Bursting out of the ‘ed-tech’ bubble

Academics working in the field of educational technology tend to think very carefully about what they say. However, far less thought is usually given to where and to whom they are saying it. As a result, the topics of ‘ed-tech’ and ‘ed-media’ tend to be disseminated and discussed within limited circles, with many academics content to publish in specialist journals (such as this one), attend specialist conferences, and interact within specialist networks. Even by the cliquey norms of general academic practice, educational technology remains an especially inward-looking and self-referential field of study. Of course, if the main aim of academic endeavour was to talk only with like-minded peers, then these separatist tendencies would be of little concern. Yet, if the work that takes place within our field is to have a genuine influence on the wider world, then there is a clear imperative for everyone working in educational technology to change their ways – not least to make a conscious effort to move beyond the ‘ed-tech bubble’ that many of us seem to operate within.

This is by no means an easy task. In keeping with the general tendency of academics to seek refuge in exclusive ‘tribes,’ educational technologists have proved adept at keeping themselves far apart from other academics as well as from their wider ‘publics.’ If anything, this segregation has deepened with the growth of social media, with groups of educational technologists now devoting substantial amounts of time and energy to talking with each other (or perhaps more accurately talking at each other) through numerous online forums, blogs and Twitter feeds. While a healthy level of intra-disciplinary exchange is not a problem in itself, educational technology certainly suffers from a lack of rigorous and sustained inter-disciplinary exchange. For the most part, then, this is an area of academia that appears increasingly to be talking to itself and no-one else.

The limitations of such solipsism have been certainly evident in recent academic enthusiasms for the educational benefits of social media. Anyone moving in ed-tech circles could be forgiven for assuming that education is now based predominantly around the use of social media – with swathes of students, teachers and institutions apparently in thrall to the benefits of wikis, blogs, social networks and so on. Of course, this hyperbole is not reflected in the realities of most educational contexts (see, for example, Crook 2012). So, why then are many supposed academic ‘experts’ seemingly so out of touch with the realities of social media use ‘on the ground?’

Undoubtedly, a major contributing factor to this particular gap between rhetoric and reality is the fact that many of the discussions taking place within the educational technology community about social media are actually being conducted through social media. As such, many academics are in the distorted position of having formed opinions of social media mainly through their own personal uses of it. For instance, much of the enthusiasm throughout the 2000s for blogging in education stemmed notably from educational bloggers writing entries on educational blogs about the benefits of educational blogging. That these debates were rarely heard (and rarely taken seriously) outside of the educational ‘blogosphere’ is perhaps not surprising. Yet, the limited actual use of blogs in educational settings was all too easy to lose sight of amidst the ‘echo chamber’ effect that derived from the small but frenetic community of educational bloggers noisily preaching what they practiced.

This, then, is what I mean by the ‘ed-tech bubble’ – the skewed self-referential world-view that many educational technology academics have of the relationship between technology and education. This is, of course, not a situation that is unique to the field of educational technology. Indeed, technology in general is an area of discussion that is dominated by elite classes of ‘over-engaged intellectuals,’ who benefit greatly from their privileged experiences of the digital environment to the extent that they are unable to comprehend the rather less-empowered experiences of the masses of ‘ordinary’ technology consumers (Morozov 2011). Yet, rather than seeing this as a problem, my suspicion is that many academic educational technologists are inwardly rather happy to perpetuate the situation of being ‘technologically distinct’ from the majority of other people. Indeed, I have long felt that some educational technologists are eager to perpetuate a ‘them’ and ‘us’ mentality – positioning themselves in outsider roles of being all-knowing mavericks who somehow ‘get’ technology in sophisticated ways that the masses do not.

Regardless of how justified it may be, any sense of ‘high-tech’ superiority on the part of educational technology scholars will do little to help the educational promise of digital technology be realised. Indeed, if digital media and technology are as potentially significant for education as so many people working in the field would have us believe, then the work of academic writers and researchers needs to be as inclusive and engaging as possible. As such, we cannot assume that educational technology is an area of public debate that will come to popular prominence simply because of its inherent importance. Instead, educational technologists need to work hard to attract the attention of the majority of non-specialists and non-experts, rather than waiting for the general population to somehow ‘see the light’ and recognise the inherent importance of the work that they do. In short, if academic writers and researchers working in the area of educational technology wish to make a meaningful contribution to the real world (as opposed to the academic world), then they need to become far more public-facing and publicity-minded than is presently the case.

Of course, this raises important questions of what more ‘public’ forms of educational technology scholarship might look like. Here, it is perhaps useful to refer to recent discussions within other areas of the social sciences about the use of academic work to support public participation and engagement. In particular, much can be taken from the continued interest in the development of ‘public sociology,’ – i.e. academic work that moves away ‘from interpretation to engagement, from theory to practice, from the academy to its publics’ (Burawoy 2005, 324). When approached in these terms, then there are a number of ways in which writing and research in the field of educational technology could cross the boundary between academic work and public engagement, and therefore become more publically facing and ‘deliberative’ in character (Evans and Kotchetkova 2009).

As we progress into the 2010s, our field therefore needs to address seriously how it can become of increased public significance and use. What scope is there for educational technology scholars to engage in critical forms of public scholarship that provide ‘a disruptive but necessary voice in democratic debate’ (Lauder, Brown, and Halsey 2009, 580)? How could a dynamic and critical ‘public understanding of educational technology’ be stimulated and supported? What potential exists, for example, for academic work that involves the evaluation of public engagement events, citizen juries, consensus conferences, deliberative workshops, deliberative mapping and public debates? Perhaps most importantly, where are the public intellectuals speaking on behalf of educational in popular and political circles? Where are the charismatic activist spokespeople who can do for educational technology what high-profile figures have done for the politicisation of other areas of education? Where are the ed-tech equivalents of Jamie Oliver fighting to raise public awareness of the major educational technology issues of the day?1

While meaningful forms of public engagement are undoubtedly difficult for academics to achieve in practice, the popularization and democratization of educational media and technology are important issues that need to be better foregrounded in future academic work. I am sure that most readers of Learning, Media and Technology would agree that educational technology and educational media are fields of obvious public significance. I am sure that most readers would also agree that it is crucial that the full range of perspectives, beliefs and values of those across all levels of society should be better involved in the development and implementation of educational technologies. While it may not always appear to be the case, academic writers and researchers can surely play important roles in achieving these aims. As such, everyone involved with this journal should be making renewed efforts to ensure that their academic endeavours are not only of professional and personal merits, but also of clear public significance.

Notes

Jamie Oliver is a UK chef and social entrepreneur well known for his public awareness campaigns in the UK, Australia and USA relating to the quality of school meals and public nutrition.