Monday, April 28, 2008
Science 2.0
Ok, forget the 2.0 moniker - hold your nose if you have to, but here is an interesting article documenting some changing work habits among academics. It's called Science 2.0, not really because it's a reinvention of the scientific process, but rather because it talks about the application of web apps to scientific endeavours in academic settings. The point to take away from this, potentially, is yet another example of how institutions of learning can try to use some of these tools, like wikis and blogs, to increase a students capacity to work with and learn from other students.
Friday, April 25, 2008
The Consumption of Post-Secondary Education
The following entry owes much to discussions I've had over with the folks at The Daily Wenzel and has been cross-posted with them.
Let us begin by acknowledging that the following rests somewhat on the ideas of Thorstein Veblen, Theodor Adorno, and Max Weber. You would also be correct to guess that the conversation revolves around "class", ie. "working-class", "middle-class", and "upper-class", though such labels bring to mind specific occupations and our talk deals more with social outlooks, values, or beliefs, independent of specific occupation.
To begin with, we believe in the value of studying popular culture. We believe that popular culture is an important vehicle for the exchange of ideas. We subscribe to the Journal of Popular Culture, although we are increasingly disappointed with the approach that the journal is taking to the study of popular culture. For years though, we have been unable to describe just what it is that makes us unsatisfied with it. Perhaps now we are a little closer.
Thorstein Veblen is noted for his ideas about the consumption pattern of social classes, specifically that people tend to follow their social betters. For example, in the nineteenth century, the houses of the rich had large rooms for receiving guest, while middle-class homes developed the parlour. Working class structures attempted to mimic this to the best of their abilities, given their often cramped floor space. Or, take kitchenware. The upper classes, it is assumed, eat meals off of expensive plates, and many families (of middle and working-class status) have special dinnerware (china) that they save for "fancy" occassions, where family members are dressed up, and elaborate, and sometimes expensive, food is served.
There is a crucial difference in the consumption trends between the social classes though, and that is the degree to which each class is able to make their wealth "work", that is, function as capital. For working-class families, much of the wealth is tied up in the family home, and generally not available as ready capital. Middle-class families tend to be to convert some of their wealth into capital in the form of stocks, bonds, etc., while the upper-class is assumed to have ready supplies of capital on hand not just for stocks, bonds, but also for business start-ups and such.
According to Theodor Adorno, there is also a difference in the relationship of these groups to popular culture. If we allow the division of popular culture into so-called "high-brow", tending to carry with it moral messages, or intellectual overtones, and "low-brow", popular culture that tends to satisfy emotional needs, it is generally assumed that the upper-classes favour popular culture that is "high-brow" and working classes favour "low brow", with the middle-classes enjoying a spectrum of both. Adorno was also one of the first to articulate the belief that popular culture (or what we might term "mass commercial culture" as opposed to "folk culture" both of which tend to be wrapped up in "popular culture"), could also function as a method of pacifying the working classes. Later writers on consumption, such as Conquest of Cool author Thomas Frank, and even in his own way, John Leland, author of Hip: The History, have suggested that richess of popular culture's emotional experience and the desire of novelty on the part of the working-classes, are effective ways of bleeding off wealth from that same class.
At it's heart, this kind of argument rests on the same sort of self-denial premise that Max Weber put forth. The so-called middle-class thrives under capitalism because capitalism reward self-denial in favour of disciplined investment. The working-class on the otherhand, fails to "get ahead" because it is too interested in self-pleasure. This is also typically the premise behind many of our rags-to-riches stories.
So, our question becomes, do these two social groups have different viewpoints on the purpose of post-secondary education? We would argue that there are (at least) two different social groups present in post-secondary institutions, those who view it in terms of self-denial and self-investment, and those who do not. To reference Veblen, for this second group, post-secondary education is not seen as a utility, but as a social goal attained by higher social classes. The proliferation of courses dealing with topics of popular culture, that treat it as an area of relativistic meanings and interpretations (a sort of atomizing of the audience) and not as the basis of praxis, enable post-secondary education to be consumed as novelty items and effectively bleeding off the wealth of students and student families.
Thus, the attainment of post-secondary education has generally been seen as one of the most effectives of social mobility, but we are increasinly wondering whether or not this remains the case, and whether more and more courses about popular culture are in fact undermining this effectiveness?
Let us begin by acknowledging that the following rests somewhat on the ideas of Thorstein Veblen, Theodor Adorno, and Max Weber. You would also be correct to guess that the conversation revolves around "class", ie. "working-class", "middle-class", and "upper-class", though such labels bring to mind specific occupations and our talk deals more with social outlooks, values, or beliefs, independent of specific occupation.
To begin with, we believe in the value of studying popular culture. We believe that popular culture is an important vehicle for the exchange of ideas. We subscribe to the Journal of Popular Culture, although we are increasingly disappointed with the approach that the journal is taking to the study of popular culture. For years though, we have been unable to describe just what it is that makes us unsatisfied with it. Perhaps now we are a little closer.
Thorstein Veblen is noted for his ideas about the consumption pattern of social classes, specifically that people tend to follow their social betters. For example, in the nineteenth century, the houses of the rich had large rooms for receiving guest, while middle-class homes developed the parlour. Working class structures attempted to mimic this to the best of their abilities, given their often cramped floor space. Or, take kitchenware. The upper classes, it is assumed, eat meals off of expensive plates, and many families (of middle and working-class status) have special dinnerware (china) that they save for "fancy" occassions, where family members are dressed up, and elaborate, and sometimes expensive, food is served.
