LAS TEORIAS PROYECTUALES EN LA HISTORIA

The technological landscape in which the Community Project exists is complex and requires some reflection on how conflicting pressures are already embedded in the means of communication. Several approaches here describe

how the techno-educational infrastructure is biased toward dominant common- sense readings.

Robinson argues that a Gramscian reading of technology is ‘ethico-political’ (Robinson, 2005, p.480) and views history as, ‘the struggle of systems…between ways of viewing reality’ (p.480). Historical analysis becomes the exploration of a, ‘clash of ethico-political principles’ and if these principles are left unchallenged we, ‘can only describe historical events from the outside and cannot draw causal conclusions’ (p.471). While Gramsci might liberate thought/action from purely dominant conceptions, subaltern groups remaining ‘within the framework set by the ruling class’ (p.473) cannot begin alternative readings of reality. Robinson argues that to be able to achieve autonomy and ‘change the world’ (ibid.) subaltern groups need to ‘develop a new conception of the world …not dependent on ruling class ideas’ (ibid.). A framework of technology and media that may appear neutral yet reproduces dominant value-systems provides a hurdle to emancipatory action not easily seen. The reality in which we educate takes place in spaces reflecting, ‘corporate control of the media…and ‘common sense’ assumptions which arise from committed exposure to material espoused by rightwing outlets’ (p.480). Technology and media tools lead to ‘sub-alterns lifeworlds …territorialized and constructed by dominant elites’ (p.477). Calls for educators’ critical choices to become widened (Kanuka, 2008; Parchoma, 2011) must also include shifts from individual action to wider awareness of ownership and control of networks and systems. Giroux (2007) proposes ethics and political ideas become overshadowed by instrumental factors, arguing that,

‘The consequence of the substitution of technology for pedagogy is that instrumental goals replace ethical and political considerations, diminishing classroom control by teachers while offering a dehumanizing pedagogy for students’ (p.124).

In this approach, the instrumentalism of technology prioritises means over ends of education and reflects Parchoma’s concerns of technology as a route to standardisation. Mirrlees and Alvi (2014) argue MOOCs as Taylorisation processes prioritise business models (2013) and replicate economic inequality. They propose that ‘citizens not corporate and governmental elites’ (p.68) should hold the power of choice. Hall and O’Shea (2013) describe a creeping neo- liberal common sense across the public sphere (p.4) that reduces teacher- student to provider-customer contexts and infuse the language of education with neo-liberal philosophies.

The practicality of a corporate logic is already established according to Buchanan (2007) who argues that,

Google is effectively the common sense understanding of what using the internet actually means … one writes with a pen, makes calls with a phone, and searches the internet. (p.14).

A pervasive ‘search engine culture’ (p.15) has effectively transformed the utopian vision Tim Berners-Lee (2000) had of learning by sharing in an ‘enormous, unbounded world’ (p.34). Instead, a culture of mass-market- seeking corporate entities ignore state legislation/ censorship and prioritise commercial exchange (Buchanan, 2007).

The rhizomatic potential of the internet must contend with the arboreal potential for the web developing a set of practices increasingly shaped by a corporate common-sense. The ‘rhizome as tendency’ (p.12) is always opposed by an

arborescent pull to the conventional centre-ground. The search engine culture results, Buchanan argues, in a feeling that, ‘the world really is at our fingertips, that we are verily ‘becoming-world’’ (p.15). As such, the desires for emancipatory thinking are wholly aligned with the common-sense of search engine culture. Buchanan argues for a resistance to a pessimistic acceptance that,

‘Google is the global id …to do so is to accept that our deep atavistic desire is to buy something and there could be no more dystopian outlook than that’ (p.16).

A ‘becoming-world’ that is experienced as emancipatory while simultaneously reinforcing corporate common-sense logic indicates ends contradicted by means. Such a contradiction appears in the experiences of the Community Project participants (see sections 5.1.3.4; 5.2.3.4) where educator technology choices appear as fragile individual moments amidst powerful corporate forces. Rather than seeking new spaces for challenges to hegemonic control, a rapidly moving technology infrastructure leads to self-deprecation, as,

‘we tell ourselves it is because we don't properly understand Google…rather than dismiss the search engine itself as fundamentally flawed’ (p.14).

An ability to identify such flaws widens learning to include a questioning of these platforms rather than merely increasing the skills needed to function within them.

Crowther (2010) describes how,

‘the more powerful the discourse the more deeply embedded in our common sense are its problems, its definitions of learning, its understanding of participation and the range of appropriate ‘solutions’’ (p.480).

Crowther’s argument is that ‘professional knowledge/power formation’ (ibid.) is shaped by the powerful in their image of what key concepts should be.

A reading of institutional approaches to technology reflect solutions coming through attempts at creating links between digital skills, employability and institutional purpose (FELTAG report, 2013; Lords Report, 2015; QAA Review into Higher Education, 2014). As these seek to establish a dominant discourse in relation to funding and research, the subsequent creation of common sense emerges where technology and employer-needs becomes taken for granted. While philosophies-in-practice suggest the agency of the individual educator, a dominant economic superstructure emphasises market forces as shaping educational purpose. Landy (2011) argues this tension leads to a concern with becoming proficient yet not to question hierarchical concerns.

A critical layer of analysis questions approaches such as Stewart’s (2013) Trojan horse value of MOOCs that accept digital literacies as significant and valuable without concerns over wider socio-economic influences.

Similarly, Knox’s (2014) embracing of the massive suggests a common sense that leaves unchallenged the location of the university or the status of the professor, but depicts a new subaltern group as beneficiaries of massiveness still moderated by institutions. For both Knox and Stewart, ‘massive’ is significant and reinforce approaches such as the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) that prioritise global, international/intra-national scales (Gorur, 2015). Common-sense based in statistical reliance on vast data-sets means that,

‘other evaluations become mere intuitions or vague feelings – easily dislodged with ‘That’s not what the numbers say’ (p.3). Emphasising statistical relevance thus prioritises those models most adept at operating at scale, and ignores and denigrates small-scale and

localised practices. Others find in technology a space for creative resistance. Facer (2011) posits ‘folk educators’ who use technology to,

‘…normalise the idea of teaching as a human capacity rather than a professional identity, and learning as an everyday part of life rather than a specialised set of procedures taking place in certain specified places’ (p.24).

Eubanks (2011) describes a ‘popular technology’ in which a narrative of technology as emancipation is countered by a realisation of technology as part of wider societal imbalance. Toyama (2011) argues that technology acts ‘as a magnifier of existing institutional forces’ (p.75). The consequences of this amplification require an understanding that, ‘technology cannot substitute for missing institutional capacity and human intent’ and ‘tends to amplify existing inequalities’ (ibid.). For Toyama, technology applications are most successful when,

‘they amplify already successful development efforts or positively inclined intent, rather than to seek to fix, provide or substitute for broken or missing institutional elements’ (ibid.).

The significance of this is realised in participant discussion (section 5.3.3.4) which suggests refocusing on human intent above institutional momentum around increased technological use.