A Democratic Agency

Posted on by Brian Hughes

For me, the story about EdLab—its purpose, vision, and strategy—boils down to the goal of democracy. This post is a reflection on today’s seminar by Gary Natriello, but I think it may also resonate with anyone who’s a part of a similar organization.

Gary articulated a vision of the future of the education sector that follows from a few basic assumptions about learning, economics, and technology. Namely, that the so-called “digital revolution” is ringing in a new age of “networked learning” (think: low-cost, p2p learning). He also shared his concern that while we ought to want to help shape this future, it seems unlikely that we at EdLab—as products of the current educational system—can feasibly do so. Why exactly? Because it would be too hard for us to participate in the midwifery of this new sector: pay cuts, lay-offs, new (possibly lower, or non-existant) educational standards, and so on.

Sound bad? It sounded even more bleak when he said it in front of a Keynote deck that juxtaposed glamourous visions of childhood with the realities of work at Foxconn. . .

But I don’t really follow his line of thinking all the way down that bleak path, and I’m particularly skeptical about two of his basic assumptions (and let me acknowledge that it’s easy to be skeptical—it’s hard to be the one in front of the room).

Assumption #1: We currently prioritize uniformity as an educational outcome.

Well. . . I guess so, but it seems like uniformity is just one of many outcomes of the current educational system. I agree we value it, as it seems integral to a democratic ideal of equal opportunity, so it’s hard to imagine a successful democracy without a shared sense of history, science, culture, etc. Perhaps Gary’s view of education can aptly be described as post-democratic.

Assumption #2: The expense of the current educational system makes it unsustainable.

I don’t know enough about economic principles to mount a compelling counterargument, but what the heck, it’s a blog, right? I don’t buy it, and here’s why: Somewhere there must be a principle of modern capitalism about potential and purpose of “creating new markets,” and the point must be that when everything is accounted for, there is a huge surplus of labor in the world. That is, the amenities of capital-generating activities seem to be diverse enough to support a virtuous circle of labor. (Sure wealth is distributed unequally, but hey, a lot of people are willing to work to afford the data plan on their iPhone.)

Why should this come to an end? And why shouldn’t education—even in its increasingly expensive forms—partake in this economy? My response to Gary is that the current education is sustainable. But I wouldn’t want to suggest that it’s deeply democratic. In terms of the cost of education, I think the education sector is already incredibly diverse (though we don’t like to admit it)—if only because education is so unevenly applied (note: additional skepticism about uniformity). So it’s going to become more interestingly diverse as different types of education are increasingly acknowledged as legitimate. In this way, I think Gary’s view is overly pessimistic about future economic conditions.

Conclusions

When I reflect on where my views intersect with Gary’s, I’m confronted by a surprisingly optimistic view of education. It’s a view that counterbalances the news cycle—how putting iPads in kid’s hands is going to empower them and “save schools”—and affords us a different, more democratic space to work (at EdLab, and similar do-tanks). Yes, it’s a technology-rich space, but that’s not the point. Our goal is to locate or create cheap tools that give more learners access to key knowledge. It’s not about the best education. It’s probably not even good yet. But it’s getting better, and more real every day.

Further Questions. . .

  • Isn’t the Internet itself enough? It’s cheap, and it provides key knowledge! But let’s make it even better. . .
  • Can or should educational organizations compete with no-cost, advertising-driven technologies?
  • Can or will the anti-democratic effects of high-cost education ever be overcome through other social means?

Two More Years of Library’s Scholars’ Lab

Posted on by Brian Hughes

Mellon Grant Extension Boosts Digital Humanities Graduate Training Program.

It’s always interesting to see the funding trends in the area of the “digital humanities.” In this case, the buzz is about UVA’s “Library’s Scholars’ Lab” getting additional grant funding. Here’s an additional note on where the money’s going:

The Mellon funding will also allow the Scholarly Communications Institute to conduct a broad survey of humanities scholars who self-identify as working in alternative academic careers, or jobs that require advanced degrees and scholarly skills, but aren’t necessarily on the traditional faculty tenure track.

Nice work Clioweb!

A Service Design Opportunity

Posted on by Brian Hughes

I just participated in a two day workshop run by Engine, a UK design group that focuses on applying diverse design processes to designing customer-oriented services. The workshop focused on designing services that are complex by nature, usually involving “four P’s”: People, Places, Processes, and Products (not to be confused with the four P’s of marketing). My goal was to better understand the work we can do to deliver amazing services at the Gottesman Libraries and EdLab.

