Moving Break

Sorry about not posting the last few days.
I'm moving and have just now gotten internet again.
And am digging out from under a pile of boxes.
I hope to be back with a post in a few days.

Social capital in a Vision of the Knowledge Economy

Today I'm going to discuss a chapter written by Tom Schuller in the Book edited by Brian Kahin and Dominique Foray entitled:  Advancing Knowledge and the Knowledge Economy.  The book contains contributions from a variety of scholars who are mostly experts on the economics side of the KBE.  Frankly, as a non-economist, I don't understand everything in the book and cannot speak engagingly about the economic models.
However, this particular chapter entitled

Social Capital, Networks, and Communities of Knowledge

I found to be particularly interesting (and digestible for me! *grin*) because it presented an argument for the inclusion of social capital concepts in our understanding of networks of Knowledge construction.  I read into it a little bit deeper in that I suggest that Schuller is also giving light to a different way of thinking about the knowledge economy.  Whereas many would define the KBE along the lines of more knowledge, or more technology, or more trade in knowledge, each a rather linear plane of conceptualization, Schuller seems to have a more 3-D understanding of the KBE.  

  He begins by giving a brief introduction to social capital as it is understood by economist and the OECD in "the Well-Being of Nations" (2001, pl 41): 

“networks together with shared norms, values and understanding that facilitate cooperation within or among groups” (OECD 2001, p. 41)  

He then introduces the reader to Woolcock's (1998) distinction between Bonding Social Capital and Bridging Social Capital.  The former happens between relatively homogeneous groups such as professional bodies.  The latter bridges between such groups, integrating inter-disciplinarily.   He also discusses a distinction that Woolcock makes between bridging and linking SC, but it is mainly to identify that the distinction is not relevant for his discussion. 

Schuller posits that

• the value of bridging SC is  important because it allows for the flow of new ideas/expertise/opportunities in Knowledge creation/utilisation
• a successful dynamic between Bonding and Bridging SC will contribute to sustained Knowledge generation

He proposes that k is not just the accumulation of information and that the competencies required to generate knowledge exist in groups and networks. 


He now introduces what I am most interested in:  3 dimensions of knowledge:  

 

He presents us with a graphical depiction of these dimensions.  He labels the axes A, B, and C. 

A --> the accumulation of Knowledge (of all sorts)

B--> access to the knowledge (can be formal access such as open source or patents, or other forms such as having the skills required to interpret and utilize the knowledge)

C--> Cultural/organizational processes that govern validation of knowledge (how we ascribe confidence in the knowledge)

He doesn't explicitly go down this route, but it strikes me that this is an interesting way to see the KBE.  If we are in a KBE (and I reserve some questions about the degree to which the current economy is that different from other economies based on knowledge), then one way we can identify the ways in which the economy is (or is not) different is by looking at these 3 dimensions of knowledge and its impact on the economy.   Other writers tend toward descriptions of the KBE in terms of the plane A:  an increase in knowledge generation.  Some do introduce discussions within the plane B, but often that is relegated to the impact of ICTs [computers give people more access].  The third plane seems less obvious in the discourse about the KBE, but it strikes me as exceptionally important.  

Consider this:  if the amount of knowledge has risen to the degree that people suggest and if access through ICTs (and even the expansion of higher education) has increased, people are now faced with selection problems. Where should one look for the knowledge they need, and which knowledge should be trusted?  A simple example makes the point:  You are experiencing particularly physical symptoms that make you wonder if you have a disease.  You have a plethora of sources of knowledge to draw upon, not least of which is now a multitude of websites.  Where do you go for your information and who do you trust?  Companies face the same issues when they have access to so much information.  Whose market research? Whose material resource comparisons?    I saw this clearly when I worked in the pharmaceutical sales industry.  Doctors, in search of the best treatments for their patients can turn to journals, peers, websites, conferences, their own experiences, clinical trials, or sales representatives from the companies. 

I suggest that it is meaningless to talk about an increase in knowledge or an increase in access to knowledge as defining properties of a KBE if we do not at the same time address changes in the ways in which knowledge is validated and trusted.  A doctor or a business or a consumer can access a great deal of information on the Internet in their attempts to make decisions, however, if those sources are not trusted, if the ways of validating them have become difficult due to sheer growth in knowledge generation (e.g. how will peer review keep up?) then can we really speak of the increased size of the knowledge base as a driving force in the economy in the same way?  

The author admits that "this chapter has presented nothing in the way of empirical substance" but I do think that asserting the importance of validity of knowledge in the understanding of a KBE is valuable.  He does so by linking forms of social capital and opening discussion on how that contributes to knowledge generation through effective networking.

He concludes with 3 policy questions:


1. What factors (social and technological) have shaped the ways networks function?
2.  How can education promote participation in networks/communities of knowledge (including moral competence as well as technical)
3. How do the architectures of our educational institutions address access and validation demands of a KBE?

