The Methodology and Philosophy of Collective Writing: An Educational Philosophy and Theory Reader Volume X 9781003171959, 9780367775803

Citation preview

The Methodology and Philosophy of Collective Writing

This multi-authored collection covers the methodology and philosophy of collective writing. It is based on a series of articles written by the authors in Educational Philosophy and Theory, Open Review of Educational Research and Knowledge Cultures to explore the concept of collective writing. This tenth volume in the Editor’s Choice series provides insights into the philosophy of academic writing and peer review, peer production, collective intelligence, knowledge socialism, openness, open science and intellectual commons. This collection represents the development of the philosophy, methodology and philosophy of collective writing developed in the last few years by members of the Editors’ Collective (EC), who also edit, review and contribute to E ­ ducational Philosophy and Theory (EPAT), as well as to PESA Agora, edited by Tina Besley, and Access, edited by Nina Hood, two PESA ‘journals’ recently developed by EC members. This book develops the philosophy, methodology and pedagogy of collective writing as a new mode of academic writing as an alternative to the normal academic article. The philosophy of collective writing draws on a new mode of academic publishing that emphasises the metaphysics of peer production and open review along with the main characteristics of openness, collaboration, co-creation and co-­ social innovation, peer review and collegiality that have become a praxis for the self-reflection emphasising the subjectivity of writing, sometimes called self-writing. This collection, under the EPAT series Editor’s Choice, draws on a group of members of the Editors’ Collective, who constitute a network of editors, reviewers and authors who established the organisation to further the aims of innovation in academic writing and publishing. It provides discussion and examples of the philosophy, methodology and pedagogy of collective writing. Split into three sections, Introduction, Openness and Projects, this volume offers an introduction to the philosophy and methodology of collective writing. It will be of interest to scholars in philosophy of education and those interested in the process of collective writing. Michael A. Peters is Distinguished Professor of Education at Beijing Normal University and Emeritus Professor at the University of Illinois. He is the Executive Editor of the journal Educational Philosophy and Theory.

His  interests are in education, philosophy and social policy, and he is the author of over 100 books, including The Chinese Dream: Educating the Future (2019), Wittgenstein: Anti-­foundationalism, Technoscience and Philosophy of ­Education (2020) and Wittgenstein, Education and the Problem of ­Rationality (2021). Tina Besley is Distinguished Professor in the Faculty of Education at Beijing Normal University. She is Founding President of the Association for Visual Pedagogies (AVP) and Immediate Past President of the Philosophy of Education Society of Australasia (PESA). She has published over 12 books and many articles and is Deputy Editor of Educational Philosophy and Theory and the Video Journal of Education and Pedagogy, and Associate Editor for the Beijing International Review of Education. She works closely with Professor Michael A. Peters and with a wide international network of scholars. Marek Tesar is Associate Professor and Associate Dean International at the University of Auckland, New Zealand. He is Editor-­in-­Chief of Policy Futures in Education and Deputy Editor of Educational Philosophy and Theory and Access: Contemporary Issues in Education. His research is focused on philosophical methods, childhood studies and early childhood education, with expertise in the philosophy of education and childhood. His latest research is concerned with the construction of childhoods, and methodological and philosophical thinking around ontologies and the ethics of researching these notions. Liz Jackson is Professor of Education at the Education University of Hong Kong. She is also President of the Philosophy of Education Society of Australasia and the former Director of the Comparative Education Research Centre at the University of Hong Kong. Her interests are in philosophy of education, moral philosophy and global studies. She is the author of Muslims and Islam in US Education: Reconsidering Multiculturalism (2014), Questioning Allegiance: Resituating Civic Education (2019) and Beyond Virtue: The Politics of Educating Emotions (2020). Petar Jandrić (PhD) is Professor at the Zagreb University of Applied Sciences, Croatia, and Visiting Professor at the University of Wolverhampton, UK. His research interests are situated at the post-­disciplinary intersections between technologies, pedagogies and the society, and research methodologies of his choice are inter-­, trans-­and anti-­disciplinarity. He is Editor-­in-­Chief of Postdigital Science and Education journal https://www. springer.com/journal/42438 and book series https://www.springer.com/ series/16439. His personal website is at http://petarjandric.com/. Sonja Arndt is a lecturer in the Melbourne Graduate School of Education at the University of Melbourne. Her research and scholarship intersect studies of childhood, early years education and philosophy of/in education. Sonja is

the Vice President of the Philosophy of Education Society of Australasia (PESA), Deputy Editor of Policy Futures in Education, Associate Editor of Educational Philosophy and Theory and co-­editor of the book series Children: Global Posthumanist Perstpectives and Materialist Theories. Sean Sturm leads the Higher Education Programme at the School of Critical Studies in Education at the University of Auckland. He is the Editor of Knowledge Cultures, Deputy Editor of PESA Agora and the Book Reviews Editor of Educational Philosophy and Theory. His research explores the nexus of critical university studies, settler studies and writing studies.

Educational Philosophy and Theory: Editor’s Choice Series editor: Michael A. Peters, Beijing Normal University, China

The EPAT Editor’s Choice series comprises innovative and influential articles drawn from the Educational Philosophy and Theory journal archives, spanning 46 volumes, from 1969. Each volume represents a selection of important articles that respond to and focus on a particular theme, celebrating and emphasizing the heritage and history of the work, as well as the ­cutting-edge contemporary contributions available. The series will create a rich vertical collection across five decades of seminal scholarship, contextualizing and elevating specific themes, scholars and their work. The EPAT Editor, Michael A. Peters, introduces each volume, the theme and the work selected within that volume. Titles in the series include: The Chinese Dream: Educating the Future An Educational Philosophy and Theory Chinese Educational Philosophy Reader Volume VII Michael A. Peters Wittgenstein, Anti-foundationalism, Technoscience and Philosophy of Education An Educational Philosophy and Theory Reader Volume VIII Michael A. Peters The Far Right, Education and Violence An Educational Philosophy Reader Volume IX Michael A. Peters and Tina Besley The Methodology and Philosophy of Collective Writing An Educational Philosophy and Theory Reader Volume X Michael A. Peters, Tina Besley, Marek Tesar, Liz Jackson, Petar Jandric, Sonja Arndt and Sean Sturm For more information about the series, please visit www.routledge.com/ Educational-Philosophy-and-Theory-Editors-Choice/book-series/EPAT

The Methodology and Philosophy of Collective Writing

An Educational Philosophy and Theory Reader Volume X Edited by Michael A. Peters, Tina Besley, Marek Tesar, Liz Jackson, Petar Jandrić, Sonja Arndt and Sean Sturm

First published 2022 by Routledge 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN and by Routledge 605 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10158 Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business © 2022 selection and editorial matter, Michael A. Peters, Tina Besley, Marek Tesar, Liz Jackson, Petar Jandrić, Sonja Arndt and Sean Sturm; individual chapters, the contributors The right of Michael A. Peters, Tina Besley, Marek Tesar, Liz Jackson, Petar Jandrić, Sonja Arndt and Sean Sturm to be identified as the authors of the editorial material, and of the authors for their individual chapters, has been asserted in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe. British Library Cataloguing-­in-­Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Library of Congress Cataloging-­in-­Publication Data A catalog record has been requested for this book ISBN: 978-­0-­367-­77580-­3 (hbk) ISBN: 978-­0-­367-­77579-­7 (pbk) ISBN: 978-­1-­003-­17195-­9 (ebk) Typeset in Galliard by SPi Global, India

Contents

Previously published chapters List of contributors PART 1

x xii

Introduction

1

1. Towards a philosophy of academic publishing

3

MICHAEL A. PETERS, PETAR JANDRIĆ, RUTH IRWIN, KIRSTEN LOCKE, NESTA DEVINE, RICHARD HERAUD, ANDREW GIBBONS, TINA BESLEY, JAYNE WHITE, DANIELLA FORSTER, LIZ JACKSON, ELIZABETH GRIERSON, CARL MIKA, GEORGINA STEWART, MAREK TESAR, SUSANNE BRIGHOUSE, SONJA ARNDT, GEORGE LĂZĂROIU, RAMONA MIHĂILĂ, CATHERINE LEGG AND LEON BENADE

2. Experimenting with academic subjectivity: collective writing, peer production and collective intelligence

38

MICHAEL A. PETERS, TINA BESLEY AND SONJA ARNDT

3. Collective writing: an inquiry into praxis

55

PETAR JANDRIĆ, NESTA DEVINE, LIZ JACKSON, MICHAEL A. PETERS, GEORGE LĂZĂROIU, RAMONA MIHĂILĂ, KIRSTEN LOCKE, RICHARD HERAUD, ANDREW GIBBONS, ELIZABETH GRIERSON, DANIELLA J. FORSTER, E. JAYNE WHITE, GEORGINA STEWART, MAREK TESAR, SONJA ARNDT, SUSANNE BRIGHOUSE AND LEON BENADE

4. Knowledge socialism: the rise of peer production – collegiality, collaboration, and collective intelligence MICHAEL A. PETERS

78

viii  Contents PART 2

Openness

91

5. Inaugural editorial: openness and the intellectual commons

93

MICHAEL A. PETERS

6. Radical openness: creative institutions, creative labor and the logic of public organizations in cognitive capitalism

100

MICHAEL A. PETERS

7. Citizen science and ecological democracy in the global science regime: the need for openness and participation

124

MICHAEL PETERS AND TINA BESLEY

8. Citizen science and post-­normal science in a post-­truth era: democratising knowledge; socialising responsibility

132

MICHAEL A. PETERS AND TINA BESLEY

9. Open science, philosophy and peer review

148

MICHAEL A. PETERS

10. Is peer review in academic publishing still working?

154

LIZ JACKSON, MICHAEL A. PETERS, LEON BENADE, NESTA DEVINE, SONJA ARNDT, DANIELLA FORSTER, ANDREW GIBBONS, ELIZABETH GRIERSON, PETAR JANDRIĆ, GEORGE LĂZĂROIU, KIRSTEN LOCKE, RAMONA MIHĂILĂ, GEORGINA STEWART, MAREK TESAR, PETER ROBERTS AND JĀNIS (JOHN) OZOLIŅŠ

PART 3

Projects

173

11. After postmodernism in educational theory? a collective writing experiment and thought survey

175

MICHAEL A. PETERS, MAREK TESAR AND LIZ JACKSON

Contents  ix

12. Between the blabbering noise of individuals or the silent dialogue of many: a collective response to ‘Postdigital Science and Education’ (Jandrić et al. 2018) 188 SONJA ARNDT, GORDON ASHER, JEREMY KNOX, DEREK R. FORD, SARAH HAYES, GEORGE LĂZĂROIU, LIZ JACKSON, JULIA MAÑERO CONTRERAS, RACHEL BUCHANAN, LAURA D’OLIMPIO, MARK SMITH, JUHA SUORANTA, OLLI PYYHTINEN, THOMAS RYBERG, JACOB DAVIDSEN, ANNE STEKETEE, RAMONA MIHĂILĂ, GEORGINA STEWART, MARK DAWSON, CHRISTINE SINCLAIR AND MICHAEL A. PETERS

13. Ten theses on the shift from (static) text to (moving) image

220

MICHAEL A. PETERS, E. JAYNE WHITE, ELIZABETH GRIERSON, GEORGINA STEWART, NESTA DEVINE, JANITA CRAW, ANDREW GIBBONS, PETAR JANDRIĆ, RENE NOVAK, RICHARD HERAUD AND KIRSTEN LOCKE

14. Education in and for the Belt and Road Initiative:  the pedagogy of collective writing

260

MICHAEL A. PETERS, OGUNNIRAN MOSES OLADELE, BENJAMIN GREEN, ARTEM SAMILO, HANFEI LV, LAIMECHE AMINA, YAQIAN WANG, MOU CHUNXIAO, JASMIN OMARY CHUNGA, XU RULIN, TATIANA IANINA, STEPHANIE HOLLINGS, MAGDOLINE FARID BARSOUM YOUSEF, PETAR JANDRIĆ, SEAN STURM, JIAN LI, ERYONG XUE, LIZ JACKSON AND MAREK TESAR

15. Video ethics in educational research involving children: literature review and critical discussion

292

MICHAEL A. PETERS, E. JAYNE WHITE, TINA BESLEY, KIRSTEN LOCKE, BRIDGETTE REDDER, RENE NOVAK, ANDREW GIBBONS, JOHN O’NEILL, MAREK TESAR AND SEAN STURM

Endnote: exploring the philosophy of collective writing

314

MICHAEL A. PETERS, MAREK TESAR, LIZ JACKSON, TINA BESLEY, PETAR JANDRIĆ, SONJA ARNDT AND SEAN STURM

Index

325

Previously published chapters

This multi-­authored collection covers the methodology and philosophy of collective writing. It is based on a series of articles written by the authors in Educational Philosophy and Theory, Open Review of Educational Research and Knowledge Cultures to explore the concept of collective writing. Permissions have been granted for the following articles from Educational Philosophy and Theory, Open Review of Educational Research and Knowledge Cultures, and Postdigital Science and Education: Chapter 1, ‘Towards a philosophy of academic publishing’, was originally published in Education Philosophy and Theory, 48(14), 2016, DOI: 10.1080/00131857.2016.1240987 Chapter 2, ‘Experimenting with academic subjectivity: collective writing, peer production and collective intelligence’, was originally published in Open Review of Educational Research, 6(1), 2019, DOI: 10.1080/23265507.2018.1557072 Chapter 3, ‘Collective writing: an inquiry into praxis’, was originally published in Knowledge Cultures, 5(1), 2017, DOI: 10.22381/KC5120177 Chapter 4, ‘Knowledge socialism: the rise of peer production – collegiality, collaboration, and collective intelligence’, was originally published in Education Philosophy and Theory, 51(1), 2021, DOI: 10.1080/00131857.2019.1654375 Chapter 5, ‘Openness and the intellectual commons’, was originally published in Open Review of Educational Research, 1(1), 2015, DOI: 10.1080/23265507.2014.984975 Chapter 6, ‘Radical openness: creative institutions, creative labor and the logic of public organizations in cognitive capitalism’, was originally published in Knowledge Cultures, 1(2), 2013 Chapter 7, ‘Citizen science and ecological democracy in the global science regime: the need for openness and participation’, was

