The Ed Techie

Online rep manager = American cheese loaf

This is all the way wrong...

<Image http://www.flickr.com/photos/wordridden/205945730/>

John Naughton pointed me at this article in Nature about academics managing their online reputation. In a loose sense we all manage our identities, particularly online where it has the possibility of going beyond the current context. But the tale of people employing online reputation management companies made me sigh/smile/rant in equal measure (not a pretty facial contorsion I can tell you).

If you need to _employ_ a company to manage your online identity then you really haven't grasped it at all. It is exactly about connecting with you, and not some media company. Rather like 'white pop reggae' and 'American cheese loaf', 'online reputation management' are three words you never want to see used together. 

On the plus side I thought it demonstrated a good case for why academics should engage in social media sooner, rather than later. If you have established a good online network already then people may be more forgiving of an indescretion. It will depend on what it is, for example if I was found guilty of torturing puppies, I wouldn't get much sympathy, but maybe if it was revealed that I had bought my PhD with tokens from cereal packets then that doesn't really impact on any value I may have provided online (I didn't - it was tokens from biscuits). In social media you establish your own currency and value, and that is hard to fake or buy, so people will value that, or at least weight it against, other reputation damage.

 

Social networks and education

(This is a bit of blog tidying, and trying to make sure I gather my publications through my blog, but it's a good read, honest).

I mentioned a while back that I edited a special edition of RUSC with George Siemens, on the use of social networks in education. We wrote an introductory piece, which can be found here.

Abstract:

The last decade has produced tremendous innovation in how people connect with one another online. Social networks have experienced a rapid increase in popularity, producing both concerns (privacy, content ownership) and opportunities. The articles in this journal can be viewed as attempts to answer the question: What should educators do about social networks?

 

Ed tech & the new academic reality

In my last post I tried to set out some new(ish) realities for academics in the UK. In this post I want to think about what these might mean for educational technology. I am not going to discuss the broader implications for higher education and research as a whole, as there has been lots written about that. Again, I am going to attempt a neutral tone, my aim in this post is not to bemoan the state of affairs (I do that enough in other posts), but to think through what it means to operate in this context.

So in terms of ed tech, here are some thoughts:

Less time for play - if greater accountability is key, and there is a focus on cost and return, then exploring technology is likely to need greater justification. That isn't to say it will be cut (see next point, it may even increase), but rather that it will need to be set out in clear terms. So for example, taking some study time to develop a blog will be justified because once established it will eliminate the need to conduct face to face update briefings, or it will meet the public engagement profile of a unit. But exploring technology with no direct, or clear goal, is likely to be frowned upon.

Technology as efficiency driver - one of the strong justifications for the adoption of technology is likely to be around efficiency. When a case can be made that adoption of technology will lead to greater efficiency, then it is likely to meet with approval. This can be fairly cynical, but it may also be fruitful, for example if learning analytics leads to intervention which helps keep a student on a course then it's beneficial for both the university and the student.

Technology to replace campus expansion - in DIY-U Anya Kamanetz sets out a good case of how tuition fees have increased to rise in the US, often to fund the building of more extravagent campus facilities to attract more students. A kind of arms race has been created, except with sports facilities and cafeterias instead of nuclear weapons. A possible impact of the new academic context is that the online status, reputation and facilities of a university become significant, particularly as estate enhancement becomes prohibitively expensive. This may not mean building your own social platform, but it may mean making sure you have a good Facebook presence with people monitoring it, have actively engaged online academic staff, create online content for people other than students, etc.

Interest in cheap or free technology - higher education has often set about creating its own versions of technology, or buying in enterprise versions to be run in-house. As course and IT budgets get slashed, then encouraging staff to adopt existing third party tools is likely to be seen as a means of keeping courses vibrant.

Research as hobby - I've argued elsewhere that the granularity of research can be seen to be shifting. As data becomes open, free tools become available and dissemination routes democratised, much of the research that used to require a project fund can be performed by the individual now. As more of the day job focuses on managed work, academics will find the type of online environment the best place to conduct their discourse and research, extending into their personal lives.