................................

I am currently reading a variety of diverse resources on the KBE as I prepare to write comprehensive exams.  So, in the next posts, you may find that my ruminations are eclectic and disconnected.  Feel free to challenge me on anything I post.  I would benefit from the critique.

                                                         

 

The Situation in a Nutshell

Contemporary discourse in LLL has shifted over the last 40 years from a humanistic orientation as exemplified by UNESCO to a more economistic orientation rooted in neoliberal and global corporate capitalist culture and promoted by such international organizations as the WB, OECD and EU. These orientations target different goals for LLL, contain different assumptions and construct reality in different ways. Academia has been critical of this shift: even antagonistic. Some of the key criticisms can be summarized in this way:

·         LLL is being associated with a narrow economic focus which ignores or minimizes social and political concerns;

·         It is associated with a constrained vision of education, learning, and the labour market.

·         Through the construction of specific subjectivities, it is implicated as a technology of governmentality whereby individuals are conditioned to be self-governing in the interests of the substructure;

·         It contributes to social division, exclusion and inequity;

·         It unfairly assigns burdens of responsibility and risk to the individual.

In spite of the critic, the economistic orientation is persistent and dominant.  Reasons suggested for its success include the fact that alternative humanistic orientations have been vague and impractical. Additionally, LLL acts as a strategy toward an end and not a policy open for questioning. Furthermore, it is rooted in a strongly constructed imaginary that is taken for granted.  Finally, but perhaps most importantly, it is promoted and supported by powerful international organizations and special interest groups such as the European Roundtable of Industrialists who represent the core substructure that controls the media, technology and capital that run through the superstructures and contribute to policy and practices that benefit the core.

Scholarly discourse has thus far focused on antagonistic critique. It identifies that conceptualizations of LLL other than the economistic exist, but it still has a tendency to construct a dichotomy of positions between the first and second generation conceptualizations. What it has so far inadequately done is engage productively with each conceptualization and explore ways in which an integrated approach to LLL can be conceived. I suggest that scholars must choose to abandon the conflicting dichotomy of economistic versus humanistic perspectives and learn to speak the language of the economists so that they can engage in productive explorations aimed at constructing an integrated vision of LLL. I further suggest that the state has a crucial (if not difficult) role in this process not only as structural and resource distributor, but also as facilitator and arbitrator.

Alternate Conceptualizations and the Role of the State and Academics

Today, I try to bring it all together and propose a possible direction.

            If LLL discourse represents and responds to an imaginary or simulacra of globalization and reality, then surely other conceptualizations are possible. Rubenson (2004) described a third orientation developing after 2000 in response to a growing acknowledgement of the dangers of a strong economistic orientation to LLL.  Rubenson calls this the soft economistic orientation. Whereas the first generation emphasized the role of civil society, and the second generation posited a strong role for the market, downplaying the state and almost neglecting civil society, the third generation is still rooted in market-objectives but it allows for more of a role for the state and civil society (NF, 2008).

A triadic nature of this kind is common in discussing conceptualizations of LLL.  Above, we consider the role of the state, the market and civil society. Schuetze (2008) spoke of three models of LLL: emancipatory, human capital, and mixed. Aspin (2007) speaks of personal, vocational and political learning. Biesta (2006) discusses economic, personal and democratic dimensions (N&F, 2008). Bagnall (2000) explores three programmatic purposes of LLL:  personal development; citizenship and democratic participation; and adaptive.

As the conflicting dominant and academic discourses reveal, LLL is an elusive and contested concept (Biesta, 2006; Rubenson, 2004; Wain, 2008). It is a “slippery signifier” and “semiotic banner behind which a range of differing groups and interests can happily march” (Usher and Edwards, 2007, p. 44). Whether discussing the goals or nature of, or the responsibility for LLL, stakeholders struggle to assert their own perspectives over others.  Some might call this a battle to be chief hegemon.  But Biesta (2006) reminds us that LLL is a multi-dimensional and composite concept. Differences in the discourses are simply shifts in priorities and foci among the possible.

It is for this reason this paper has avoided a more than cursory definition of LLL. To questions of the nature, goals and responsibilities in LLL, here are many answers.  Is it for upskilling or reskilling? Problems solving or soft-skills? Transferable skills or learning skills?  It is about creativity, motivation, or capacities.  Are we promoting competencies, codified or tacit knowledge; know-how or know-that?  Should learners learn to adapt, learn certain values and attributes, or learn to be a particular type of person?  What is LLL for and how should it be done?  Is it concerned with work skills in work, learned within the organization and industry or outside of it? Is it for changing jobs, changing industries, or changing effectiveness? Is it for advancement or maintenance of one’s economic and social position? Is it for personal competitive advantage, job security, corporate/national advantage, or is learning valuable for its own sake.