There is a crucial difference in the consumption trends between the social classes though, and that is the degree to which each class is able to make their wealth "work", that is, function as capital. For working-class families, much of the wealth is tied up in the family home, and generally not available as ready capital. Middle-class families tend to be to convert some of their wealth into capital in the form of stocks, bonds, etc., while the upper-class is assumed to have ready supplies of capital on hand not just for stocks, bonds, but also for business start-ups and such.
According to Theodor Adorno, there is also a difference in the relationship of these groups to popular culture. If we allow the division of popular culture into so-called "high-brow", tending to carry with it moral messages, or intellectual overtones, and "low-brow", popular culture that tends to satisfy emotional needs, it is generally assumed that the upper-classes favour popular culture that is "high-brow" and working classes favour "low brow", with the middle-classes enjoying a spectrum of both. Adorno was also one of the first to articulate the belief that popular culture (or what we might term "mass commercial culture" as opposed to "folk culture" both of which tend to be wrapped up in "popular culture"), could also function as a method of pacifying the working classes. Later writers on consumption, such as Conquest of Cool author Thomas Frank, and even in his own way, John Leland, author of Hip: The History, have suggested that richess of popular culture's emotional experience and the desire of novelty on the part of the working-classes, are effective ways of bleeding off wealth from that same class.
At it's heart, this kind of argument rests on the same sort of self-denial premise that Max Weber put forth. The so-called middle-class thrives under capitalism because capitalism reward self-denial in favour of disciplined investment. The working-class on the otherhand, fails to "get ahead" because it is too interested in self-pleasure. This is also typically the premise behind many of our rags-to-riches stories.
So, our question becomes, do these two social groups have different viewpoints on the purpose of post-secondary education? We would argue that there are (at least) two different social groups present in post-secondary institutions, those who view it in terms of self-denial and self-investment, and those who do not. To reference Veblen, for this second group, post-secondary education is not seen as a utility, but as a social goal attained by higher social classes. The proliferation of courses dealing with topics of popular culture, that treat it as an area of relativistic meanings and interpretations (a sort of atomizing of the audience) and not as the basis of praxis, enable post-secondary education to be consumed as novelty items and effectively bleeding off the wealth of students and student families.
Thus, the attainment of post-secondary education has generally been seen as one of the most effectives of social mobility, but we are increasinly wondering whether or not this remains the case, and whether more and more courses about popular culture are in fact undermining this effectiveness?
Sunday, April 6, 2008
Those Who Can Teach, Those Who Teach Do
There is a very interesting conversation going on at Weblogg-ED, concerning the role of teachers as experts in light of a new term called, "produsage" from Axel Bruns' Blogs, Wikis, Second Life and Beyond: From Production to Produsage. From the synopsis provided, and the ensuing conversation, one of the main points being made is that if students are to view teachers as experts in Web 2.0 tools, then teachers need to be actively engaged in using those tools themselves. This led to much discussion around the general notion of teachers as experts, a term many teachers appear to be uncomfortable with using to describe themselves, as well as to some debate regarding just what a teacher is an expert in - is it content area, information transfer, or both?
We would submit, at the secondary level at least, that teachers are, or need to be experts in both. Clearly, the difference between a scientist and a science educator is the expertise that the educator has in allowing/facillitating the transfer/gaining of science knowledge in someone else. Part of this process involves understanding not just what consitutes "knowledge" in a particular discipline, but also what "knowledge" is worth transferring in a socially constructed process, and what can be left for self-discovery. To do this, one needs a certain level of expertise in the content area one teaches. Modern staffing though, that only deals with full-time or half-time equivalents, makes this problematic and occassionally leads to scenarios where teachers end up teaching subjects they have no expertise in, solely because the timetable needs a teacher in a classroom.
Another wrinkle in this problem is that teachers need to viewed as experts in their content area by students, so that students can trust that the knowledge they are receiving is accurate and authentic. This becomes highly problematic in certain subject areas. As science teachers, we are very impressed with our colleagues in music, drama, art, and phys. ed, in that they are always talking about the non-teaching community activities they are involved with; ie. so-and-so is playing on this sports team, appearing in this production, or performing with that group, all of which grants them a degree of authenticity that it is hard for science teachers currently to match. When was the last time any of us was engaged in scientific research, production, or other activity related to our field?
One the ideas that we've been trying to develop and shop around here at Exploding Beakers is the idea of the Summer Teacher Internship, that would see teachers placed in science organizations for a week or two over the summer. So far it's just a dream . . .
We would submit, at the secondary level at least, that teachers are, or need to be experts in both. Clearly, the difference between a scientist and a science educator is the expertise that the educator has in allowing/facillitating the transfer/gaining of science knowledge in someone else. Part of this process involves understanding not just what consitutes "knowledge" in a particular discipline, but also what "knowledge" is worth transferring in a socially constructed process, and what can be left for self-discovery. To do this, one needs a certain level of expertise in the content area one teaches. Modern staffing though, that only deals with full-time or half-time equivalents, makes this problematic and occassionally leads to scenarios where teachers end up teaching subjects they have no expertise in, solely because the timetable needs a teacher in a classroom.
Another wrinkle in this problem is that teachers need to viewed as experts in their content area by students, so that students can trust that the knowledge they are receiving is accurate and authentic. This becomes highly problematic in certain subject areas. As science teachers, we are very impressed with our colleagues in music, drama, art, and phys. ed, in that they are always talking about the non-teaching community activities they are involved with; ie. so-and-so is playing on this sports team, appearing in this production, or performing with that group, all of which grants them a degree of authenticity that it is hard for science teachers currently to match. When was the last time any of us was engaged in scientific research, production, or other activity related to our field?
One the ideas that we've been trying to develop and shop around here at Exploding Beakers is the idea of the Summer Teacher Internship, that would see teachers placed in science organizations for a week or two over the summer. So far it's just a dream . . .
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