Rise of online versions - it is likely that online conferences, remote participation, virtual project meetings, online open journals, etc all become more prevalent as the costs associated with travel, time away, and physical artefacts place pressure on the traditional formats.

Increased significance of online identity - if academics are travelling to fewer conferences, and doing less of the general scholarly activity that brings them into contact with others in their field, then establishing an online identity and cultivating an online network of peers will become increasingly significant. This will be if not the main route, then a very significant one, through which they share ideas, find collaborators for research projects, and establish reputation in their field. This may link back to the efficiency argument.

Lack of new blood & reliance on outsourcing - the increasingly commercial-like atmosphere in higher education may mean that many smart young people (particularly in the ed tech area) who might have come into higher ed because of the freedom it offers will go into industry, perhaps in start-ups that offer services to higher ed. This may result in a skill gap between higher ed and industry in the use and development of new technology.

So these are both the challenges and opportunities for educational technology in our new context, as I see them. I'm sure I've missed some, so let me have it...

The new academic context

<Image http://www.flickr.com/photos/nualabugeye/2636448990/>

My starting point for this post is that the financial crisis and changes in funding are going to radically alter the higher education environment within the UK. In this post I want to set out the context within which academics will have to work from now on.

There are two things to point out: the current climate may see these changes become a reality, but they are also the culmination of a number of trends that have been occurring over the past twenty years or so; I want to set out the new context in an objective manner, and to avoid ascribing value to these changes. This is the way I think it will be, for good or ill. In the next post I'll try and explore the implications of these changes from an ed tech perspective.

The following list is based on watching discussions in the mainstream media, blog posts, twitter conversations and my own work. It could be I'm wrong about these, or indeed for many people they have been the reality for a long time anyway, but I feel it's worth setting them out to get a clear picture of the environment which we will need to operate within.

Greater accountability - this is really the over-arching one. When academics are largely being funded by students debt, and when universities have to cope with smaller budgets, then they academic activity needs to be accounted for and linked to some funding.

Funded research only - following on from the above research activity is likely to be on allocated, externally funded (or internal strategic) projects only. Time for individual, autonomous research that is not directly funded or related to teaching will largely disappear.

Limited general scholarly activity - there is a form of unwritten agreement of reciprocal activity in higher education that is largely uncosted. Reviewing articles, examining students, giving presentations, giving feedback on project proposals - all of these are essential for the functioning of the current system. But they are not evenly distributed and some people can find themselves in almost constant demand from other institutions. While a certain level of this activity will be permitted, and encouraged even, my guess is that it will be limited, as universities come to view every day an individual is doing a staff development talk at another uni as one where they are paying their salary and getting no direct return.

Cost as primary deciding factor - this is one that has definitely been around for a while but is likely to reach its apotheosis now. Cost has always been one of a number of factors to consider, for example when putting on a new course or conducting some research. Other factors such as academic credibility, long term potential, variation in offering and academic freedom have also come into the mix. Increasingly only proposals that demonstrate a reasonable return on investment will be countenanced.

Institutional focus - 30 years or so ago it was possible to view the function of universities as employing academics. Smart people needed a job, but they were pretty much left to their own devices, researching what they wanted, teaching occasionally and often being absent from their institution for long periods. Their affiliation could be seen as being to their discipline. This has been changing for a long time (and was never true for all academics anyway) and we will now see a much closer alliance to the host institution. 

As I mentioned, these have been trends over recent years anyway, and what we will see now is their culmination. It is also the case that there will be some variation between universities and individuals as to the degree to which they are experienced, but in general this is the context within which academics will operate. In the next post I'll explore what this means from an educational technology perspective.

Why don't academic authors self-publish?