Previously published chapters  xi originally published in Educational Philosophy and Theory, 52(3), 2020, DOI: 10.1080/00131857.2019.1584148 Chapter 8, ‘Citizen science and post-­ normal science in a post-­truth era: democratising knowledge; socialising responsibility’, was originally published in Educational Philosophy and Theory, 51(13), 2019, DOI: 10.1080/00131857.2019.1577036 Chapter 9, ‘Open science, philosophy and peer review’, was originally published in Educational Philosophy and Theory, 46(3), 2014, DOI: 10.1080/00131857.2013.781296 Chapter 10, ‘Is peer review in academic publishing still working?’, was originally published in Open Review of Education Research, 5(1), 2018, DOI: 10.1080/23265507.2018.1479139 Chapter 11, ‘After postmodernism in educational theory? A collective writing experiment and thought survey’, was originally published in Educational Philosophy and Theory, 50(14), 2018, DOI: 10.1080/00131857.2018.1457868 Chapter 12, ‘Between the blabbering noise of individuals or the silent dialogue of many: a collective response to “postdigital science and education”’, was originally published in Postdigital Science and Education, 1(2), 2019, DOI: 10.1007/s42438-­019-­00037-­y Chapter 13, ‘Ten theses on the shift from (static) text to (moving) image’, was originally published in Open Review of Education Research, 5(1), 2018, DOI: 10.1080/23265507.2018.1470768 Chapter 14, ‘Education in and for the Belt and Road Initiative: the pedagogy of collective writing’, was originally published in Educational Philosophy and Theory, 2020, DOI: 10.1080/00131857.2020.1718828 Chapter 15, ‘Video ethics in educational research involving children: literature review and critical discussion’, was originally published in Education Philosophy and Theory, 2020, DOI: 10.1080/00131857.2020.1717920

Contributors

Sonja Arndt Faculty of Education, University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand; Te Whiringa School of Educational Leadership and Policy, Te Toi Tangata Faculty of Education, University of Waikato, Hamilton Gordon Asher Glasgow, Scotland, UK Leon Benade School of Education, Auckland University of Technology, Auckland, New Zealand Tina Besley Faculty of Education, University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand; Faculty of Education, Beijing Normal University, Beijing, People’s Republic of China Susanne Brighouse EPAT Editorial Office Rachel Buchanan University of Newcastle, Callaghan, Australia Jasmin Omary Chunga Faculty of Education, Beijing Normal University, Beijing, China Mou Chunxiao Faculty of Education, Beijing Normal University, Beijing, China Julia Mañero Contreras University of Seville, Seville, Spain Janita Craw School of Education, Auckland University of Technology, Auckland, New Zealand Laura D’Olimpio University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK Jacob Davidsen University of Aalborg, Aalborg, Denmark Mark Dawson Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK Nesta Devine School of Education, Auckland University of Technology, Auckland, New Zealand Magdoline Farid Barsoum Yousef Faculty of Education, Beijing Normal University, Beijing, China Derek R. Ford DePauw University, Greencastle, IN, USA

Contributors  xiii Daniella Forster School of Education, University of Newcastle, Newcastle, Australia Andrew Gibbons School of Education, Auckland University of Technology, Auckland, New Zealand Benjamin Green Faculty of Education, Beijing Normal University, Beijing, China Elizabeth Grierson College of Design and Social Context, RMIT University, Melbourne, Australia; School of Art, RMIT University, Melbourne, Australia Sarah Hayes University of Wolverhampton, Wolverhampton, UK Richard Heraud Faculty of Education, University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand Stephanie Hollings Faculty of Education, Beijing Normal University, Beijing, China Tatiana Ianina Faculty of Education, Beijing Normal University, Beijing, China Ruth Irwin Department of Education, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK Elizabeth Jackson Faculty of Education, University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China Liz Jackson Faculty of Education, University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China Petar Jandric´ University of Wolverhampton, Wolverhampton, UK Department of Informatics and Computing, Zagreb University of Applied Sciences, Zagreb, Croatia Jeremy Knox University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK Amina Laimeche Faculty of Education, Beijing Normal University, Beijing, China George Lăzăroiu Department of Communication Sciences, Institute of Interdisciplinary Studies in Humanities and Social Sciences, New York, USA; Institute of Interdisciplinary Studies in Humanities and Social Sciences, New York; Spiru Haret University, Bucharest, Spiru Haret U ­ niversity, Bucharest, Romania; The Cognitive Labor Institute, New York, NY, USA Catherine Legg Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences, University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand Jian Li Faculty of Education, Beijing Normal University, Beijing, China

xiv  Contributors Kirsten Locke Faculty of Education, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand; School of Critical Studies in Education, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand Hanfei Lv Faculty of Education, Beijing Normal University, Beijing, China Ramona Mihăilă Department of Foreign Languages and Literatures, Dimitrie Cantemir Christian University, Bucharest, Romania Carl Mika Faculty of Education, University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand Ogunniran Moses Oladele Faculty of Education, Beijing Normal University, Beijing, China Rene Novak School of Education, University of Waikato, Hamilton, & BestStart, Tauranga, New Zealand John O’Neill Institute of Education, Massey University, Palmerston North, New Zealand Jānis (John) Ozoliņš School of Philosophy, Australian Catholic University, Fitzroy, Australia Michael A. Peters Faculty of Education, Beijing Normal University, Beijing, People’s Republic of China; Beijing Normal University, Beijing, China; University of Waikato, University of Illinois at Urbana-­Champaign; Wilf Malcolm Institute for Educational Research, University of Waikato, ­Tauranga, New Zealand Olli Pyyhtinen Tampere University, Tampere, Finland Bridgette Redder Faculty of Education and Social Work, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand Peter Roberts School of Educational Studies and Leadership, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand Xu Rulin Faculty of Education, Beijing Normal University, Beijing, China Thomas Ryberg University of Aalborg, Aalborg, Denmark Artem Samilo Faculty of Education, Beijing Normal University, Beijing, China Christine Sinclair University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK Mark Smith Loughborough University, Loughborough, UK Anne Steketee Chapman University, Orange, CA, USA

Contributors  xv Georgina Stewart School of Education, Auckland University of Technology, Auckland, New Zealand Sean Sturm Faculty of Education and Social Work, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand Juha Suoranta Tampere University, Tampere, Finland Marek Tesar Faculty of Education and Social Work, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand Yaqian Wang Faculty of Education, Beijing Normal University, Beijing, China E. Jayne White University of Canterbury, New Zealand; Te Whiringa, ­University of Waikato, Tauranga, New Zealand Eryong Xue Faculty of Education, Beijing Normal University, Beijing, China

Part 1

Introduction

1 Towards a philosophy of academic publishing Michael A. Peters, Petar Jandrić, Ruth Irwin, Kirsten Locke, Nesta Devine, Richard Heraud, Andrew Gibbons, Tina Besley, Jayne White, Daniella Forster, Liz Jackson, Elizabeth Grierson, Carl Mika, Georgina Stewart, Marek Tesar, Susanne Brighouse, Sonja Arndt, George Lăzăroiu, Ramona Mihăilă, Catherine Legg and Leon Benade Introduction This article emerges from the members of the Editors Collective, a small New Zealand-based organisation comprised of editors and reviewers of academic journals mostly in the fields of education and philosophy.1 The mission of the Editors Collective states: The academic journal was born in the seventeenth century with The Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society in 1665 under the editorship of Henry Oldenburg. The Charter of the Royal Society was dedicated to ‘improving natural knowledge.’ The development of the academic journal as the cornerstone of the emerging global system of scientific communication and scholarship was closely tied to peer review and the history of the printing industry. Today academic publishing is undergoing dramatic changes as it shifts from print to electronic format and digital media, and also to video and new social media technologies. The editorial collective is based around the development of a journal ecosystem comprising a number of journals in order to: • develop an experimental and innovative approach to academic publishing; • explore the philosophy, history, political and legal background to academic publishing; • build a groundwork to educate scholars regarding important contemporary issues in academic publishing; and, • encourage more equitable collaborations across journals and editors. At the first meeting of the group in July 2016, members decided to embark on a new project dedicated to initiating a philosophical discussion of some of the main features of academic publishing that we have called the ‘philosophy

4  Michael A. Peters et al of academic publishing’. There is as yet no extant literature on this issue, and it is our collective intention to initiate this field. The material production and reproduction of ideas as a form of text now takes multiple forms with the emergence of new digital technologies that have transformed the nature of the academic journal, the book and the textbook and provided new forms of scientific communication. The combined effect of these changes is to change the nature of the text, of reading and writing, and to resituate learning, research and the university in the age of increased interconnectivity. The concept ‘the epoch of digital reason’ (Peters & Jandrić, 2015) is a catch-all phrase that refers to the magnitude of these developments, signalling an epistemological shift equal in significance to changes in the nature and organisation of knowledge that took place during the European Enlightenment. Today the advanced digital technologies that harness increases in computing power provide for greater integration of global research communities than at any time in the past. An emergent global ecosystem of scholarly communications, still largely dominated by Anglo America, is ushering in an era that enables us to talk of ‘new knowledge ecologies’ and ‘three ages of the journal’ as the academic world moves from text to electronic and video communication. Increasingly, scholars embrace a theory of technological disruption to indicate fundamental changes in the system of the digital text with the rise of open access. This theory needs closer scrutiny for its technological determinism. There is still much discussion to be had about the concepts of ownership and rights in this electronic environment, and also whether the changes indicate continuities of the Enlightenment values based around universal access to knowledge and its significance for democracy. The changes in the global knowledge ecosystem do emphasise new concerns for the geographical distribution of journal knowledge and also the effects of global altmetric and peer review systems on scholarly life. A literature search shows that no such field or article with the title of ‘philosophy of academic publishing’ yet exists. We think that the issues we have identified require ongoing and critical discussion, and we think that the field of academic publishing is a good vehicle for doing this. The article comprises the following sections: 1.2  New knowledge ecologies and the global ecosystem of scholarly communications 1.3  The three ages of the journal—text, electronic and video communication 1.4  The theory of technological disruption 1.5  The digital text 1.6  The rise of open access 1.7  Enlightenment continuities? Universal access and democracy 1.8  Ownership and rights 1.9  The geographical distribution of journal knowledge 1.10 Peer review: history and future 1.11 Peer-reviewed open access journals: the case of APCs

A philosophy of academic publishing  5 1.12 What do altmetrics measure? Maybe the broader impact of research on society 1.13 Discussion This article is also an experiment in the collective writing process. Each contributor was invited to write 500 words on a topic that was initially arrived at through discussion and sequenced by agreement. The idea behind the process was for contributors individually or in groups to submit their work to a moderator (Richard Heraud) who sequenced the contributors as they became available and posted it to the Collective. The second stage was one of editing and review. Two reviewers, (Professors John Ozoliņš and Peter Roberts) who are senior members of PESA the Society that owns the journal Educational Philosophy and Theory (EPAT) and who are long term members of the review board of the journal, were chosen to engage in a process of open peer review before the final discussion section was written. Their remarks, restricted also to 500 words, are included at the end of this article. A companion paper is being written that is based on the reflections of contributors on the collective writing process.

New knowledge ecologies and the global ecosystem of scholarly communications It is remarkable that, within the space of a few hundred years, the global system of scientific communication should shift from the first journal, a twelve-page quarto pamphlet called the Journal des sçavans issued in 1665, to a global ecosystem of some 24,000 academic journals producing over 50 million scientific papers. The Journal des sçavans devoted to legal reports and church history was published in Amsterdam some three months before the appearance of the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society which began as reports by the editor Henry Oldenburg on ‘natural philosophy’ published at his own expense. It contained the main functions of the scientific journal including registration of some form of peer review, dissemination and archiving. Peer review did not become fully systematic and operational until the early 1830s. The journal system rested on the earlier cultural inventions of writing, paper, and later, printing. At first, the growth of journals was strongly tied to the emergence of learned societies who owned them. It was only in the 1960s that commercial publishers began to acquire previously owned and published by non-profit academic societies. Jinha (2010) reports an estimated cumulative total of some 50 million academic articles in approximately 24,000 academic journals with some scholars arguing that in the digital age of downloadable material, the individual article is the basic molecular unit of research communication. Scholars have pointed to the changing ecology of journals infrastructure. One study shows that the market share of the five largest research publishing houses reached 50% in 2006, rising, thanks to mergers and acquisitions,

6  Michael A. Peters et al from 30% in 1996 and only 20% in 1973. Vincent Larivière, who holds the Canada Research Chair on the Transformations of Scholarly Communication, together with his co-authors Stefanie Haustein and Philippe Mongeon (Larivière, Haustein & Mongeon, 2015), reveal ‘The Oligopoly of Academic Publishers in the Digital Era’. They provide an analysis of 45 million documents indexed in the Web of Science over the period 1973–2013 and show that in both natural and medical sciences and social sciences and humanities, Reed-Elsevier, Wiley-Blackwell, Springer and Taylor & Francis increased their share of the published output, especially since the advent of the digital era (mid-1990s). They conclude: Since the creation of scientific journals 350 years ago, large commercial publishing houses have increased their control of the science system. The proportion of the scientific output published in journals under their ownership has risen steadily over the past 40 years, and even more so since the advent of the digital era. The value added, however, has not followed a similar trend. While one could argue that their role of typesetting, printing, and diffusion were central in the print world, the ease with which these functions can be fulfilled—or are no longer necessary—in the electronic world makes one wonder: what do we need publishers for? (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal. pone.0127502) There are strong connections between the development of the global journal system and the geographical distribution and spread of scientific knowledge. One discussion paper, 30 years in science: Secular movements in knowledge creation (Archambault, 2010) using bibliometric methods examines the relationship between geopolitical factors and scientific activity based on publication data from a 30-year period (1980–2009), extracted from the Web of Science database (Thomson Reuters) to reveal the fallback in scientific outputs of the countries of the former USSR and the spectacular success of Iran, Turkey and Asia, especially China—so-called ‘hot zones’ of scientific production—that are growing four times faster than the world average. A policy report by the Royal Society (2011), Knowledge, networks and nations, surveys the emerging global scientific landscape, noting two major changes: the shift to an increasingly multipolar world with the rise of new scientific powers such as China, India and Brazil, and; the increase in international collaboration with over a third of all scientific papers being authored collaboratively. This increase is taken to reflect the global revolution in the system of global scientific communication and the emergent global science system. Digital technologies have significantly contributed to this revolution. Traditional print journals maintained by learned societies had been available only to individual subscribers and library users. With the advent of information and communication technologies, corporate publishers have acquired