Yes.

Condemning the dominant discourse “has become something of a growth industry among scholars” (Rubenson, 2004,  p. 32). Bagnall (2000, p. 32) argues that we are living in “…the luxury of the prevailing corrosive cynicism which is the product of our profound disillusionment with the inhumanity of all great and influential ideologies of recent history”.  But I refer back to Schuetze’s (2008) comparison of LLL to a chameleon which changes with context; to Fejes’ (2008) contention that the aims of learning change with issues and narratives; and to Griff (2008)’s position that LLL is a strategy. Different agents at different time, under different contexts and for different purposes will see LLL and use  LLL in different ways for their differing objectives.  LLL is a means to an end. I suggest that critical scholars who condemn the discourse for its vision of LLL are analogous to someone who uses a knife for ceremonial purposes condemning someone for using a knife to cut up a steak. It is fair to critique the ends and it is fair to critique a dominance of discourse that could essentially eliminate the consideration of LLL as a tool for other means.  But the conceptualizations of the goals and nature of the tool are a product of its contexts.  I refer back to Bagnall (2000) who described the second generation LLL discourse as a construction of economic determinism and unavoidably reflective of it. The first generation discourse was a construction of humanistic and emancipatory ideology and unavoidably reflective of it.  Dewey (1966) argued that education doesn’t have aims: people do (Wain, 2007).

Wain (2008, p. 396) argued that LLL “LLL is a key phenomenon of the post modern woeld just as mass schooling was of the modern world, and that today’s philosophers of education need to work with and within that reality; that the appropriate response to the dominant discourse in LLLL is not to criticize and then ignore it but to engage with it”.  Instead of accepting that those with economistic objectives have an economistic view of LLL and use it for economistic purposes, scholarly critique strikes me as unnecessarily antagonistic. “Rhetorical strategies at play in academic debate can tend toward a polarization of positions rather than a subtle exploration and teasing out of the various issues within a complex layered, and sometimes unfamiliar landscape.  The language game of the academy encourages an adversarial stance” (Usher and Edwards, 2007, p. 50).

Scholarly critique reminds me of someone shouting: “Help!  They’ve hijacked the LLL train!”  Humanistic scholars see the potential that LLL has for personal growth, democracy, political participation, social inclusion, and emancipation and are offended that economists might redirect that train to other more narrowly defined means. But there is more than one train.  And we can design new trains with different characteristics to go where we want them to go.  I suggest that it is not inappropriate for economists see and use LLL in ways that support their interests.  However, I do share a concern over the possibility that we may become deaf to the broader aims and value of LLL.  If the economist train blows its whistle too loudly, we might not hear the boarding call for the trains taking us to other destinations.

Jarvis (2008) reminded us that Utopias serve the purpose of allowing us to envision something better and pointing us in that direction.  Both the first and second generation LLL discourses are utopian and each hopes to direct us toward something better.  Where they differ is in their definition of the good life. In the first generation, the good life is defined in humanistic terms. In the second generation, it is defined by economic prosperity in general, economic growth more specifically, and competitive advantage even more specifically. As utopian visions they are analogous to travel brochures: They give us a vision of some place we might like to go.

Humanistic scholars have been largely criticizing the brochure. I suggest that it would be more valuable to accept the brochure as representing one valid desired destination, and to examine it for ways in which it can be integrated into an integrated travel package of different destinations for different objectives. Scholars should focus on how to develop a more integrated approach that includes the objectives of the economistic orientation.

Wain (2007) suggested that in the White Paper, the economic focus overshadowed social and political concerns, and that this may be a key reason why the EU’s common constitution was not ratified in 2005. He proposed that member countries were looking for a more integrated approach in LLL and in other things.  Bagnall (2000) called for a vision that focuses on the public and the private as well as on long-term sustainability. There have been steps in the direction of a more integrated conceptualization.  I refer back to Rubenson’s description of a soft economistic orientation to LLL developing since 2000.  I also refer back to the critique that the second generation discourse positioned social issues as addendums to economic development, and the argument that economic development often comes at the expense of humanistic enterprise. Rubenson (2004, p. 33  ) argues that the Memorandum on Lifelong Learning from the European Union (Brussels, 30.10.2000) “departs from the assumption that contemporary social and economic changes are interrelated” and addresses them separately, claiming that although social issues are not the automatic effect of economic prosperity, it is indeed possible to achieve both.  To achieve both, an integrated approach is needed.