<Photo by MonsierLui http://www.flickr.com/photos/monsieurlui/316350341/>

I got an invite from Frank Rennie the other week to contribute a chapter to a book he is thinking of putting together around the subject of the mismatch (or distance) between academic thinking and the potential of new tools. Frank is a big fan of the self-publish sites and has suggested we eschew an academic publisher, and just publish ourselves via Lulu or Blurb.

This got me thinking as to why more academics don't do this, and still chase the book contract. It certainly isn't for the money, so it must be for the prestige. This can be broken down into personal and external I think. There is the personal prestige one feels in having a book accepted by a publisher and going through the actual process. One feels like a proper author. There are some practical advantages also - real deadlines to keep you motivated, professional copyediting and some promotion. But these practical advantages are often over-played, for example, as an author you have to suggest most of the avenues for publicity.

The external prestige is probably the greatest factor. This is strongly reinforced in the UK by the REF, which wouldn't really consider a self-published book, but also by promotion committees and just general esteem amongst colleagues. Self-publishing is seen as rather sordid and the last recourse for the demented author who couldn't get published anywhere else. It tended to smack of desperation somewhat. But that clearly isn't the case anymore (if it ever was), with the news that author Barry Eisler turned down a $500K contract to self-publish. Going it alone is seen as a sensible option.

Academic authors are not in the same position as Eisler, but they never were anyway. The return on most academic books won't buy you a yacht cap, let alone a yacht. But increasingly academics are developing what we might nauseatingly refer to as personal brand. That is they carry sufficient credibility and connections within their own networks to make self-publishing as viable as traditional publishing in terms of generating interest. Add to that they can be in charge of rights and make their books open access. So the question then is what is the aim of academic publishing? Is it to be as widely read as possible or to generate items for your CV?

So why did I go with a publisher? Well, they are doing open access so maybe, you can have a bit of both. And I don't think I've quite shaken that prestige thing.

A Couros birthday and user generated content

I'm sure many of you will have seen this, but it's worth showing again. Below is a video that Dean Shareski compiled for blogger Alec Couros's 40th Birthday (Dean describes the process here).

 

It's fun and heartwarming, but it's also a great example to show people about the power of the network. As I understand it someone suggested the idea on twitter, Dean then put together a Google Doc with the lyrics and contacted people in Alec's network to assign them lines. They then uploaded or emailed him the video clips, which he then compiled together.

Here's why I think it's interesting, beyond it being for Alec who's a great guy and featuring some of my favourite online people.

• It illustrates Clay Shirky's point about the cost of organisation collapsing. I'm sure it involved a good deal of effort on Dean's part to organise and compile, but imagine the effort it would have taken in a non-socially networked world.
• It demonstrates the reciprocity economy. Why did all these people contribute, many of whom (I'm guessing) Alec hasn't even met? Because he shares a lot of resources online, responds to people and is seen as a valuable member of many people's network. This was a way of saying thankyou.
• It shows the ease of production. As well as organisation being easy, this demonstrates how the production of multi-media artefacts is truly democratised now.
• YouTube isn't television. One of the complaints people such as Andrew Keen make about web 2.0 is that it's not professional. That isn't the point, this would never exist in a professional context, and yet it works very well as a piece of YouTube content.
• You can't predict what is learning content. This is part of my problem with OERs, they seem to predetermine what learning will take place. I have made many of the points above in various places, but I wouldn't have said 'what I need is a birthday video to demonstrate these'. 

Speaking of using the video to demonstrate points, I was part of the OU's annual LearnAbout Fair the other week, which is a well organised internal event, where people host different stalls demonstrating projects or technology. I was on the 'User generated content' stall, and put together a bunch of examples in a wiki, including Alec's birthday vid. I think people did really get it through these examples, perhaps more so than with the standard ones of Wikipedia, etc. Oh, and a belated happy 40th Alec.

A marathon not a sprint

So, yesterday, after talking about it for a few years, I finally got around to doing a marathon, over in Llanelli. It was a warm day, along the coastal path, with only about 600 runners. I've been following a training plan since the beginning of the year, so was reasonably confident.