Joining me were leaders and designers from large and small companies, across many industries. Engine staff presented several very interesting cases (examples from their portfolio) that involved many design methods – methods that are often located within the double diamond design process framework. Learning about their process allowed me to reflect extensively on EdLab’s home-grown CSG process, and how we could modify them for service design (or adopt entirely new practices).

A Library Example

Involving a whole organization in designing (and redesigning) services is becoming increasingly popular in large organizations with ambitious agendas — and service design is quickly being recognized as a distinct design specialty. To share the kind of processes I was exposed to over the past two days, here is a very broad sketch of a possible design scenario library staff could host at Teachers College.

Exploration Phase (Phase 1):

The Opportunity Statement:

To kick off a service design process, an organization must agree on a problem to work on. Short of this, here’s a general opportunity to consider here: What signature service can we add to the library?

Goal Planning:

Let’s try to go from brainstorming to piloting a prototype in three phases over three months.

Elements of Stakeholder Event (Event 1):

  • Get everyone who will be working on the project (including TCstudents, library staff and the Provost or a representative from his office) together to better understand the opportunity and goals.
  • Share an existing case study that relates to a similar institution.
  • Review background materials.
  • Share a “blueprint” of the whole service design process that guides the three-month-long project.

Post event:

  • Invite participants to review background research and share perspectives.
  • Share a short video that captures the activities of the first event (this can be public).
  • Share a written “design brief” that captures the activities of the first event (this can be public).

Insight Phase (Phase 2):

Elements of Stakeholder Event (Event 2):

  • Use “Personas” and service scenarios to develop a shared understanding of opportunities. Be ambitious.
  • Generate ideas for new services and related design solutions (how services will be implemented, delivered, maintained, and refined) to prototype.
  • Use a “service principles” framework to focus on a particular opportunity to focus on.

Post event:

  • Create PX (patron experience) teams to carry out several kinds of design research.
  • Report back to the larger group with outcomes from the research.
  • Share a short video that captures the activities of the first event (this can be public). Capture interviews with participants.
  • Share a written “design brief” that captures the activities of the first event (this can be public).

Prototyping Phase (Phase 3):

Elements of a Stakeholder Event (Event 3):

  • Generate a final set of possible services around the service opportunity (from Stakeholder Event 2), and narrow to a single service.
  • Develop a set of elements of the service from both the patron perspective and the organizational perceptive.
  • Develop a recommended “service blueprint” that responds to the findings from the design research (a condensed list). The blueprint explains the service from both the patron and staff perspectives.

Post event:

  • Make final adjustments to scale and scope of the service.
  • Refine and adapt the service blueprint to serve as a training resource for staff.
  • Share a short video that captures the activities of the first event (this can be public). Capture interviews with participants.
  • Share a written “design brief” that captures the activities of the first event (this can be public).

Implementation:

  • Iterate a version of the service and try it.
  • Collect feedback on the service.
  • Share feedback with the Stakeholders, and explore next steps.

Final Thoughts

Yes, the Services Design process is a humble one. But if it’s done well, it has the potential to improve an organization’s services at multiple points over time. As a process, it’s infused with the ethos of transparency and co-creation – inviting patrons to be part of the library’s process of developing and refining services. Due to the total cost of the process, however, it should not be used to tackle small issues. That is, it’s not meant to overcome the usual challenges of bureaucracy and resource limitations. It’s meant to open up new opportunities that have the potential to expand an organization (as well as positively impact its current culture).

Apologies for cross-posting this example on the EdLab blog.

First Day with Engine

Posted on by Brian Hughes

I just finished my first day of a 2-day “Service Design Workshop” run by Engine – a design group that focuses on service design. What is service design? It’s pretty much as simple as it sounds, design processes applied to designing services. Of course, there’s the challenge: services are complex by nature, involving “four P’s”: People, Places, Processes, and Products (not to be confused with the four P’s of marketing). And watch out for wicked problems.

I’m participating in this workshop to better understand the work EdLab can do to deliver amazing services throughout our organization. I’m joined by designers from large and small companies, across many industries. Today we learned about some very interesting methods and cases. For example: the double diamond design process. I’ve been reflecting on our own home-grown CSG processes, and how we modify them especially for service design.

