions and don't have quantifiable answers. Learning and change are local and contexted, so generalisations are difficult.  But I'd rather spend time thinking, talking and writing (if I ever claim the time for this) about those practical questions than measuring and disseminating value for money.

Ways of being

There are many ways of being an evaluator. In my earlier post, I muttered briefly about the need to describe the role and agree it with the people involved in the evaluation. I'm not sure it's possible to always be as clear as this. And in my post at the beginning of the year, I talked about the need for the evaluator to go more slowly - have a hand on the brake.

Yesterday, Norman and I shared a conversation with a colleague about a new strategy which we think is important to the University, but risks (we think) becoming a rhetorical position, with no action required. SCEPTrE's agendas are aligned with this strategy and we both see value in the direction of travel it signifies.

Because we are busy, we don't often work together in this way, but I found it incredibly valuable to be an informal, unspecified 'process evaluator', watching what was happening, observing my own feelings and telling a story to myself about the different intentions and needs of the other two people in the group. On the walk back to the office, I heard Norman's story of what he had seen and briefly shared my own version of events, in an appreciative sort of way. Together - as a three-some - I think we each showed different qualities of creativity and leadership - hard and soft: encouragement, pushing and pulling, clarification, identifying shared purposes, opportunities to voice anxieties and reservation with a final push to action.

As process evaluator, and because I think it's part of my role in this team, I found myself subtly 'giving permission' to go a little more slowly - mediating between the drive forward that Norman offers and the reluctance to rush in that our colleague was holding. We shall watch with interest whether this approach is better than the way we sometimes work, where the resistance happens after the push forward.

Process evaluation

Last week, SCEPTrE had an intensive week of Applied Creativity with Fred Buining. There were two events: three days for 'external' colleagues under the Zooangzi banner and two days for Surrey staff, led by Norman Jackson with facilitation by Fred.

I participated in the three-day training with a brief (from Norman) to be the 'process evaluator'. From this, I learned a lot - apart from the value of working with Fred and 10 other people on processes and relationships that support creativity. I learned (though surely I already know this) to always agree in advance the evaluation purpose and process, especially with  the facilitator. About myself, I learned how easily I can fall into the 'mother' role, checking that everyone is okay and feeling responsible if I think they aren't. Is that evaluation? Is that process evaluation?

Process evaluation. Collective reflection? Pushing at boundaries? Learning from observation? Formative feedback? 

And now we are establishing a group wiki for the participants. I want them to be involved in setting it up. I want it to be owned by them all. But that means I have to show, tell, encourage, bully, drive the project which, again, feels like pushing at professional and personal boundaries.