I was aiming for a 4 hour finish, and was on target for this until mile 17 when I hit a bit of a psychological as well as physical wall. The route is two loops of a figure of eight and this was the furthest point out, and suddenly, the thought of having to come back all the way round again seemed too much, and before I knew it I was walking. I had to abandon my target then and refocus on simply finishing, and allowed my pace to drop significantly. I finished in 4 hours 11 minutes in the end.

It is customary for me to make some tenuous connection to learning when I do running posts, by way of allowing myself the indulgence on an ed tech blog of boring everyone with running. But it's not that difficult to make, and the following were all genuine thoughts that occurred to me yesterday:

1) You can make it achievable and manageable, but you can never make it easy. Even if you have the best trainer in the world, and support teams, dieticians, and the ability to give up work and train full time, you, and only you, still have to do it. Privilege or money may gain you some advantage but ultimately it comes down to individuals. 

2) It's worth doing because it is tough. Related to the above point, if you could make it easy, there would be no point. There were a couple of times when I was running on my own and could easily have taken a shortcut where the route doubled back on itself, but really, what would be the point?

3) The long haul is rewarding. I've done lots of shorter races, but doing a long distance has a different aspect to it. As we move to increasingly shorter chunks of learning, it's worth remembering that prolonged endurance has its own qualities.

4) Experience pays off. I was struck by how many elderly runners finished ahead of me, and how many younger runners were behind. A lot of the veterans had a pace they stuck to, and they had the reassurance of knowing they can do this distance. 

5) Never say never. I have already begun to experience 'forgetting the pain of childbirth' syndrome, as when I finished I vowed never to do another one, and I'm already thinking 'perhaps if I planned it differently next time'. You will hear many people who complete a study programme say the same.

6) Formal structure is essential for motivation. If something is tough then you really need to be forced to do it. I could have just run my own marathon, so why pay to go to an event? Because it is a definite goal that becomes difficult to justify giving up on. For all the wonders of informal, DIY learning, the formal course provides this same legitimising and motivating structure.

7) Social pressure is also a strong completion factor. I told everyone, plus I had very generous sponsorship from a wide range of people, so I had a strong social element to keep going (a very big thankyou to all those who sponsored me). This was particularly useful in training, when the question of 'why am I doing this?' came to me more than once. In education then establishing these social connections for students (eg through Facebook) is more than a nice to have but a key factor in success.

8) Within the same framework there is a lot of variation. Everyone is doing the same basic thing - running 26.2 miles but the variety of strategies and styles is fascinating. Some people run in pairs, others walk every 5 miles, some have music, some have a shuffling gait, others long bounding strides. This probably says something about not being too restrictive, and providing a general structure within which there is room for individuality.

9) You get to drink guilt-free beer afterwards.

A quick and dirty REF

I am currently engaged with working on the REF submission for my Institute. I fully understand why we do this, in cash strapped time in particular, research money will make a big difference. It is also almost impossible not to play the game if you want to be recognised as a research institution and attract staff.

But it is a horrible, pernicious process that seems deliberately designed to kill innovation, perpetuate existing models, waste time, focus energy on gaming the system and keep publishers happy. If you wanted to design a process with the sole aim of restricting the adoption of new methods and technology, then you could do a lot worse that the REF.

Not every country has an equivalent of the REF, so we shouldn't view it as a necessary evil. But, let's say that for whatever reason, something like it is going to persist. Two questions then arise: can it be better and can it be easier?

I'm not going to answer the first of these questions. It would take too long, and I've covered it lots of times before. But in a conversation with Tony the other day we pondered how the REF might be made easier and a hell of a lot cheaper. The total (estimated) cost of the 2008 RAE in England was £56.7 million, which compares with the £1.5 billion of QR research funding. They estimate costs for the REF will be similar. My guess is this figure is low, and may not take into account all of the meeting and individual time associated with the process, and probably not opportunity costs also. In a review of the 2001 RAE, for more teaching oriented institutions it was found that the "RAE is over 16 times less efficient than the norm". I don't think the REF can be argued to be more efficient as it largely follows the same methodology.