A philosophy of academic publishing  7 and digitalised academic journals. During this transformation, individual subscription and library access have merely moved online, and modes of access have remained, by and large, unchanged. Digital technologies have, however, radically transformed the political economy of scholarly communications. Nowadays, a typical academic journal receives all content for free—writing, editing, reviewing, and other processes related to knowledge production are conducted by academics and researchers, and indirectly paid for by their institutions. Supporting activities, such as typesetting, proofreading and publishing, can be done with very little material investment. In the face of lower costs of production, however, corporate publishers have radically raised prices of access. As they have increased their control over knowledge, big publishing houses have become highly profitable businesses (Clobridge, 2014; Larivière et al., 2015). Since the early days of the Internet, such commodification of knowledge has been opposed by various free access and open access movements. Through alternative modes of publication, learned societies and other academic associations have built a growing opposition to corporate publishers. In order to remain competitive, corporate publishers responded with various new modes of publishing and access. Currently, the global ecosystem of academic publishing consists of three main modes of access and publishing, and each of these modes contains numerous variants. The three main modes are: 1 Traditional pay-per-view access, where the cost of production and distribution of content is transferred to the reader. 2 Open access, where the cost of production and distribution of content is transferred to the author. 3 Open access, where the cost of production and distribution of content is transferred to a third party (i.e. an institution). Each of these modes brings about a mixed bag of positive and negative effects. Traditional pay-per-view is said to have the most rigorous peer review, yet it effectively prohibits access to knowledge to anyone outside academic institutions in the Global North (Clobridge, 2014). Open access funded by authors offers wider opportunities for publishing, yet it sometimes leads to negative selection of content and vanity publishing (Stevenson, 2004). Open access paid by a third party removes financial stress from publishers and writers, yet it seriously jeopardises their independence. This dynamic publishing landscape, which reveals itself even during the simplest Web search, can be nicely described by the famous quote attributed to Antonio Gramsci: ‘The old world is dying, and the new world struggles to be born: now is the time of monsters’ (in Žižek, 2010, p. 95). Competing modes of publishing and access are founded on radically different theoretical underpinnings. On the one hand, maintaining the traditional pay-per-view access affirms the concept of human capital and the figure of homo economicus. On the other hand, new forms of openness lie in the very foundations of col(labour)ation—a theory that Michael Peters and

8  Michael A. Peters et al Petar Jandrić propose ‘as a basis of new forms of openness that is one of the characteristics of digital cultures’ (Peters & Jandrić, 2015, p. 183), and that is based on the figure of homo collaborans. The struggle between modes of publishing therefore reflects much deeper tensions in the society (capitalist economy vs. communalist economy), within knowledge production (individual production vs. peer production), and within our understanding of human nature (Darwin’s evolution vs. Kropotkin’s mutual aid). The global ecosystem of scholarly communications is a reflection of larger social, epistemological and ontological issues and can be understood only in relation to the emerging knowledge ecologies. Publications are often thought of in terms of scientific positivism along with a radically individualised idea of the creative, innovative and meritocratic individual. Even writing collaborations are usually given kudos for originality and one is privileged over others as the ‘lead author’. The concept of Knowledge Ecologies tries to deal a blow to this outdated Liberal individualism, but acknowledging and elaborating the interactive network of ideas that flow through journals, memes on the internet, and other rhizomes of signification. This concept was captured in the Philosophy of Education Society of Australasia (PESA) conference theme in 2016, where the organiser wrote: Knowledge ecology is a term that emerges from the collaboration and file sharing of social media. But it signals something else; an ecosystem of knowledge, the rhizome of discrete and yet inter-related fields, of disciplinary depth and interdisciplinary sharing. Knowledge ecologies speaks on the intersectionality of contemporary society. It engages with the reality of new technologies, of financial collapse, of climate change, of resource exhaustion. Knowledge ecologies draws up new semiotics of epistemology that stretch concepts from one discipline area into new shapes as they re-organise and extend a field from its traditional contours, to dimensions that accommodates the demands of our rapidly changing world. (Irwin, 2016) Ideas do not emerge from a vacuum. They are integrally interconnected to the contemporary world, whether acknowledged by their authors or not. Journals are evolving into complex networks themselves, that are less likely to need the authority of A* ranking, as the fluidity of the relationships between journals and discipline areas, and between journals and different forms of publication, rapidly mutates. A case in point is the trend towards Massive Open Online Courses, which destabilise the boundaries and barriers of knowledge production. The EPAT/PESA stable is a good example: a blend of paper and online traditional journal which interacts via the society with blogs, Facebook and Twitter. Knowledge ecologies suggest an organic evolution of knowledge dissemination that involves multiple forms of interactions. There are differing ‘standards’ with each mode of communicating, but this rhizomatic

A philosophy of academic publishing  9 concept attempts to engage rather than discriminate about hierarchies of knowledge formation. It opens possibilities for new potential alliances that are ‘outside’ and ‘inside’ the ivory tower. Knowledge ecologies resituate academia and academic research and publishing in ways that are not always financially viable or amenable to intellectual property (IP). This allows better engagement from countries with less ‘developed’ tertiary education, but at the same time, threatens to overwhelm the work life of some publishers who cannot pay for editorial support. At present we are in vortex, where writers are undervalued and publication companies are over-charging. But by leaving behind the notion of the creative genius, and embracing the interactive nature of knowledge production, knowledge ecologies indicate a more egalitarian set of pathways into the future of knowledge dissemination.

The three ages of the journal—text, electronic and video communication We want to perform a resistance to the teleological determinism of the three stages inherent in the title ‘The three ages of the journal—text, electronic and video communication’. While there is intuitively some justification in seeing the electronic as superseding a hard copy, nonetheless, both the subsequent forms—the electronic and the video—rely profoundly on the text as the electronically communicated substance of the journal or as the organising and historical underpinning. The beginnings of the academic journal emerge through the cultural practice of writing letters as the primary form of communicating ideas. It was considered the most flexible, malleable and efficient dissemination of scientific knowledge and thinking (Solomon, 2013). The academic paper is inextricably linked with the development of the Enlightenment as thinkers turned from huge metaphysical questions to observable detail. The letter, however, was slightly too intimate and this material required more public airing. Hence the letters became the more public form, the journal. The invention of printing relieved the scientific community of the need to copy out letters to reach an audience beyond the original addressee (Schaffner, 1994). The Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society became one of the prototypes of the academic journal. Launched in 1665, this journal stands as the longest running journal devoted to scientific research. Serving the function from its inception to report on scientific research that was in process and unfinished, the journal served as an important dissemination node to a burgeoning scientific community. Many of its founding tenets, such as peer review, dissemination of knowledge and date and authorship acknowledgement, set the blueprint for future publication practice. The community of friends evident in communication by letter remains inherent in the scholarly community associated with the journal. The letters continue to have an influence in the form of peer review essentially an informal and collegial judgement made by people already involved in a knowledge

10  Michael A. Peters et al community, such as the learned society. The learned society has the incidental effect of safeguarding the reputation of the society and the journal. The advent of digital publishing creates the possibility of an emancipation of knowledge, but with it comes the increasing control by corporations. Open access allows academic activity to reach people normally outside of the circle; the poor, the distant, the disenfranchised. Open access coincides, however, with the tightening recruitment and control of journals by a very few large publishing houses. Advances in technology render the hard copy journal unnecessary to scientific communication, but the accompanying diffusion of academic endeavour has the potential to weaken the intellectual integrity of the scholarly enterprise. Given the neoliberal pressure for university employees to publish as a sine qua non of continued employment and the promotional possibilities of editing and publishing, the risk is that quality, depth of thought and careful research are overlooked in favour of the performative function of contemporary academia. The fundamentals of the text-based form of scholarly publication from the first scholarly letters remain embedded, we argue, within the electronic and video forms of the scholarly paper. We acknowledge McLuhan’s dictum that the medium affects the message (1967). The enduring characteristics of the scholarly paper, however, remain. The scholarly production, regardless of the medium, retains the primary qualities of thinking, structuring ideas, supporting ideas with evidence (be it argumentation or empirical research) and deference to the combined knowledge and evaluation of the scholarly community. The electronic medium provides an added dimension in its possibilities of speed, wide dissemination and fiscal efficiency. In addition, video introduces the power of the image, oracy and the immediacy of recording the contemporary. These forms have the potential to broaden and enhance scholarly engagement. Both these forms of production require the corresponding development of appropriate contemporary forms of critique. To return to our opening argument, these three forms of scholarly publishing should not be seen as providing a chronicity of developing intellectual communication. They retain distinctive characteristics that rely on scholarly endeavour but they cannot be assimilated to each other; one form cannot adequately be replaced by the other. We belong now in an era with a wider landscape in which to experiment and work with the dissemination of knowledge. There will be further additions to this landscape that we cannot yet know. In this era of technological disruption, it is for scholars to develop the academic equipment that will enable them to decide which medium is more appropriate and best serves the message.

The theory of technological disruption The contemporary reader, writer and editor of an electronic academic text is a participant in evolving patterns of publishing. We are currently in the algorithmic phase in which corporations have a primary interest in developing

A philosophy of academic publishing  11 new forms of gathering data—new ways to understanding, using and profiling the user, through the user’s use of electronic texts and interaction with prescribed code (see Lewis, 2001). In this phase, the sum total of electronically mediated academic behaviour provides publishing companies with some kind of script for the future of scholarly work—a script that provides evidence of the technological disruption of electronic publishing in the academic domain. The categorisation of technology as disruptive has its origins in Clayton Christensen’s interest in observing the ways in which small agile companies introduce and develop technological innovations that disrupt the existing behaviours, and the very survival of more established, and most often larger, companies and corporations (1997) whose products were previously the technological norm. In the study of technological disruption in South Africa, Gaiger, Le Roux and Bothma (2014, p. 271) argue that innovative publishers privilege content over form, the ‘the essence of the book’ being the content. A theory of technological distribution when applied to publishing suggests that the essence of the book is neither content nor form; rather, it is bundled purchasing and user behaviours that generate new forms of data and data management, new requirements for hard- and software development, and new approaches to marketing. Like digital television, the electronic academic text can be theorised as a disruptive technology in terms of its power to displace and become the incumbent media. Technological disruption is a theory that understands technological innovation as commercial innovation. Technological innovation can, however, also be thought to do the work of organisational change and social innovation, in which the electronic text has become vital in realising the social benefits of new technologies (not only using ICTs but using new ways of articulating ideas and unifying interest). More than this, a theory of technological disruption might specifically call for reflection on the value of innovation with respect to whether its commercial success benefits all parties, or whether it is merely the success of the company commercialising the new idea. The eBook is an example of an observed disruption that requires such critical analysis. While the promotion of the university as a research institution would seem to go hand-in-hand with the affordability to the institution of the eBook, new research is delivering evidence that the eBook is an inferior research medium when it comes to the retention of the content read (Mangen, 2016), a finding that has clear implications for the merit of the research generated, and consequently the status of the university as a research institution. This shows how a technological innovation can be good for both the producer and the educational institutions, who insist upon its benefits, while not for its intended end user. Our point here is that a theory of technological disruption does little for innovations in academic publishing if its concern ends with the impact of competition between publishing companies. In other words, the ­theory of disruptive technology might be thought capable of theorising a variety of disruptive

12  Michael A. Peters et al experiences; which is to say, not just the disruption to the behaviour and profits of purely commercial interests. So what about the situation of the academic researcher? In the literature on publishing and technological disruption, the academic researcher is not regarded as an actor relevant to the discussion, let alone as an active intellectual participant in the publisher’s innovations. Yes, the academic researcher analyses and critiques new developments in publishing but for the most part this is logistical back-fill for a business strategy that seeks to conserve its existing income streams. There is a paradox in the making here: while publishers want to be portrayed as institutions that represent change, they are largely closed to the dynamic engagement of academic researchers whose motivation is to bring about change through their research and writing. Of course, an academic’s focus on publishing for change requires that researchers be motivated by change. And so there are distinctions and divisions established in the academy through the academic publishing sector’s attention to the nature, meaning and application of electronic publishing and its associated technological disruptions. With a technological focus on the ways in which disruptive technologies are exploitative technologies, the mindset of academic reading, writing and editing becomes further entrenched in securing tenure, and the contribution of one’s research becomes secondary to the mechanisms through which it is distributed. In such circumstances, academic researchers are forced to continue intellectual work in ‘the commodity space’ rather than be moved to invent and utilise ‘the knowledge space’ referred to by Pierre Lévy, in his seminal work Collective intelligence: Mankind’s emerging world of cyberspace (1997). Undermining the visibility of this situation, the publisher’s commercial arm strategises according to the illusion that they are the operant of a dynamic project, leaving the academic researcher to work with the illusion that their own institution is both static and complicit in the publishing sector’s commodification of the value of knowledge. This ‘political “double-bind”, constituted by individualization and the simultaneous totalization of structures of modern power’ (Foucault, 1994 as cited in Agamben, 1998, p. 5), is only clarified when the ecology of knowledges is analysed with respect to the role that the academic researcher is ascribed in relation to the simultaneous employment of the four industrial modes that turn the cogs of capitalism: ‘acceleration’, ‘mass production’, ‘automation’ and ‘cyber-physical systems’ (Bloem et al., 2014, pp. 11–12). Reading and writing require use of ‘technologies of the self’ and ‘technologies of sign systems’ (Foucault, 1997, pp. 223–251) that cut with, put a hole in or break with both the systemisation of knowledge and the industrial modes that reconstitute collective thought. We argue that the development of the theory of technological disruption has too narrow a focus to be of much use to the aims of scholarship and academic publishing beyond the generation of a critique of certain economic conditions and constraints—that is, unless more time is given to a reflection on the significance of technology in relation to a broader concept of innovation. The theory does highlight the value of subjective and linguistic agility

A philosophy of academic publishing  13 when considering the ways in which publishing might disrupt incumbent methodologies to work with readers, writers and editors to open new relations between the academy, the community and the commercial domain. A scholarship of publishing should provide a critique of the theory of technological disruption through alternative theorisations of technology and innovation in publishing and effecting change. The question is, at what point will the combining of ‘technologies of the self’ and ‘technologies of sign systems’ (Foucault, 1997, pp. 223–251) begin to demand a need for an algorithmic engagement that enables subjectivities to repossess control over the role their thought plays in how this future is assembled? Such an event will call a mode of social disruption with which the theory of technological disruption is yet to grapple.

