 |
 |
Dear Amanda, These are very subtle and instructive insights. They point, for me, for example, to our huge computer indulgence - how have we allowed so much time and energy to be expended on so many trivial living knowledges? Could one get a PhD for knowing and using every function in Microsoft Office? Science has been caught in such a trap for a long time. The living knowledges of post graduates in the sciences is very practical for the replication of existing knowledge and the perpetuation of existing political and cultural structures. The same can be said of the post-theory parts of the humanities - glass bead games dominate most common rooms in universities as they did in monasteries of old. And so on. That is, the problem will always exist when social institutions are grounded by bodies of knowledge (forgive the ugly mixed metaphor) rather than experiences of knowledge. The fact that the current bodies of knowledge are wide by shallow means they are immediately open to being trivialized. Knowing how to twitter is more important, in some cultural contexts, than knowing what a syllogism is and how to spot a dud. Watching post grads struggle with deep knowledge is often sad. Watching them achieve status through the mundane manipulation of living knowledge is even sadder. Recently I challenged a post grad with a genuine problem (exists, can be solved). They laughed at the idea but didn't seem to feel any responsibility to experience the problem (take ownership) and solve it (have the perplexity). Unfortunately, the solution to the problem has recently been put up on Wikipedia so I can't use this problem with confidence that students are stuck in the muck. The student happily went off to play with Flash and other such bits of computer trivia. They seem eager to get a higher degree for the manipulation of skill sets that produce outcomes that look like individual-level creativity. cheers keith russell OZ Newcastle >>> "Bill, Amanda" <[log in to unmask]> 12/17/09 8:19 AM >>> Dear all To combine a couple of recent threads and broaden the debate, I wonder if anyone could comment on the following from the OECD Secretariat, a decade ago. ...the lesson from past technology breakthroughs like electricity or the automobile is that as it advances it gets easier to use. [...The] key to a thriving learning society is the capacity of most people to produce relatively simple living knowledge, even if such knowledge is not new or a "first" - either historically or worldwide. The dependence of the knowledge economy on the production of living knowledge, facilitated by more efficient tools, means it can be hugely productive of value-added. The economic viability of such banal, individual-level creativity is no less plausible or justifiable than the success of many other "luxury" sectors in today's marketplace (OECD Secretariat, 2000, 14). This resonates with the insight of economist Daron Acemoglu (2002), that in the 21st century we don't need a highly educated population so that we can all cope with increasing rates of 'technological progress', because the technologies being developed now are different to those of the 20th century. They don't need to be used by highly skilled workers. According to Acemoglu, the skill-biased technical change that we saw in the 20th century was actually induced by the rapid increase in the supply of skilled workers. Instead of developing machinery to replace the skills of workers, such as that which became profitable in the 19th century, in the late 20th century 'skill-complementary technologies' began to be developed in order to profit from the large numbers of people who now had the knowledge, skills and desire to use them. I wonder if these ideas have anything to do with the problem of what counts as "significant enquiry and better knowledge" in design (as Chuck put it). What would we consider 'banal, individual-level creativity', or a 'skill-complementary technology', and is it appropriate to award PhD's for practicing, or for developing them? Best wishes Dr Amanda Bill Institute of Design for Industry and Environment College of Creative Arts Massey University, Wellington New Zealand +64 4 8012794 ext 6886 email: [log in to unmask] Acemoglu, D. (2002). Technical Change, Inequality, and the Labor Market. Journal of Economic Literature, 40(1), 7-72. OECD Secretariat. (2000). Social Diversity and the Creative Society of the 21st Century. In OECD (Ed.). The Creative Society of the 21st Century. Paris: OECD.