So here is my (well Tony's mainly) proposal for a quick and dirty REF:

• Research councils monitor where money goes and evaluate research projects
• Publishers have databases of authors and citations

The REF then centrally datawarehouses these sources, adds in various weighting factors, creating a score for individuals, which is aggregated for the institution to give their REF evaluation (maybe by subject or maybe across a whole institution).

It uses proxies for research quality, and is focused on research funding and formal publications, but hey, so is the current REF. If we're going to be forced to play that game, then couldn't we at least do it in an efficient manner? It would at least free up a lot of time to you know, actually do research.

It would at least be worth doing a pilot based on this to see how far it differs from the very labour intensive system we have currently, don't you think?

 

Digital Scholarship - the DJ set

I have a vague idea of maybe one day doing a keynote as a DJ set (I think Brian Lamb did this once), but of course, I have never done a DJ set, and it would be a painful affair. So in lieu of that, I decided to create a DJ set to accompany my book. I used Soundcloud, to produce the set below. Lots of tracks were disallowed because they had restricted rights, so my 30 odd track set came down to 12. I've added in a little explanation in between. My mic started dodgy and then packed up altogether, so the quality of these (both in technical and content terms) isn't great, and I don't think I have a career as a late night DJ in the offing, but you get the point. All the songs seem to have been truncated at 3 minutes too, so it's not ideal. 

Of course, the main point is not the content of the set, but the existence of the set itself. I mentioned previously about the boundaries of the book being blurred and this is a further example. I can create a DJ set and share it globally, to accompany a book (about digital scholarship for chrissakes, hardly the funkiest subject!). I mean, come on, that is kinda cool isn't it?

Anyway, I hope you enjoy it, I'll maybe try and find an alternative means of doing it later and get a better mic. Look upon this as a first draft. Maybe a DS106radio set beckons...

 

Digital Scholarship by mweller

Job selection and the paradox of choice

<Image by Ted Percival http://www.flickr.com/photos/tedpercival/3115404982/>

I read Barry Schwartz's The Paradox of Choice recently (after Erik Duval recommended it). The title kind of tells you all you need to know, but his basic argument is that, contrary to what we might think, greater choice isn't always a good thing. As we get more and more choice, we become either paralysed by the possibility of making the wrong choice, or we revert to standard, old practice, ignoring the choice we have.

This came to mind recently when both selecting people for a job interview and talking to someone else who was trying to shortlist. The 'problem' is that in times of financial hardship you get a lot of applicants for every job. In order then to shortlist and also to meet regulations on fair selection, you need to apply a score to the job criteria. With so many applicants, you are effectively looking for reasons to reject, not to include. For example if you have 100 applicants for a post, you can only interview 6 maybe in a day. That's a 94% rejection rate you need to get to in order to progress. 

So, what happens is that you reject people who don't get a perfect score on every criteria. This may mean you get an excellent candidate. But compare what would happen if you only had 20 applicants, say. There you might reject half of them as not having the right skills, but the remaining 10 you would whittle down by looking for who was possible to include. This means you may include people who look interesting, for example, but who haven't quite got the appropriate experience or not exactly the right skills.

The danger of the paradox of choice in job selection is that it essentially narrows your field. You inevitably end of selecting people who are like existing members of staff, because they will most readily meet the criteria. In the long term this may be harmful to the diversity within an organisation. You don't even get to interview people who might be interesting, and offer some alternative views. It might also be harmful for a society going through an economic crisis, because people find it difficult to switch between careers as their experience will not be as readily matched to the criteria.

I know that people can make a case for equivalent experience, but the combination of dealing with an excess of applicants, fair selection criteria and the paradox of choice, almost inevitably leads to the end result of employers getting a narrower range of candidates, not a wider one.  

I'm not sure anything can be done about this, I'm not blaming anyone, rather highlighting how this combination of effects may conspire against the long term goals of an organisation.