The digital text The disruptions associated with technological development have led scholars working in a range of related fields, including the philosophy of technology, the history of communication and literacy studies, to link what they identify as different periods of history with epochal technology breaks. These include the evolution of writing within cultural contexts hitherto confined to the orality of face-to-face communication; the monastic illuminated manuscript; the movable type of the Gutenberg era; and, most recently, the emergent age of electronic communication and digital text (Bolter, 1991; Goody, 1986, 1987; Havelock, 1982, 1986; McLuhan, 1962; Ong, 1982). The various periods of human history thus identified have been characterised by changes in communication based around new modes of language and changing conceptions of the text. Theorisations of periods of human history, such as ‘the mode of information’ or ‘the second media age’, conceptualise changes in the presentation and organisation of knowledge and, to that extent, changing sets of social practices which may loosely be described in terms of shifting ‘forms of cultural life’ (Poster, 1994). The development of digital technologies and their widespread availability have bought about a fundamental paradigm shift in the ways that literary texts are written, read, disseminated and studied. Some scholars argue that this revolution is as profound as that created by Gutenberg’s invention of movable type. Scholars and teachers have begun to theorise changes in text production and distribution along lines indicating how such changes have been accompanied by changes in modes of subjectivity and identity formation. These deeper epochal changes are at least partly characterised by—and occur in conjunction with—technological innovations and changes affecting the production, construction, distribution and reception of texts within the large and complex dialectics of cultural practice and historical processes. The historical shifts in text production and distribution must be seen also as changes in the material conditions of social practices of all kinds. This is the first age of the digital text—of eBooks and online scholarly databases. New works are being composed, distributed and consumed electronically,

14  Michael A. Peters et al constituting a fundamental shift towards digitisation with strong consequences for nature of the literary and scholarly text and a range of new forms including webcomics, hypertext, interactive fiction, flash poetry and video games. The digital text alters the role of the reader, changes the nature of narrative and affects the task of interpretation. It also has already changed the nature of scholarly communication, with ‘advances’ in the development of the online journal since the early 1990s, the emergence of journal knowledge ecosystems and the development of altmetrics and bibliometrics that can chart ‘most read’ and ‘most cited’ and provide the history of citation. New digital technologies make video and aural media much more readily available and possible as a form of scientific communication and publication, allowing demonstrations, clinical observations, performances, oral histories and interviews for an attuned new generation of viewers. Digitisation is the process of making something available in digital form and in the digital medium: everything is expressed by assigning numeric values. This means that the text can be read by machines as well as people, and the process of digitisation can be understood as a process of increasing abstraction from characters to semantic units of texts (Wittern, 2002). Understanding the new attributes of digital texts—hypertext, interactivity and web search functionality—is at the forefront of the philosophy of publishing in the age of interconnectivity.

The rise of open access However one views it, the rise of open access (OA) has created a host of opportunities to challenge traditional publishing models. The monopolising effect of the big publishing houses has been shutting out smaller publishing groups from the market, but some have found strength in numbers as reported by the Scholarly Kitchen (Andersen, 2016). An example here is the new grouping of small colleges to enable a viable publishing house to emerge, called ‘Lever Press’, inspired by the idea that a small group can do something big (Archimedes’ Lever). Returning to Chibnik’s (2015) cautionary note, it seems that all that glitters may not be gold. There are several questions that must be asked in contemplating this golden era, while others are yet to be posed as a fuller implementation of the Budapest-Bethesda-Berlin Statements (see Suber, 2012). OA standards (Gold, Libre) are realised against emerging alternatives. The first concerns the sustainability of publishing by asking to what extent can members of scholarly societies continue to subsidise publications; the second addresses economic concerns regarding why members of notfor-profit scholarly societies should support profit-making gold journals; while the third—which may well be the elephant in the room—raises serious concerns about the scholarship itself by asking about the quality of the publication and how (and by whom) this is determined. The shades of grey that exist in between these critical questions have led to a series of complex responses—some we have tried to convey above.

A philosophy of academic publishing  15 We would also want to suggest that these are by no means the only questions that might be asked in further contemplation of OA. For instance, some argue (Jiménez, Boyer Open, Hartigan, & de la Cadena, 2015) that part of the answer lies in ‘reimagining who and what academic “collectivity” is’. This means rethinking the ecology of academic publishing, i.e. rethinking the current symbiotic relationships that maintain the status quo, and looking for ways to generate new relationships such as partnerships across the traditional academic silos of scholarly associations as well as reconsidering the crucial functions and possible new roles of the academic research library. Others suggest (Golub, 2015) blurring the line between ‘journal, platform, and community’; lauding innovation and arguing the need for new ways of funding, new ways of writing, and shared publishing. Creating collectives for publishing that enable smaller scholarly associations to gather financial strength while upholding the quality of published material, and making the case for public donation, the use of royalties, savings in subscriptions and advertising are avenues that have been considered (Hunter, 2012). But, the former assumption needs to be questioned. How should the quality of these final products of research be evaluated in the new publishing ecology? Questions like these ought to be raised about the institution of peer review and the co-developed roles of creator and reviewer in today’s high stakes, competitive research environment. Several writers have long since argued that self-interest wins out in any competitive research environment, but at the same time it is also known that innovation takes time and experimentation. If OA is to be viewed as a publishing innovation it will need more time to develop its scope in consideration of the complex systems, practices and ideologies in which it prospers. Given the high cost of publishing in Gold OA, it is likely that future researchers will share the burden of the cost of submission by preferring to work in collective projects and, with this, forge new kinds of publications that are more in line with principles of collective thinking and open-ness. Further, perhaps, the ecology of open access publishing will reduce the number and therefore the diversity of research projects undertaken, but increase the mass or complexity of the more collective research projects. If so, then researchers may need to report on and evaluate our research in a different way; and begin to reconsider the problem of collectivism and competition in academia within this OA era that so clearly orients their work. In this regard all that glitters may well be gold, but the economy that evolves will need to take into account other forms of currency if OA ideals are to be realised.

Enlightenment continuities? Universal access and democracy Having open access to information, along with the capacity to independently and collaboratively reflect and analyse that information with peers, are central values historically associated with the political philosophy of liberalism. In the Enlightenment era in Europe, liberals were known firstly for their defence of the capabilities of common people in

16  Michael A. Peters et al relation to religious and kingly authority. An early defence of the ability of ordinary men (and women, according to some thinkers …) to think for themselves can be found in the events of the Protestant Reformation, which served to weaken the religious authority of the Papacy over ordinary citizens, and relied on dissemination of inexpensive printing in basic languages to share Martin Luther’s and others’ critiques of the Catholic church broadly. (Luther’s focus on understanding rather than rote memorisation and acceptance of religious doctrine among followers is also reflected in his production of the Catechisms and other translation works.) As Russell has argued, the Reformation and conflict and widespread crisis of faith it created led to an abandonment of ‘the mediaeval hope of doctrinal unity’, making ‘it possible to escape persecution’ by emigrating and opening space for scientific and rational rejections of religious and other modes of authority within Europe (1945). A bold defence of peoples’ intellectual capabilities and their implications for social relations and specifically for greater modes of democracy can be found in Immanuel Kant’s (1784/1970) ‘Answer to the Question, “What Is Enlightenment?”’. Here and in other texts such as Critique of Pure Reason (1898; 1993), Kant described reason as a kind of free-standing entity that people could only grasp through their personal liberty to think and express themselves freely. He described ‘the voice of reason’ as ‘like the vote of citizens of a free state, every member of which must have the privilege of giving expression to his doubts’ (Kant, 1993). Here, a sort of open peer review of political processes through democratic deliberation is endorsed (Jackson, 2007). Ordinary men’s individual right to liberty of speech and belief against the claims of political or religious authority were thus articulated by Enlightenment and liberal thinkers. At the same time, with the rise of private market-oriented mass-produced printed newspapers and related publications came an entrenching of more inclusive print languages as ‘languages-of-power’ over older, elite administrative vernaculars, both trends paving the way for nationalistic models of human social contracts that were more horizontal than hierarchical, of a broad imagined community of like parts (Anderson, 1984). This is the official view of democracy, which depends on the freedom of individual self-expression and right to personal beliefs, but it also depends on having access to good information and the capacity to effectively use information, including literacy and critical thinking skills. Yet, because ‘democracy’ both carries historical baggage and creates it, this may not be the whole story. Derrida (1997) points out in The Politics of Friendship that ‘democracy’ historically in its origins (and not abandoning these characteristics) entails both xenophobia and misogyny—it is the political relationship only of genetically connected men, not of slaves, foreigners or women. Once we see ‘democracy’ in this light, then the privileged nature of certain kinds of language, of publications, of relationships becomes more evident. ‘Access’ implies inviting the helots and the hetaira into the political world, but the governmentality of democracy, and of the Internet, suggests that

A philosophy of academic publishing  17 while existing power relations may be challenged they will not be substantially altered. As an example, the frequently abusive or dismissive response of males to women venturing to have a presence in online discussions is well documented. Historically public media have been heralded as an important counterpart to the influence of private media, which may promote corporate sponsors’ values and interrelated private interests rather than responding to the need for good information to inform democratic participation (McChesney, 2004). That such media be independent from politics is also vital in order for journalists and others not to be overly impacted by the interests of politicians. Critical media literacy in education is emphasised above and beyond basic literacy in contexts where both media independence and public media strength are seen to falter today. Yet, critical media literacy, if it is to enhance democracy, to drive it beyond its tendencies to xenophobia and misogyny, has to be more than critical: it has to be politically aware and active. In the last decade many have considered the rise in access around the world to technology and particularly the internet as a promising event for freedom of information and, increasingly, for democracy. Apparently, anyone can spread information with the use of online social networks, forums and chat rooms; online communication is seen as a powerful facilitator of social movements for democracy, in the Middle East and in East Asia, where people have used social networks to communicate about collective protest movements and other gatherings. In this context, some countries have sought to limit access to online and mobile communication in using some websites, such as Facebook and Google in China, or turning off mobile services during times of national crisis and instability. Yet, others disagree, suggesting that capitalism has colonised online spaces in such a way that credible journalism is decreasing in scope in relation to the rise of government and corporate surveillance programmes that unethically use and facilitate information to benefit political and private interests over public ones (McChesney, 2014). Thus, the relationship between access to information and democratic political processes remains contentious and complex at this time, as simultaneously liberal and illiberal trends can be observed in different contexts today.

Ownership and rights In the academy, the knowledge of indigenous peoples has often been used to establish the boundaries around what is considered ‘real’ knowledge, e.g. science. Indigenous knowledge has been used as anthropological data, and mined for pieces of information of scientific (pharmacological, etc.) value. No questions were asked about rights and ownership of knowledge when white people arrived in the Global South (Moorehead, 1966). The situation at the ideological level mirrors the ecological—now that the forests are bare and the waters polluted, pieces of land (mostly in national parks) are being ‘returned’, in Aotearoa at least, to their traditional iwi owners. After over a century of science appropriating Māori knowledge, IP rights are finally on the table.

18  Michael A. Peters et al The question must be raised in relation to digital scholarship and publishing—where we can work wherever and whenever we like—of ownership and rights over the material products of one’s intellectual labour. As the opening section noted above, much of the labour of academic publishing (peer reviews, also editing work in many journals) is done by academics ‘for free’—meanwhile, the publishers reap huge profits by selling our own intellectual products back to us through library subscriptions! Digitisation of publishing has added to existing concerns about plagiarism, particularly for university students. The whole point of the Internet is to make it easy to access and copy information. On the other hand, there is ‘nothing new under the sun’. In the field of education, nobody ‘owns’ ideas: when you give them away you end up with more, not less than you started with. The vision of ‘open access’ is democratic and radical: it appears to transgress and endanger the current profit-making nature of the academic journal. Most academics find disagreeable the idea of authors paying a charge to publish their papers, both on principle (shades of vanity press) as well as for the practical reason that most already struggle to get enough funding for their research. But it may be that Gold OA (where the author pays a oneoff charge on publication to make their published article freely available in the public domain) is an interim arrangement. It is a choice: authors are under no compulsion to choose it. Green OA, where the author uploads the pre-publication version of their paper to a public domain repository, is the other choice—to date, no doubt, the more popular, in this period of transition. The open access movement aims to recover control—to assert our rights and ownership as creators—over the material products of our academic labour, and in that sense is politically radical. At present both open access and traditional publishing models coexist. Whatever the future brings, it is surely worth experimenting with the possibilities. Legal rights of ownership The opportunities that open access brings are, to a large extent, defined by legal rights of ownership and control of IP as well as questions of rights to, and control of, academic labour. If a new ecosystem exists in open access, and in collaborative works, digital exchanges and authorship, then how does one protect intangible rights of authorship, and where lies the relevance of moral rights? ‘Intellectual Property’ is a collective term for a bundle of rights or interests that are legally enforceable. The law affords protection for creative or intellectual ideas in ‘fixed’ form, in something one has made or created. The outcome of these efforts is legally identifiable as intangible property. IP laws assert that copyright subsists in literary works (written), dramatic and musical works, artistic works and recordings including video works, film, television and sound broadcast. Protection is afforded to digital databases,