As suggested earlier, scholars need to address the question of how to achieve this integrated approach.  Although many suggest that current approaches are not integrated and that the imaginary of the world and LLL have been colonized by a neoliberal corporate capitalist perspective, I have found little evidence of scholars exploring ways in which to change this situation.  One noteworthy exception is Aspin and Chapman (2007) who suggest a pragmatic approach to LLL. They suggest that we identify the problems that LLL might address and appreciate that these problems are all related through the three inter-related goals of LLL (personal, political, economic). Only by openly exploring the ways in which these problems and goals intersect can we develop an integrated perspective that might lead to integrated approaches.

One question to ask is “Who is positioned to undertake such integrated explorations?”  One might also ask “How can these explorations lead to actionable solutions?”  I don’t propose to have a simple or adequate answer.  What I suggest here is that we recast our gaze and ask the questions.

With respect to the former question, scholars are positioned to undertake such explorations, even if their explorations have been inadequate so far. There has been substantial critique, and critique is valuable.  I suggest it is now time to advance to a less antagonistic agenda: one accepts differing objectives and aims to understand ways in which they articulate and complement each other. By doing this, we might be better equipped to better answer the second question. 

A humanistic scholar may find it difficult to allow his or her humanistic objectives to share the podium with other objectives while engaged in such explorations, just as it may be difficult for an economist to not privilege his or her perspectives. I do not suspect that many would suggest that economists undertake such explorations.  So, it may be challenging for academic scholars to conceive of an integrated orientation. Specifically referring to scholars in education, Jarvis (2008b, p. 186) complains that “education has in many cases either been colonized by the substructure or it has sold out to it”. Any stakeholder with a primary interest and orientation may have difficulty formulating an integrated understanding of LLL. I suggest that there may be a role for the state in this process, since (ideally) the state represents the interests of the collective and has an interest in the personal, political and economic objectives of LLL. 

Jarvis (2008, p. 101?) explains that LLL is an ethical domain. LLL is never neutral and the moral implications of LLL must be “…placed on the political and economic table not shoved in the cupboard”.  Historically, when the church lost the power to regulate morality during the move from mercantile to industrial capitalism, the state assumed much of the responsibility. He also argues that the state is now losing some of its power to govern to the substructure:  a force with little interest in morality. Even if true, this does not mean that the state has lost the responsibility to address ethical concerns and should therefore be involved in facilitating the development of an integrated perspective of LLL. It should ensure a broad and integrated understanding of LLL is perpetuated and that LLL does not only become the handmaiden of neoliberal global corporate capitalist interests. LLL is a public good, and the public (as represented by the state and by civil society) must play a role in understanding it and directing policy and practice. Neoliberal governmentality has constructed the role of the state as the enabler and not an active intervener in LLL.  But the state needs to challenge that notion and become aware of its responsibilities (Fejes, 2008). Jarvis refers to the role of the state as a “cushioning” (p. 101) force protecting the people from the unrestrained forces of global corporate capitalism. I would suggest a language that is more suggestive of facilitating constructive dialogue between different perspectives. In this regard the state can act as of a mediator. I am reminded of the term from MacIntyre (1990, as presented by Vokey, 2011), “community of constrained disagreement”, which suggests to me a constructive engagement of diverse ideas.  I am also reminded of Aristotle’s reference of an educated mind as one that can entertain an idea without accepting it. Economistic and humanistic perspectives should begin to entertain each other’s ideas and engage them.  The state has a role in facilitating that. The two sides of the conflict do not speak the same language and it is difficult for them to appreciate what the other presents. MacIntyre (as explained by Vokey) suggested that translation is not how to overcome incommensurate languages which lead to incommensurate understandings. Each party must learn to speak the language of the other party.  By doing so, each will begin to understand the perspective of the other.  This is the only route to truly integrated understanding of LLL, and the state has a role in facilitating that discussion. 

I do not suggest that this is an easy or simple endeavour. I point here in a utopian direction. In order for the discussion to be constructive, each “side” has to agree to work toward an integrated approach, and as is true for most negotiations, this will involve some risk and some loss of privilege. Each may refuse to learn the language of the other and claim that it contains assumptions that run counter to fundamental beliefs. But to have any chance of reaching common ground, the sides need to have a mediator and facilitator.  The state is best positioned to make this attempt.

 Additionally, the state has power and resources to develop programs and policies. In that way, the state also has a role in activating policy and practices that enact the integrated conceptualization of LLL as it is evolves.  

Before concluding, I acknowledge one particular issue that remains even should this utopian vision of nation states activating an integrated conceptualization of LLL be realized.  The suggestions I make are not particularly useful in impoverished countries of the “majority world” (see Mayo) that have been left in the dust of fast global corporate capitalism. This is not to say that the state does not have a role, however, the situation is contextually very different and I will not explore that issue in any depth here. I will provisionally suggest, however, that nation states in the developed world may have some opportunities available to them in developing LLL in their own countries that may affect lives in the under-developed world.  

Tomorrow I will make a very brief post in which I summarize what I have said in the last few weeks.