Technology and the articulation of vocational and academic interests: reflections on time, space and e-learning

Abstract

E-learning is commonly thought of as a means of overcoming the constraints of time and space: offering the possibilities of ‘anytime, anywhere’ learning. The argument in this paper is not intended to debunk this as a myth, but to examine some of the ways in which time and space are understood in relation to learning and e-learning. In the context of e-learning for continuing education time takes on a special value. Yet it is strangely under-examined in the literature of e-learning. The paper emphasizes two things: (i) that time and space are not containers for activity, but social constructs; (ii) the spatio-temporal simplifications to be found in the discourse and practice of e-learning are not neutral, benefiting some people and not others, obscuring as well as revealing choices. The same is true of the simplifications about learning and knowledgeable action in the workplace, so the paper also reflects upon some of the dominant simplifications about the relationships between knowledge and action in the academy and the workplace.

Notes

1. Some of the ideas in this paper were originally aired in a keynote address at the annual conference of the European Continuing Education Network (EUCEN), University of Bergen, Norway, 2000. Over time they have improved through interaction with a number of colleagues, co-present and at a distance. In particular, I would like to acknowledge Christine Smith (Steeples), Chris Jones, John Urry, Viv Hodgson, Dave McConnell, Mike Spector and the much-missed Dede Boden for knowingly and unknowingly shaping my thoughts, although it is possible that none of them would endorse any of the views I present. Time to write this article was part funded by grants from the University of Sydney and from the Australian Research Council (Grant number DP05 59282).

2. I use ‘knowledge practices’ to mean the ways in which people habitually work with knowledge.

3. Counter-examples are obvious: repetitive and time-critical tasks exist. They are not common and will become rarer.

4. One does not have to be a behaviourist to fret about the difficulty and importance of pinning down these supposed qualities. It is always worth asking ‘who makes the judgements?’, ‘whose interests are being served by these conceptions?’.

5. This is different from the conventional arguments about the return on investment (RoI) in a university education. A university degree is also used as a selection mechanism in an imperfect labour market; it has a value different from (and sometimes additional to) the capabilities acquired during study for the degree. Conventional calculations of the RoI conflate these two. The sustainability of this conflation, in the intensifying competition of a globalizing labour market, ought at least to be questioned.

6. A similar argument was made by Carl Bereiter (2002), talking about collaboration in the improvement of conceptual artefacts.

7. An example that will be familiar to most academics these days would be the detailed knowledge of an (invented, ephemeral but deeply powerful) University strategic plan, needed to make a successful case for a new position or research centre. Think also of corporate interpretations of competitor behaviour, budgets and forecasts.

8. This needs further analysis, but the fundamental point is that: (a) in the fluid, complex, multistranded and messy experience of existence we are capable of being conservative and revolutionary, wage slaves and visionaries, reflective and active, locals and cosmopolitans, etc.; (b) the breakdown of spatio-temporal separations between different ‘areas’ of our lives (work, home, family, community, sites for learning, etc.) makes it harder to sustain separate simplified versions of ourselves, each performed in a separate theatre for a separate audience. Not technology as such, but the changing practices (etc.) it enables, are key in this re-articulation of our ways of coming to know and acting knowledgeably.

9. For example, it is rare for a co-present group to be able to make efficient use of things they have constructed (privately or collectively) using IT. It is even rarer for a trace of the processes and semi-finished products of a co-present group to persist in a form accessible remotely/online.