A philosophy of academic publishing  19 computer software, and plant varieties, as well as the production of inventions, industrial or scientific processes. It is a curious thing that the quality of the expression is not an issue in IP laws—a racing card or list of figures or set of instructions could attract copyright as could a literary work. Hence, for academic publishing, the peer review process is crucial. Without this quality control, an academic could, theoretically, gain credit for publishing a list of academic duties, for example. As far as the IP legal regime is concerned that list deserves protection if it is original. The theory of labour turns to the originality of the labour: it is the original form of expression in the work, rather than the length of time taken in the pursuit, which must be found for the work to be deserving of protection. Where did IP laws come from? IP laws provide for inviolate rights to private property. The power and control of ideas in British law has a long and fascinating history dating back to Roman law, but it was the 1476 advent of Claxton’s printing press that made ideas publicly available at an ever-increasing scale, and printers soon saw a need to protect their rights to publication. Enter the Stationers’ Company (trade guild) in whose hands lay the regulation of publishing and printing. But the labour of authors was not to be overlooked and eventually the Statute of Anne 1709, otherwise known as the Copyright Act, codified rights for authors. Enacted in 1710, it was the first statute to acknowledge that private interests in copyright deserve protection by state and juridical processes. For over 120 years, the enforcement of IP has attracted intergovernmental interests formulated in various treaties. The 1883 Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property, and the 1886 Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, which established that copyright subsists when the creative or intellectual work is ‘fixed’ in some way, led to the establishment in Stockholm of the World Intellectual Property Organisation Convention (see: World Intellectual Property Organization Convention, n.d.). As a specialised agency of the United Nations, and today with 189 member states, WIPO has a significant administrative role in global IP protocols. The IP regime (with little substantive difference between civil law and common law provisions) includes copyright laws protecting original forms of expression, design laws to protect original designs, patent laws protecting inventions, trademark laws protecting symbols, words, even colours that signify a particular commercial product or business, circuit layout and plant variety laws, as well as protection for confidential information, trade practices and business reputation. In New Zealand one of the earliest examples of IP legislation was the 13th Ordinance of New Zealand in 1842 giving copyright protection to the Reverend Robert Maunsell’s book, A Grammar of the New Zealand Language, considered later to be the most substantial book written on the Māori language in the mid-nineteenth century (Auckland Libraries, n.d.). In 1861, pursuant to the Patent Act 1860, the first patent in New

20  Michael A. Peters et al Zealand was granted for the preparation of flax fibres (Phormium tenax, harakeke) for use in manufacturing goods (Derby, 2016). Relevantly, economic benefits from IP protection in the use of harakeke would not have gone to the indigenous people as the patent covered the use of harakeke, not the traditional knowledge it held—and in those days colonial enterprise would not have accorded a cultural or economic value to traditional knowledge. Today, UNESCO defines ‘traditional knowledge’ as ‘the cumulative and dynamic body of knowledge, know-how and representations possessed by peoples with long histories of interaction with their natural milieu … generally held collectively’ (UNESCO Bureau of Public Information, 2006, n.p.), but benchmarks were not set until the Convention on Biological Diversity (United Nations, 1992) requiring in Article 8(j) that state parties ‘protect, preserve and maintain knowledge innovations and practices of indigenous and local communities’ (p. 6). In New Zealand today, pursuant to the requirement for ‘approval and involvement of the holders of such knowledge’ (p. 6), a Māori advisory committee advises the Commissioner of Patents, Trade Marks and Designs of any Māori interests. This is a world first to provide guidelines and regulations around the use of traditional motifs and terms, such as moko or koru. Academic labour in writing and publishing: a tradeable asset? The ideas upon which we labour are tradeable assets when published— attracting IP protection of our Lockean exertion upon the ‘natural’ resources of the mind. The usual rules of IP are that the creator/author/originator/ inventor owns the rights, which are ‘proprietary’ in nature: they may be assigned, licenced, sold, commercialised or left to beneficiaries under a will. But the ideas need a ‘container’ to attract protection: as Idris (2003) in conjunction with WIPO states, IP conveys intangible ideas and imaginative thought, which ‘become valuable in tangible form as products’ (p. 8). So academics need publishers, just as artists need exhibitions, and innovators need commercial outlets. For academics, the ideas expressed (‘fixed’) in material form of writing (literary, artistic, scientific works) are protected under this regime. Hence the value of academic labour lies in the writing, publishing and distribution of those original thoughts, ideas, expressions; and the ‘chattel’, the object, the journal or book held in the hand or read on the screen, is needed for this purpose. Whether we like it or not, as producers of original ideas we are in a symbiotic relationship with producers of material products that hold and distribute our ideas. That is our economy of scholarly publishing. Do we also have a similar symbiotic relationship with the corporate university who is paying for our academic labour? Protecting economic benefits, every university now has an IP policy to ensure the central concentration of ownership of inventions, patents, and other commercialisable outputs of academic labour. Who is advantaged/disadvantaged here? If we have a mutuality of relationship premised on the value of labour, then contract law

A philosophy of academic publishing  21 must come into legal play as well as IP laws to ensure shared economic benefit—and academics need to keep an eye on the rules of the game. Moral rights and collective authorship But what of the demand upon academics who collaborate? In collective authorship there is a displacement of the unity of the speaking subject, and fragmentation of the unity of individual labour. An economic demand may persist, and also a moral one: the multiple labouring subject calls to be heard in terms of an ethics of care of the other. Implicit in the new knowledge ecologies are moral rights of authorship. If one’s work is not acknowledged it is somehow debased, so the integrity of both authorship and the work itself is at stake. The underlying principle is that the work in the form the author intended is deserving of protection from alteration, mutilation or distortion. Even after assigning a work to a third party, the moral rights of the author subsist. In terms of academic publishing, this means that if a publisher subsequently alters the work without permission, the academic’s moral rights would have been transgressed. What if one’s collaborator alters the work? If Author X writes the skeleton of an article and Author Y changes it or overwrites it, and Author Z turns it figuratively upside down, and Author X ridicules Y’s and Z’s writing, then who is transgressing whose moral rights? Scenarios are many, but the situation does point to the basic tenet that along with rights come obligations. A shared commitment to collaborative labour makes a demand on each academic writer to activate the lexicon of trust and care, one to the other. A greater degree of certainty exists for any individual in some instances, to be sure. In the digital environment in Aotearoa, the copyright holder’s right to broadcast as a right to communicate is theoretically assured, pursuant to the Copyright Act 1994 (NZ), and thus the law apparently scribes the parameters of the holder’s relationship with others in a general sense. Ultimately, though, there is a certain level of undecidability to the labour of collective authorship. It evokes the Derridean trace in the text, and Cixous’ voice of other, along with Noddings’ ethics of care, yet remains open to address by juridical agents and courts.

The geographical distribution of journal knowledge A healthy ecosystem? In the space of academic publishing, there are many instances of cooperation and competition; and while more and more academic labour is a result of collaboration and coalition, it is often performed under the veil of academic pressures. Academic publishing has become a currency, which no longer only serves the need for disseminating knowledge, but also serves the academic institution as a source of income. In return, many academics’ positions are directly linked with publishing and wider international dissemination. These agendas point to a unique publishing ecosystem. What sustains a healthy

22  Michael A. Peters et al ecosystem involves many interacting parts, the editors of the Journal of Scholarly Publishing claim (Holzman & Brown, 2016). Some of these are obvious, and some are not. What might this healthy ecosystem look like in academic publishing, and what does it mean in the geographical distribution of academic journals? The ecosystem of academic publishing is fairly unbalanced. Most of the international journals with a wide reach are located in Western countries, with less distribution to the countries in the Global South or elsewhere. Further to be factored into the academic publishing scene are Google Scholar, Research Gate, academia.edu and other sources, such as Facebook or Twitter, that have changed the way we perceive academic publishing, and the way that knowledge is distributed. The ecosystem is very fragile, and struggles to achieve a balance between publishing houses and the small outlets of individual academics seeking to disseminate their work widely. What we are currently dealing with, alongside the shift to digital and online publishing, and the changing dissemination of knowledge, is a whole new way of scholarly, academic and journal communication, as the ecosystem as a whole teeters carefully to balance the continued evolution of the systems that drive its journals’ dissemination. As has been pointed to before, however, access to the Internet and downloads are a privilege in themselves, which in some countries remain heavily regulated, gentrified and even censored. Furthermore, academics have seen the rise of massively large publishers, changes in funding sources and supplies that underwrite the costs of communication. This has in turn altered the perceptions of scholarship and the production of knowledge. New forms of knowledge have become available to a smaller and smaller readership, as access, governed through subscriptions, ultimately changes the career paths and goals of all human subjects involved in the process. Scholars, publishers, administrators, librarians, universities and other research institutions, learned societies, students, distributors, typesetters, printers and governments local and national struggle to seize the opportunities afforded by new technologies while avoiding the pitfalls they pose. We have entered the era of a knowledge economy, where publishing has become associated with monetary exchange, but often bypasses the producer of the academic labour. Open access (OA), as noted earlier, has caused ripples through the publishing system, affecting the distribution of academic knowledge. The OA movement has widened the gap, in some sense, increasing visibility for some scholarship while creating difficulties in covering the costs of disseminating other scholarship. The geographical distribution of journal knowledge has become directly linked to a privileged world and sidelined those who struggle. Knowledge—flourishing, in stasis or in jeopardy? What journal knowledge is distributed depends on what is known about knowledge. Understanding the epistemological phenomena, the physicality and the implications of geographically distributing knowledge, across space

A philosophy of academic publishing  23 and place, has long been contested, debated, perpetuated and silenced: it has been shaping and forming epistemologies about knowledge since before Plato. The term, the act, the performance, arise in some suggestions through definitions, where having knowledge is seen as a certain ‘truth’, resting on a particular certainty, evidence, practical proof or wide agreement across members of society, or at least across a particular relevant group. This raises the question, for example, of whether scholarly communications published by journals are flourishing, in stasis or in jeopardy (Holzman & Brown, 2016). We argue that all of these attempts at defining knowledge are problematic in themselves, as each is contestable and therefore provides little in the way of certainty, stability—or stasis. Therefore, if knowledge is seen as problematic, so is its distribution. At the same time, as argued above, journal knowledge is also flourishing, with its many forms of contemporary distribution. But who is benefiting from this new order of academic publishing? Who is academic publishing for, and who is distributing this knowledge? Dare we question whether there is any new knowledge? Is knowledge fixed, then, fluid or simply an outright representation of the tensions between human subjects? Perhaps, following Hegel (1952/1977), knowledge is fixed, absolute and knowable. But perhaps journals then merely ruminate in what is already known, stirring it up in diverse configurations, offering different perspectives, but elevating none in the form of new knowledge? On the other hand, maybe what is necessary is the chaos Wittgenstein (1984) urged, or Kristeva’s idea of a revolt, where thought itself is the truest form of dissidence (1986)? And perhaps it is this disturbance and uncertainty that ultimately governs and drives the distribution of journal knowledge? But somehow we suspect that journal knowledge may be in jeopardy. In Bauman’s (2009) conception of society as a liquid modernity, where information supersedes itself without time to evolve, where competition, rapidly made decisions, short-term solutions and superficiality could lead to detriment and failure—the jeopardy of depth, long-term commitments, perseverance in knowledge distribution and relationships. Peters, Besley and Araya (2013) point to the importance of knowledge and openness, in the new development paradigm and knowledge economy. The increasingly prolific dissemination of knowledge through increasingly prolific journals, publication ratings and the push for liquidly modern rapid decisions on peer review may indeed place knowledge in jeopardy. Editors distributing the knowledge of their authors cling to their rigorous processes, in the face of author pressure, filtered down from the establishments charged in the first place with their roles as critic and conscience, of the very society that is creating this pressure. In this space, the increasing globalisation of scholarly research, cross-continent collaborations and their dissemination rely on a certain openness, in the geographic dispersal and distribution of knowledge. The EPAT journal provides an insight into the idea of global distribution of journal knowledge. Despite the journal being based in Australasia, many submissions originate from outside of this geographical realm. While the

24  Michael A. Peters et al journal receives article submissions mainly from the countries in the Global North, and its readership and subscribers are mostly from Western countries, over the past years submissions have increasingly come also from countries outside of the realm of the West. Moreover, the inclusion of special issues that feature editors from Taiwan and non-English text has created further global outreach. Relatedly, as universities from China, Hong Kong and Singapore grow in global prestige as reflected in global rankings, debates over the importance of language and culture to epistemology and to knowledge production and consumption have become unavoidable in the Asia Pacific region, and in Western institutions seeking to benefit from East–West collaboration. Chinese-context institutions in China and Singapore suffer from an international reputation of lacking academic freedom in relation to the larger societies’ human rights challenges. On the other hand, government provisioning for higher education and research across disciplinary areas in these societies (as well as in Hong Kong) has clearly resulted in tremendous research productivity, increasing Western scholars’ interest in collaborative research with colleagues in these institutions. Yet as globally prestigious knowledge dissemination practices take place predominantly in English, Chinese scholars continue to be stymied from participating in an equitable way in important journal publication processes. Scientific genres of academic writing across disciplinary areas have taken hold in these contexts, as they enable authors to skirt issues related to the level of English fluency required for publication in competitive, rigorous, high-impact journals. Such practices at the same time tend to bind scholars based in the Asia Pacific region to positivistic research attitudes, approaches and assumptions; through practices of traditional peer review, this genre norm excludes academics in Asia who use qualitative, phenomenological, critical theoretical and related approaches. Sticky debates across East and West arise in these contexts regarding whose perspectives and voices can be or should be authoritative locally. And as Chinese institutions rise in prestige, new peripheries of academic publication emerge, as Chinese-language journals are compared negatively to English-language journals within Chinese societies, and as culturally Chinese academics work for respect and recognition in an English-language academic world; while at the same time Western academics strive to interact with Chinese scholars and institutions in an equitable way within an inequitable linguistic and cultural order. Academic publishing is thus rapidly changing. The increasing significance to scholars of creating an online presence, and pressure on authors to publish and disseminate their work, is changing the contemporary publishing landscape and the way we understand knowledge. Furthermore, what journals such as EPAT demonstrate is that journals have agency as a productive force in connecting what are simultaneously geographical and cultural divides, by creating spaces within which publishing can connect wide readership and foster global knowledge. There is much work to be done to bridge the gaps to the Global South, both in the production of journals in the West, as well

A philosophy of academic publishing  25 as in their readership. At the same time, the rise of Asian and particularly Chinese cultural contexts of academic research raise new questions about epistemology, language and equity against a larger backdrop of academic competition for funding and prestige. The knowledge ecosystem, like the scholarship it disperses, is delicately balanced, flourishing, in stasis and in jeopardy.