There have been some interesting discussions of how to involve both key stakeholders and customers throughout various stages of a design process – and the challenges and opportunities at stake.

Drawing and an Argument for its Autonomy

Posted on by Brian Hughes

Should the ability to draw be seen as a literacy? Is it sensible to characterize the act of drawing as the reduction of  multi- dimensional events to readable two-dimensional imagery?

Last Thursday I was lucky to attend a lecture and conversation by Professors Stephen Farthing and Simon Betts on “The Bigger Picture of Drawing: A New Curriculum a New Pedagogy” at the Macy Gallery at Teachers College. From the gallery website:

Visiting professors Farthing and Betts will speak about the bigger picture of drawing, and their new UK high school drawing qualifications and Masters course. They will discuss together the implications these courses have on pedagogy and student learning.

The generally spoke of the value of drawing, and offered a vast definition of drawing –  taking stock of drawing in diverse places and cultures to make their case, such as the example of the Maori tattoos.

Response

What stood out to me is how their argument in favor of drawing literacy at least partly seems to be driven by the belief that drawing should be understood as not only a “literacy,” but as a distinct practice (understood as theorists Michael Walzer and Alasdair MacIntyre would have us understand “social practices” as distinct contexts of meaning and truth) within the broader domain of the visual arts.

Should drawing be seen this way? It would follow that drawing would have more autonomous value – a different value from other art practices and other cultural activity. This line of reasoning seems appealing, especially in light of a pervasive condition described by an audience member – the familiar observation that “all children begin by loving drawing, and most learn to believe they are not ‘good at it’ by the time they are in middle school.” (TC professor Judy Burton traced this experience back to drawing being “taught as a technical skill.”) Let’s take a closer look.

It seems to me that Farthing and Betts are proposing shoring up such autonomy with a weak and strong definition of drawing – locating it both within other domains (examples offered ranged from the obvious (architecture) to the more obscure (financial planning and social greeting)), and as the center of its own domain (and hence a full-featured practice). Unfortunately, if we look at the kinds of cultural institutions that other Practices rely on to maintain autonomy, it seems like a difficult road ahead: the autonomy of legal practice, for example, is supported by vast professional organizations, educational norms, social networks, and physical infrastructure. A larger question that emerges (for me, at least): Can school and the academy really be the epicenter of a cultural practice? With the worry that students lose interest in drawing because they “can’t do it” in mind, it seems overly hopeful that the problem can be corrected by, in, and primarily through an educational context. Are Farthing and Betts really proposing something more? Would they be comfortable with a primetime television show “American Drawer” or celebrity draw-offs? Or ultimately is a different direction such as shoring up the autonomy of “the visual arts” or “visual culture” preferable?

I’m not sure. As a serious (if former) student of drawing, I would first like to believe that there need be no serious and sustained theoretical argument to secure a space for drawing within public education. But as they say, times are tough. Granting that we need such an argument, it then pains me that it must be so far-reaching as to rest on shifting claims (between a weak and strong definition) about its foundation and, therefore, value. As much as it pains me to admit, I think we might be better off hitching drawing’s presence in education to existing arguments about the visual arts (as a broader category of artistic practice) – arguments that could benefit from diverse examples of the important impact of drawing on culture and, at an importantly small scale, human well-being. I suspect Farthing and Betts are sympathetic to this approach, but their presentation needs some retooling to better position the distinctive nature, impact, and promise of drawing.

On the other hand, what about a t-shirt service? Submit a drawing and get it put on a shirt! Maybe there could also be a cross-funding opportunity to an important humanitarian cause (think no further than what the color pink currently represents) combined with something about the identity of the drawer that reinforces a cross-domain basis of expertise and utility . . .

Miscellany

As for the issue of students’ “losing faith” in their own ability to draw, I wonder: Is formal instruction the dominant cause of people losing interest (and/or confidence) in drawing? What else might be a part of this attitude shift?

On the distinction between craft and art, Dean Betts claimed “[craft] doesn’t have within it the key to make sense of it?” This seems far-reaching and, for me at least, demonstrated the weakness of a simple dichotomy between art and craft. It’s an interested thought experiment: Does art really always carry its own “key?”