Peer review: history and future There are many standard introductions to peer review and its importance generally offered by publishers such as Elsevier that make similar statements about its purpose: Reviewers play a central role in scholarly publishing. Peer review helps validate research, establish a method by which it can be evaluated, and increase networking possibilities within research communities. Despite criticisms, peer review is still the only widely accepted method for research validation. (http://www.elsevier.com/reviewers/what-is-peer-review) Big publishers see peer review as a process that both validates research and is deemed essential to vouchsafe the quality of the journals they publish.2 Kathleen Fitzpatrick (2009) in a Media Common Press early release of a chapter from her Planned Obsolescence: Publishing, Technology, and the Future of the Academy (2011) acknowledges that while peer review has its origins in state censorship ‘it was intended to augment the authority of a journal’s editor rather than assure the quality of a journal’s products’. Formalised peer review, she claims, did not become a part of scientific method or scholarly publishing until the middle of the twentieth century.3 As Fitzpatrick acknowledges, formalised scholarly peer review can be traced to the establishment of ‘The Committee on Papers’ of the Royal Society’s journal Philosophical Transactions in 1752 but the Edinburgh Royal Society seems to have had a peer review process as early as 1731. It could be argued that the concept of peer review is considerably older than previously thought and that it has its origins in the idea and process of trial by a jury of one’s peers. If this connection is historically sound then the notion dates back to fifth century BCE Ancient Greece where members of the Boule or Council were selected by lot from the body of citizens. The jury and the Boule were thus at the core of Athenian democracy. In the modern context, the practice apparently evolved from the Germanic tribes and the Vikings where the custom was for good men to judge alleged crimes and criminals. In particular, the Vikings used the notion that free men in the court could play a central role. The mediaeval custom was then developed during the reign of Henry II in the twelfth century as a basis for local government that depended on jurors’ first-hand knowledge, the forerunner of today’s ‘expert knowledge’, and original investigation beyond the realm of

26  Michael A. Peters et al hearsay and rumour. Magna Carta contains the provision and guarantee that no free man may suffer punishment without ‘the lawful judgement of his peers’. Much later, the system was reformed with the passing of the Bill for Better Regulation of Juries in 1730. Practices of mutual performance evaluation by colleagues have also been in place for centuries in a number of professions—most notably medicine, dating back at least to the Ethics of the Physician written by Ishāq ibn ‘Alī al-Ruhāwī (854–931), which recommended that doctors write duplicate case notes and show them to a panel of other doctors at the end of treatment. In scholarly publishing, the specific practices used to implement peer review— though they might seem hegemonic to the contemporary scholar slaving in his or her disciplinary silo—have, as noted, been in constant evolution since the early modern period. Although the model of submitting a ‘paper’ to a ‘journal’ which is assessed by two or three blind reviewers is now extremely widespread, there is a lack of consensus on such matters of detail as what exactly is meant by ‘blind’, whether reviewers should be required to justify their decisions to authors, and how long the whole process should take. Moreover a series of institutional pressures are increasingly fraying the edges of this system. First, ‘publish or perish’ imperatives in response to oversupply in the academic job market vastly increased reviewers’ workloads while simultaneously decreasing time left over from their own research, then advances in computing power, such as word processing and the Internet, enabled easier reproduction of unoriginal work. Scientific research has also recently been rocked by instances of fraud and misconduct which have occurred despite the supposed validation of peer review—so much so that the issue now has its own blog—Retraction Watch (http://retractionwatch.com). In some cases, this has happened because the fraudster has contrived to review their own paper, but in most cases, two or three independent reviewers of the piece in question have not noticed any problems. Some commentators have now begun discussing whether peer review is ‘broken’ (e.g. Csiszar, 2016; Gould, 2012; Rip, 1985). An early initiative to bypass peer review was the arXiv database of preprints, begun in 1991 by physicist Paul Ginsparg at Los Alamos National Laboratory, out of frustration at time into print. Its use quickly spread to other sciences, such as mathematics, computer science and astronomy. Authors now self-archive and freely share papers, numbering around 8000 per month (as at 2014). A more recent initiative is so-called ‘post-publication peer review’. PubPeer is a notable example. Set up in 2012 by a coalition of early career researchers, it has already been used enthusiastically by the scientific community as a forum for reporting errors and alleged fraud which slip past the (now) limited resources of pre-publication refereeing. This has led to a number of high-profile publication retractions and also ‘legal heat’, as at least one researcher who had problematic data pointed out anonymously on PubPeer and subsequently lost a job offer has subpoenaed to obtain the commenters’ names so he can sue. PubPeer has refused to comply, and the parties are currently attempting to resolve the ‘poorly defined interface between the law of defamation and the scientific process’ (nature.com).

A philosophy of academic publishing  27 Finally, Wikipedia is a fascinating case study in the governance of the new knowledge economy. As Wikipedia calls itself ‘the free encyclopaedia that anyone can edit’, is this another instance where peer review has seemingly been made redundant? In the project’s early days, many commentators claimed that it would obviously and quickly fail through lack of quality control, and attempts were made to recruit academic specialists to ‘oversee’ supposedly improved versions (Nupedia being one example). But those initiatives dwindled while Wikipedia went from strength to strength. In fact, Wikipedia has its own unique form of peer review, arguably of a much more constant and rigorous kind, with an ever-evolving set of internal rules or protocols for how its pages are collaboratively edited (so-called Wikiquette), and the ability to restore vandalised pages at lightning speed. It seems clear that procedures and practices of scholarly peer review will continue to evolve into the future, along with the knowledge work that they scrutinise. That is not to say, though, that there is no continuity underlying these changes. What all such practices arguably have in common is an attempt to capture a special kind of communicational act which Joseph Ransdell (following Charles Peirce) has usefully summarised in four basic principles: Scientific publication proper … is (1) communication that occurs within a special public (2) which consists of all persons—living dead and as yet unborn—with a common interest in a certain subject matter … and (3) the common interest being to come to a better understanding of that subject matter … and (4) who understand that what binds them together in a communicational community is not their personal affinities and likenesses but their common concern that that subject matter should be increasingly well understood by all who are similarly concerned. (Ransdell, 1998)

Peer-reviewed open access journals: the case of APCs Since 2003, the open access (OA) market has been progressively conquered by professionally published journals which subsidise themselves by charging contributors article processing charges (APCs). Since 2009, the OA journal setting has been altered significantly with the expanded potentiality of APC-funded commercial publishers. Lately, the main commercial and society publishers have gradually started new OA outlets (Peters, 2013) and have reorganised several subscription journals into APC-financed models. Journals that embraced the autonomous scholar-published OA journal model anticipative are hardly ever contingent on APC funding, which may be a hindrance for some potential contributors without resources or mechanisms to pay for their articles (Beaubien, Garrison & Way, 2016). Despite the fact that OA literature is accessible without restriction to readers, there are nevertheless expenses related to producing or publishing OA material. In the established

28  Michael A. Peters et al subscription model, the readers of the journal bear most of the expense of producing it. The producer-pays model may bring about the expenditure being transferred to the authors of the article. The latter may confront detrimental outcomes (Peters, Liu & Ondercin, 2011) as academic publishing shifts from a user-pays to a producer-pays model (peer-reviewed OA outlets may have the same attention to detail and quality as their subscription-based equivalents). Even though some contributors use grant funds to cover the fees, a substantial percentage of authors still cannot get either grant funding or the resources to pay for them on their own. The paucity of available funds generates an obstruction to both the author’s career, which is conditional on publication and circulation, in addition to the shift of academic publishing to an OA model (Beaubien, Garrison & Way, 2016). The increase of online OA has deep consequences for academic publishing, especially the move from subscribers to contributors as the main transactional partners for peer-reviewed journals. OA provides numerous advantages but leads up to predatory publishers, who misuse the author-as-customer pattern to gain returns from author fees while supplying insufficient editorial services related to academic publishing. Predatory journals put in print articles with negligible or no peer review, and they frequently conceal their real geographical headquarters while overstressing their scope and editorial competence. Such outlets endeavour to attract contributors by guaranteeing unreasonably idealistic swift editorial decisions while unscrupulously claiming peer review, and trumping up impact factors and inclusion in academic indexing and abstracting services. The uncontrollable rise in predatory OA journals is a threat to naïve contributors and may destabilise the OA model and the authentic dissemination of scientific research (Ward, 2016).

What do altmetrics measure? Maybe the broader impact of research on society Article altmetrics scores do not constitute an in-advance hint of the citation of an article or a convenient counterpart of the journal impact factor (when averaged). The mean journal altmetrics scores can alter swiftly by reasonable amounts, as a distinctly hot article may immediately captivate attention (Lazaroiu, 2014a), effortlessly acquiring a score of a few hundred in a week, although in the explosion of lower-scoring articles it is only an evanescent glitch in the mean altmetrics. In the few days in which nearly all of the altmetrics score expands, a hot piece may gain considerable attention from mainstream media and bloggers. Journalists associated with news outlets may not cite that publication in an article included in the ISI Web of Science, and the majority of bloggers are not specialised enough in that domain to produce a formal citation of this type. Nearly all tweets to a certain piece may occur from little of the article being inspected, and there is an insufficient link between Twitter activity and proportion accomplishment of inspection of a particular piece (Moore, 2016). Scholarly metrics attempt to assess the performances of individuals, articles and journals. Evaluating

A philosophy of academic publishing  29 attention, altmetrics cannot answer the purpose of the recognition role of scholarship, the latter determining the effectiveness of a research finding, and the accuracy of an article’s data and methodology. Open access outlets may operate more effectively at attention metrics as they are available to any individual online. If altmetrics turn out to be a fashionable standard of academic attainment, as a result, many authors will write anything required to generate attention to their pieces (Lazaroiu, 2014b), boosting their altmetrics values and surpassing others. The measure may be excessively straightforward to have any legitimate validity or meaning. Clusters of researchers may play against article-level metrics, exaggeratedly improving the social media performance of a separate academic article (Beall, 2015). Altmetrics can be a reaction to the rising pressure to indicate other kinds of impact and may supply hints of concern from a broader public or some particular publics. The diverse altmetrics can be a sign of distinct degrees of impact. Altmetrics can draw attention to fashionable and provocative research and draw it out of the exclusive scientific ecosystem to the accessible, online setting and to the interest of the broad audience (Lazaroiu, 2014c), increasing cognisance and reach of research products. Diverse online publics get involved with research outputs in distinct manners, bringing about altmetrics as a consequence of their online undertakings. Altmetrics are in some measure produced by scholars as part of their academic communication and somewhat by the audience who consider the research outputs thought-provoking enough to get involved with them and distribute information about them. Some of the interest various research outputs receive online and in social media may not be related to scientific impact of that research (Holmberg, 2016).

Discussion The recent, rapid, changes in the ‘ecology’ of academic publishing is our opening gambit. We seek to demonstrate that, from small beginnings in the seventeenth century, and the early efforts of Henry Oldenburg, the world of academic publishing has changed dramatically. Arguably, the most dramatic changes have been those associated with the digitisation of content, and the online availability of resources; though, even in the context of a ‘free’ Internet, publishing houses have limited this access to those able to pay. Scholarly communication, thus, may now be regarded as being in the centre of dynamic epistemological and economic changes. That being said, we argue that the digitisation of scholarly content is not a process of replacement, but perhaps one of refinement and growing technical sophistication. This sophistication occurs in the face of, or perhaps because of, the disruptions wrought by technology. These disruptions may be linked to commercial advance, though, we argue, not necessarily everyone benefits. Indeed, ‘end users’ of technological replacements of traditional materials, such as books, may be the poorer for the experience, as Mangen (2016) suggests, thus their experience is disrupted. Scholars have a role to play too, in relation to disruption; however, this role may be curtailed if they fail to recognise how

30  Michael A. Peters et al this technological disruption is so arranged by publishers and universities as to entrench exploitation of their academic labour. A productive scholarly role, then, is to seek to critique notions of disruption. Typically, the vehicle scholars will have used to convey such critique is the written word. While this has taken many forms over the ages, a significant paradigm shift is evident in the turn to digitised text. This text, we have shown, increasingly takes forms beyond mere words on a page. So profound are these changes, that changes are brought about in the behaviour of both ‘producers’ and ‘consumers’ of these texts. It may be suggested that these changes are limiting the scope of critique, which requires more attention than a new generation of ‘readers’ of text is willing—or able—to offer. The language of Open Access (OA), with terms such as ‘green and ‘gold’, is only latterly influencing the active vocabulary of scholars. Indeed, some are stoically positioned to resist taking on this emergent lexicon. OA raises issues around scholarly effort, academic quality and who profits by academic labour. Yet, we suggest, OA creates several opportunities for innovation. One of these is to encourage collective projects, thus to minimise the cost to individuals of Gold OA. Yet, this may fly in the face of the individualistic performativity underpinning many national research performance assessment audit tools. The notion of OA may trace its roots to Enlightenment notions of liberal freedom of thought and belief, which prized critical reflection on freely, or cheaply, available printed texts. In this regard, the Internet has introduced the notion that ‘everyone is an author’, and has, through social media, supported democratic movements, such as the ‘Arab Spring’. Yet (and in part, for these reasons), states under threat have sought to control the Internet (or at least popular access to it). In another sense, OA, despite its appropriation by the publishing houses to further enrich themselves at the expense of scholarly labour, does represent a valiant effort to regain the IP rights of scholars to their own work. These rights have a long history in Western lawmaking. Yet, much as some may dislike this fact, we have argued that IP is meaningless without a publication avenue—hence, scholars need journals and publishers as much as publishers need scholars to produce the (quality) copy that will command a readership. A potential challenge to IP exists, however, in the very possibility suggested earlier to circumvent to considerable cost of Gold OA—namely, collaborative work. How does one gauge, estimate or apportion IP to a collective? Working collectively, as previously pointed out, is also at odds with working in an ecology that prioritises individualised, performative research, encouraged by audit exercises such as New Zealand’s Performance Based Research Fund (see PBRF). Furthermore, scholars are not operating in, nor are they addressing, an equitable publishing ecology. They are, however, operating in a fluid, and potentially, exciting new landscape, one in which the traditional Western audience is changing, and in which ‘non-traditional’ scholars are coming to play a role as both readers and contributors. This evolving and emergent ecology is one in which collectives of scholars, authors and editors have potentially significant roles to play in establishing an equitable landscape.

A philosophy of academic publishing  31 One dimension of that landscape is the concept of peer review, a process that may seem arcane to a layperson, yet which plays a significant role in the life of scholars. At some level, it may be argued that without blind peer review, the enterprise of academic publishing may be in danger. It is this long-established process that ensures creditable knowledge is transferred and communicated through scholarly publishing. That said, as we have argued throughout, the world of academic, scholarly publishing is in the grip of change, particularly prompted by digital initiatives. Some of these, it may be suggested, could provide an alternative way to think about peer review, which seems to be a process not fit-for-purpose in an era of fast communication. Nevertheless, the conventional system of double-blind peer review continues to act as some protection against the unsavoury, opportunistic journals whose Author Processing Charges (APC) are balanced by their offer of fast turnaround review times. In a ‘publish or perish’ climate, inexperienced researchers and scholars are tempted by these promises, yet they may find their work falling into disreputable journals, with minimal review processes in place. We argue this predatory behaviour challenges the positive potential of an OA environment, and will simply add fuel to those scholars who eschew OA as ‘vanity publishing’. Publishing in this, the second decade of the twenty-first century, is indeed a ‘brave new world’ for many academics, who cut their teeth by hand-mailing hard-copy articles to editors on far-flung shores. Now, the activity of scholars on Twitter and Facebook can have a strong, immediate influence on how their articles are perceived in the digital realm. This influence is measured by altmetrics, a measure not of traditional citation-related impact, but of the way and extent to which scholars’ work is encouraging others to ‘talk’ about their research. We argue that, in this ‘brave new world’, scholars do need to emerge from their elitist ecosystems of the past, and engage fully and openly, with the larger world.

Open review process A review of ‘Towards a Philosophy of Academic Publishing’ Thank you for the opportunity to review this manuscript. The article provides a comprehensive, wide-ranging discussion of academic publishing. The authors bring philosophical, historical and political perspectives to bear on questions relating to the production and circulation of knowledge. They pay attention to the roles played by large commercial publishing houses in this process, pointing to both strengths and limitations of currently dominant approaches to the publication of academic work. The article is innovative and important, in both its content and the process through which it has been produced. The formation of an editorial/authorial collective as the basis for generating the ideas in the article and building its content rubs against the tendency to view academic work in primarily individualistic and competitive terms. This is, it might be said, a quiet act of subversion, with the principles of collegiality and cooperation

32  Michael A. Peters et al driving the writing process, rather than individual academic advancement. The eclectic mix of themes addressed in the article adds to its richness and distinctiveness, and reflects the varied backgrounds and interests of the contributing authors. The approach taken here does, however, carry some risks, one of which is the danger of losing a certain coherence in the interplay of ideas across the multiple sections. In my view, the article could benefit from a stronger, clearer line of argument that links the different sections together. More extensive engagement with policy, at a national and international level, might also improve the article. This dimension of the discussion is evident in a number of sections but more could be said to show how regimes of knowledge production and publication are mediated, constrained and enabled by policy developments. A closely related point might also be made about the politics of research in contemporary universities and other institutions. In particular, the emergence of systems of performance-based research funding, with the UK leading the way and other countries following suit, warrants further consideration. New Zealand’s Performance-Based Research Fund (PBRF) has arguably had a substantial impact on how, why and for whom research is undertaken. A number of the sections in the article make brief reference to pressures on academics to publish, and developments such as the PBRF help to explain what those pressures are and how they are experienced by researchers, individually and collectively. The PBRF has reconfigured the way researchers think about themselves and their work, contributed to the ongoing commodification of knowledge, and altered the language used to discuss research related activities. Research is now largely conceived in terms of ‘outputs’ and ‘performance’ (rather than, say, the cultivation of strong research cultures). What counts is that which can be measured. Parts of the article hint at the effects of such regimes on academic publishing, but more explicit and detailed analysis of one or two specific examples would be helpful. As a final note, I should say that I would prefer not to be named as an author of the article. These comments are provided in the spirit of collegiality, with no expectations beyond those usually associated with the process of peer review. I hope the feedback might be helpful in developing the final version of the article. Peter Roberts University of Canterbury 16 September 2016 A review of ‘Towards a Philosophy of Academic Publishing’ The idea of a number of authors collaborating to produce an extended article on the philosophy of publishing is innovative as it is risky. There is no question that it is an unusual way of producing a scholarly piece of work. In reading the piece, it struck me that in some ways it was remarkably uniform, with each section seamlessly moving into the next. There is a unity of theme, which as stated at the outset, reflects a journal publishing

A philosophy of academic publishing  33 ecosystem. While the aptness of the metaphor remains to be explored, the idea of an ‘Editors and Reviewers Collective’ mirroring in the humanities a scientific team working together on a project is successfully realised in this article. On a closer inspection, however, very diverse voices can be discerned, as well as ways of considering the issues associated with academic publishing. Despite this, it is not a bricolage, where by this we mean it is not simply a collection of oddments taken from a variety of sources and put together haphazardly. The existence of different voices articulating ideas about the problematic of academic publication does not in this case lead to a potpourri of disjointed statements. Of course, in the Derridean sense of bricolage, the ideas contained in the article are derived from the culture and tradition of academic publishing in which the authors are immersed, but the different voices bring other perspectives to bear on these to create new connections and provide a means to discern a path ahead for academic publishing. This does not necessarily involve the abandonment of old concepts and the creation of entirely new ones. The article is not revolutionary in that sense, but it aims to disrupt existing patterns of thought and structures. What it provides, through turning its attention to the variegated facets of academic thinking, writing and publishing, is a quite powerful statement of not only its present status but also provides sufficient analysis to offer an outline for a possible future. Enough is suggested in the various sections of the article that what is meant by publication, by peer review, by open access, by impact factors, and so on, is not fixed, but contestable. What is challenged is the existing paradigm for academic publication in the humanities. In a somewhat understated way, what is proposed is a renegotiation of the whole academic enterprise and the meaning that is attached to academic publication, as well as its purpose. For academic institutions, academic publication in high quality journals is a vehicle for improving the ranking and standing of the institution; for an academic, it is the means by which research grants are obtained and promotion secured. Unfortunately, as the article shows us, the measures for determining quality are themselves unstable and, it can be added, the idea of knowledge production itself is chimerical, perhaps a point that could have been made more strongly. The article looks back as well as forward, surveying both the history and genesis of the academic journal and mapping out what the next developments are likely to be. History, as Croce observed, is only history when it is something of importance to us, but he also remarks that it is written from a certain point of view. He adds that it is neither mechanistic nor deterministic. We cannot, therefore be entirely sure, on the basis of past history, what the future will bring, but we can try to shape it nevertheless. What is written in the article displays a passionate concern for the future direction of academic publication and it is not afraid to propose some ways in which it can be reconceptualised and its control returned to the academic authors and reviewers who produce the articles and books. Jānis (John) T. Ozoliņš September 2016

34  Michael A. Peters et al

Notes 1 See the Editors Collective at http://www.editorscollective.org.nz/. 2 See Elsevier’s https://www.publishingcampus.elsevier.com/pages/69/Colleges/ College-of-Skills-Training/Peer-review.html. See also Taylor & Francis’s site http://journalauthors.tandf.co.uk/review/peer.asp as another example. 3 http://mcpr ess.media-commons.org/plannedobsolescence/one/ the-history-of-peer-review/.

References Agamben, G. (1998). Homo sacer: Sovereign power and bare life (D. Heller-Roazen Trans.). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Andersen, R. (2016). An Interview with Lever Press. The Scholarly Kitchen. Retrieved from https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2016/01/25/an-interview-with-lever-press/ Anderson, B. (1984). Imagined communities. London: Verso. Archambault, E. (2010). 30 years in science: Secular movements in knowledge creation. Retrieved from http://www.science-metrix.com/30years-Paper.pdf. Auckland Libraries. (n.d.) Grey collection—The gift. Retrieved August 8, 2016, from http://www.georgegrey.org.nz/ Bauman, Z. (2009). Education in the liquid-modern setting. Power and Education, 1, 157–166. doi:10.2304/power.2009.1.2.157 Beall, J. (2015). The ‘Metric’ system: Yet more chaos in scholarly publishing. The Journal of Physical Chemistry Letters, 6, 2020–2021. Beaubien, S., Garrison, J., & Way, D. (2016). Evaluating an open access publishing fund at a comprehensive university. Journal of Librarianship and Scholarly Communication, 3, eP1204. Björk, B.-C., Shen, C., & Laakso, M. (2016). A longitudinal study of independent scholar-published open access journals. PeerJ, 4, e1990. Bloem, J., van Doom, M., Duivestein, S., Exoffier, D., Mass, R., & van Ommeren, E. (2014). The fourth industrial revolution: Things to tighten the link between IT and OT. Retrieved from http://www.fr.sogeti.com/globalassets/global/downloads/ reports/vint-research-3-the-fourth-industrial-revolution Bolter, J. (1991). Writing space: The computer, hypertext, and the history of writing. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Chibnik, M. (2015). From the editor: Open access. American Anthropologist, 06/2015, 117(2). Christensen, C. M. (1997). The innovator’s dilemma: When new technologies cause great firms to fail. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Clobridge, A. (2014). Open access: Progress, possibilities, and the changing scholarly communications ecosystem. Online Searcher: Information Discovery, Technology Strategies, 38, (20). Copyright Act 1994 (NZ). (1994). Retrieved from http://www.legislation.govt.nz/ act/public/1994/0143/latest/DLM345634.html Csiszar, A. (2016, April 19). Peer review: Troubled from the start. Nature. Retrieved from http://www.nature.com/news/peer-review-troubled-from-the-start-1.19763 Derby, M. (2016). Inventions, patents and trademarks—patents in New Zealand. Retrieved from Te Ara—The Encyclopedia of New Zealand: http://www.TeAra. govt.nz/en/inventions-patents-and-trademarks/page-2 Derrida, J. (1997). The politics of friendship. London: Verso.

A philosophy of academic publishing  35 Foucault, M. (1994). Nietzsche, genealogy, history (In D. F. Brouchard, & S. Simon Trans.), J. D. Fabion (Eds.), Aesthetics (pp. 369–391). London: Penguin Books. (Original work published 1971) Foucault, M. (1997). Technologies of self. In P. Rabinow (Eds.), Ethics (pp. 223– 325). London: Penguin Books. (Original work published 1982) Gaiger, S., Le Roux, E., & Bothma, T. (2014, April). The predictive value of disruptive technology theory for digital publishing in the traditional publishing environment: A South African case study. Journal of Scholarly Publishing, 45, 261–288. Golub, A. (2015). Retrieved October 5, 2016, from http://savageminds.org/2015/05/27/open-access-what-cultural-anthropology-gets-right-and-american-anthropologist-gets-wrong/. Goody, J. (1986). The logic of writing and the organization of society. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Goody, J. (1987). The interface between the written and the oral. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Gould, T. P. H. (2012). Do we still need peer review? An argument for change. Plymouth, UK: The Scarecrow Press. Havelock, E. (1982). The literate revolution in Greece and its cultural consequences. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Havelock, E. (1986). The muse learns to write: Reflections on orality and literacy from antiquity to the present. London: Yale University Press. Hegel, G. W. F. (1952/1977). Phenomenology of spirit (A. V. Miller, Trans.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Holmberg, K. J. (2016). Altmetrics for information professionals: Past, present and future. Amsterdam: Chandos Publishing/Elsevier. Holzman, A., & Brown, R. (2016). The journal of scholarly publishing in the ecosystem of scholarly communications. Journal of Scholarly Publishing, 47, 227–230. doi:10.3138/jsp.47.3.227 Hunter, R. (2012). Editorial: Why we oppose gold open access. feminists@law, 2(2). Retrieved from http://journals.kent.ac.uk/index.php/feministsatlaw/article/ view/59/179 Idris, K. (2003). Intellectual property: A power tool for economic growth. Geneva: WIPO. Irwin, R. (2016). PESA conference theme. Knowledge economies. Retrieved from https://pesa.org.au/conference Jackson, L. (2007). The individualist? The autonomy of reason in Kant’s philosophy and educational views. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 26, 335–344. Jiménez, A. C., Boyer Open, D., Hartigan, J., & de la Cadena, M. (2015) Open access: A collective ecology for AAA publishing in the digital age. Retrieved from https://culanth.org/fieldsights/684-open-access-a-collective-ecology-for-aaapublishing-in-the-digital-age Jinha, A. E. (2010). Article 50 million: An estimate of the number of scholarly articles in existence. Learned Publishing, 23, 258–263. doi:10.1087/20100308 Kant, I. (1784/1970). Answer to the question: ‘What is Enlightenment?’ In Kant: Political writings (H. B. Nisbet, Trans. & H. S. Reiss, Ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kant, I. (1993). Critique of pure reason. (V. Politis Trans.). London: Orion Kristeva, J. (1986). A new type of intellectual: The dissident. In T. Moi (Ed.), The Kristeva reader (pp. 292–300). Oxford: Blackwell.

36  Michael A. Peters et al Larivière, V., Haustein, S., & Mongeon, P. (2015). The oligopoly of academic publishers in the digital era. PLoS ONE, 10, e0127502. doi:10.1371/journal. pone.0127502 Lazaroiu, G. (2014a). Challenges facing scholarly publishing. Linguistic and Philosophical Investigations, 13, 158–163. Lazaroiu, G. (2014b). The social construction of participatory media technologies. Contemporary Readings in Law and Social Justice, 6, 104–109. Lazaroiu, G. (2014c). The role of social media as a news provider. Review of Contemporary Philosophy, 13, 78–83. Lévy, P. (1997). Collective intelligence: Mankind’s emerging world of cyberspace (B. Robert, Trans.). London: Plenum Trade. Lewis, M. (2001). The future just happened. London: Hodder & Stoughton. Mangen, A. (2016). The digitization of literary reading. Orbis litterarum, 71, 240–262. McChesney, R. W. (2004). The problem of the media: U.S. communication politics in the 21st century. New York, NY: Monthly Review Press. McChesney, R. W. (2014). Digital disconnect: How capitalism is turning the internet against democracy. New York, NY: The New Press. McLuhan, M. (1962). The Gutenberg galaxy: The making of typographic man. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. McLuhan, M. (1967). The medium is the massage. Harmondsworth: Penguin. Moore, A. (2016). Altmetrics: Just measuring the ‘Buzz’? BioEssays, 38, 713. Moorehead, A. (1966). The fatal impact: An account of the South Pacific, 1767–1840. London: Hamish Hamilton. Ong, W. (1982). Orality and literacy. London: Methuen. Peters, M. A. (2013). Prospects for open science. Knowledge Cultures, 1, 118–130. Peters, M. A., Besley, T., & Araya, D. (2013). The new development paradigm: Education, knowledge economy and digital futures. New York, NY: Peter Lang. Peters, M. A. & Jandrić, P. (2015). Philosophy of education in the age of digital reason. Review of Contemporary Philosophy, 14, 162–181. Peters, M. A., Liu, T.-C., & Ondercin, D. J. (2011). Esoteric and open pedagogies. Contemporary Readings in Law and Social Justice, 3, 23–47. Poster, M. (1994). The mode of information: Poststructualism and social context. Cambridge: Polity Press. Ransdell, J. (1998). Sciences as communicational communities. Retrieved from http:// www.iupui.edu/~arisbe/menu/library/aboutcsp/ransdell/PHYSICS.HTM Rip, A. (1985). Commentary: Peer review is alive and well in the United States. Science, Technology, and Human Values, 10, 82–86. doi:10.1177/016224398501000310 Royal Society. (2011). Knowledge, networks and nations. Retrieved from https://royalsociety.org/~/media/Royal_Society_Content/policy/publications/2011/4294976134. pdf Russell, B. (1945). A history of Western philosophy. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster. Schaffner, A. C. (1994). The future of scientific journals: Lessons from the past. Information Technology and Libraries, 13, 239–247. Solomon, D. J. (2013). Digital distribution of academic journals and its impact on scholarly communication: Looking back after 20 years. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 39, 23–28. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.auckland. ac.nz/10.1016/j.acalib.2012.10.001 Statute of Anne 1709 (UK). Retrieved from http://www.copyrighthistory.com/anne. html

A philosophy of academic publishing  37 Stevenson, I. (2004). Is open access the new vanity publishing? Learned Publishing, 17, 83–84. Suber, P. (2012). Open access. MIT Press: MIT Press Essential Knowledge Series. ISBN 9780262517638. UNESCO Bureau of Public Information. (2006). Traditional knowledge. Retrieved August 8, 2016, from http://www.unesco.org/bpi/pdf/memobpi48_tradknowledge_en.pdf United Nations. (1992). Convention on biological diversity. Retrieved August 8, 2016, from https://www.cbd.int/doc/legal/cbd-en.pdf Ward, S. (2016). The rise of predatory publishing: How to avoid being scammed. Weed Science, 65. doi:10.1614/WS-D-16-00080.1 Wittern, C. (2002). The text in the age of digital reproduction. Retrieved from http://www.tei-c.org/Activities/Workgroups/CE/chibs-2002-paper.html Wittgenstein, L. (1984). Culture and value (P. Winch, Trans. & G. H. V. Wright, Ed.). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. World Intellectual Property Organization Convention (n.d.). Convention establishing the World Intellectual Property Organization. Retrieved August 8, 2016, from http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/convention/ Žižek, S. (2010). A permanent economic emergency. New Left Review, 64, 85–95.

2 Experimenting with academic subjectivity Collective writing, peer production and collective intelligence Michael A. Peters, Tina Besley and Sonja Arndt Introduction As a practical experiment in collective writing we have all been involved in several collective writing articles. Michael Peters set up an Editors Collective of scholars who are similarly editors of journals or interested in editing in the field of education (see http://editorscollective.org.nz/). He instigated and has also been part of several small collective writing projects, one of which is an article entitled ‘Towards a Philosophy of Academic Publishing’ (Peters et al., 2016), which had some twenty-one contributors. It innovated further by using open peer reviewers whose remarks were included in the article.1 In a companion piece some of the group also participated in a reflection on the process – ‘Collective Writing: An Inquiry into Praxis’ (Jandrić et al., 2017). Subsequently the Editor’s estricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Collective members have produced other articles, including: ‘Antipodean Theory for Educational Research’ (Stewart et al., 2017), ‘Ten Theses on the Shift from (Static) Text to (Moving) Image’ (Peters et al., 2018b) and ‘Is Peer Review in Academic Publishing still working?’ (Jackson et al., 2018). These papers have been produced through a collective writing process by different groups of scholars in the collective who know one another quite well, some of whom belong to the editorial development group of the journal Educational Philosophy and Theory (EPAT) that is the flagship journal of the Philosophy of Education Society of Australasia (PESA).2 As the Editor-in Chief of Educational Philosophy and Theory for a Special Issue, ‘What Cones After Postmodernism?’ celebrating fifty years of EPAT – both the society and the journal were launched in the late 1960s – Michael decided to extend the collective writing experiment utilising the journal’s database of over 3,000 readers, contributors and subscribers in another direction. In contrast to the carefully crafted process of collective writing used by the Editors Collective, he drafted a seemingly innocent but provocative invitation to contribute to this Special Issue: ‘After postmodernism in educational theory? A Collective Writing Experiment and thought Survey’ and invited two Co-editors, Marek Tesar and Liz Jackson, to share in curating the responses (Peters, Tesar, & Jackson, 2018a). PESA President

Experimenting with academic subjectivity  39 Tina Besley wrote the Foreword (Besley, 2018). The process was managed by Susannne Brighouse, EPAT’s managing editor. Authors were invited to contribute a short provocative piece of some 500 words that reviewed the question of postmodernism – a contentious issue that has helped to drive the ‘culture wars.’ These contributions were followed by a series of nine excerpts of approximately 1400 words that illustrate the variety of theoretical persuasions and positions. The response was overwhelming with over one hundred and seventy contributions. Some of the contributors provided unsolicited remarks about how much they enjoyed the process and the form. These experiments highlight and bring into question some rather seemingly obvious concerns about the nature of academic writing as a genre, its historical development to date, its networked future, and its relation to the rise of the journal and academic publishing more generally. They also signify a range of social, philosophical, legal and epistemological questions first raised by Roland Barthes and Michel Foucault about the function and the concept of the author and assumed notions of subjectivity underwriting authorship. Of course, none of this may be considered interesting or exceptional in the realm of the natural or social sciences where based on working relations and the epistemology of the research team, scientific papers are regularly written and appear in publication with multiple authors, sometimes with more than twenty authors, even if the underlying issues of authorship are never problematised. It is far less common in the humanities and literary studies where scholarship and research is still driven by the traditional ‘lone’ individualist author model that derives in part at least from German and English Romanticism ideas on originality, genius, and the concept of the author.

Questioning the received concept of the author: Barthes and Foucault The questioning of the received concept of authorship in the humanities springs from a 1967 essay by Roland Barthes (The Death of the Author [La mort de l’auteur]) who famously questions the intentionalist understanding of the text. This is a full-blown attack on the then ruling liberal assumptions that the author’s identity, background and intentions (their subjectivity) are the necessary starting point for any theory of criticism and reading. Barthes argues for the separation of the literary work from the author-creator. As he writes: ‘literature is that neuter, that composite, that oblique into which every subject escapes, the trap where all identity is lost, beginning with the very identity of the body that writes.’3 As he notes, the ancient narrative mode is performed by a speaker whose story-telling talents might be admired as a mediator, shaman, orator or master narrator but not as its genius-creator. In a straightforward fashion Barthes puts forward his argument: The author is a modern figure, produced no doubt by our society insofar as, at the end of the middle ages, with English empiricism, French

40  Michael A. Peters, Tina Besley and Sonja Arndt rationalism and the personal faith of the Reformation, it discovered the prestige of the individual, or, to put it more nobly, of the ‘human person’. Hence it is logical that with regard to literature it should be positivism, resume and the result of capitalist ideology, which has accorded the greatest importance to the author’s ‘person’. After a brief trawl through modern French fiction beginning with Stéphane Mallarmé through to the influence of Surrealism, Barthes settles on a formulation from structural linguistics: the author is never anything more than the man who writes, just as I is no more than the man who says I: language knows a ‘subject,’ not a ‘person,’ end this subject, void outside of the very utterance which defines it, suffices to make language ‘work,’ that is, to exhaust it. Without unpacking the rest of the essay, we can already see how literary studies might become fractured by this argument that pictured the notion of the author as an individualist ideological construction of the modern period. But this presents a particularly Eurocentric view that totally ignores oral cultures and indigenous narratives, which still exist today but remain as what Foucault would call ‘subjugated knowledges’. Such knowledges have by no means disappeared from our world, but they have been steadily ignored and marginalised in much of mainstream literary studies, philosophy, education and pedagogy. Just as the authorship of the Bible is shared and often unknown, so too is the authorship of many such indigenous narratives. Does that really matter? There is usually a consistency in these shared narratives that comes from oral traditions that tell and retell them so that any changes by the story-teller or tusitala are likely to be corrected by others listening. Foucault begins his (1969) essay ‘What Is an Author?’ in response to Barthes, with a reference to Beckett – ‘What matter who’s speaking, someone said, what matter who’s speaking’– to maintain: The Author is a certain functional principle by which, in our culture, one limits, excludes and chooses: (…) The author is therefore the ideological figure by which one marks the manner in which we fear the proliferation of meaning. He begins by setting aside a set of theoretical issues that serve as coordinates for a study of the author: I will set aside a sociohistorical analysis of the author as an individual and the numerous questions that deserve attention in this context: how the author was individualized in a culture such as ours; the status we have given the author, for instance, when we began our research into authenticity and attribution; the systems of valorization in which he was included; or the moment when the stories of heroes gave way to an authors’ biography; the conditions that fostered the formulation of the

Experimenting with academic subjectivity  41 fundamental critical category of ‘the man and his work.’ For the time being, I wish to restrict myself to the singular relationship that holds between an author and a text, the manner in which a text apparently points to this figure who is outside and precedes it. (p. 115) Without exhaustively recounting Foucault’s line of argument we can at least note that he understands the ethics of contemporary writing as freed from the necessity of ‘expression’ and, therefore the ‘confines of interiority,’ being more concerned today with ‘creating an opening where the writing subject endlessly disappears’ (p. 116). In relation to this theme he mentions the ‘kinship between writing and death.’ As the inheritance of European formalism and the decade of French structuralism in particular infer, the Nietzschean trope of the death of God and Man is stated in terms of its linguistic formulation. Foucault’s argument then proceeds to deal with the ‘author’ as a function of discourse, mentioning four features including books or texts as a form of property developed through legal codification or juridication. (This is actually a process that dates from the Statute of Anne, sometimes also known as the Copyright Act of 1710.) Second, Foucault acknowledges that ‘the “author function” is not universal or constant in discourse’ (he mentions folk tales, stories, epics, etc.). Third, the ‘author function’ ‘results from a complex operation whose purpose is to construct an author’ (p. 127). In this regard he mentions as an example the Christian method to authenticate particular texts in the canon. Fourth, as he says, the ‘author function’ does not ‘refer … to an actual individual insofar as it simultaneously gives rise to a varioety of egos and to a series of subjective positions that individuals of any class may come to occupy’ (pp. 130–131). As Wilson (2004) remarks, the author question first raised by Barthes and Foucault in the late 1960s came back to life in the 1990s (Keefer, 1995; Lamarque, 1990; Sutrop, 1994), developed in its strong form by Burke’s (1992) The Death and Return of the Author that re-examined the anti-authorial thesis of Barthes, Foucault and Derrida. Foucault may have been premature in announcing post Barthes that ‘God and man died a common death’ (Foucault, 1977, p. 121). Of course, in retrospect the accuracy of the Nietzschean trope hardly matters despite the critique of the postmodern de-centering of the author given that the category of the ‘author’ has been opened up to historical analysis once and for all. Foucault himself also, as is well known, returns to the ethical subject in his governmental and later subjectivity studies.

The fate of the author: new media and copyright Two themes taken up by scholars from this ongoing theoretical discussion concern very similar kinds of things: one looks to the political economy of new media; the other, in related terms, builds on contemporary legal work on copyright that came to light with Benjamin Kaplan’s (1967) An

42  Michael A. Peters, Tina Besley and Sonja Arndt Unhurried View of Copyright and has been followed by Larry Lessig (1999, 2001, 2008), Pamela Samuelson (2007), Mark Rose (1993) and Peter Jaszi (1994), to name a few. It seems these two significant aspects – political economy of media and legal studies of copyright – have converged with literary theory. Both these theoretical tendencies problematise the category of author and the individualist subjectivity it embodies, while also denaturalising the legal apparatus that supports it. The first line of convergence is nicely summed up by Kuusela (2015, p. 103) in ‘Writing Together’: According to many, the current economic era – whether referred to as knowledge based, postindustrial, or post-Fordist – is characterized by an increased economic interest in intangible goods and intellectual property rights, such as patents, copyrights, and brands. Such characterizations point to a shift in Western capitalism, in which immaterial production has started to replace material production – if not always in real and monetary terms, then at least in our imagination. This economic tendency, which emphasizes the role of knowledge production as an asset that needs to be privately owned, has resulted in a politico-economic regime that attempts to categorize intellectual and cultural creation as private property. However, this transition has been accompanied by another development: the rise of virtual collectives and crowds that have come to serve as important cultural actors. Certain collectively produced projects, such as wiki-based works, have been clear successes, and the use of algorithms by companies like Google and Amazon has made crowds appear as significant cultural forces. As a result, our current milieu has become increasingly reliant on the privatization of immaterial processes, like cultural production, as well as on collaborative problem solving, crowd intelligence, and crowdsourcing. (footnotes eliminated) With regard to the second related line of convergence, Woodmansee (1997), in a stunning essay entitled ‘On the Author Effect: Recovering Collectivity,’ writes: Will the author in the modern sense prove to have been only a brief episode in the history of writing? By ‘author’ we mean an individual who is the sole creator of unique ‘works’ the originality of which warrants their protection under laws of intellectual property known as ‘copyright’ or ‘authors’ rights.’ Michael states that he has been heavily influenced by both of these lines of convergence and the arguments represented by them and pursued both lines of development in a variety of papers and books over the years. He began this trajectory over twenty years ago with an edited book on Jean-Francois Lyotard (Peters, 1995) after completing a PhD thesis on Ludwig Wittgenstein. Lyotard’s use and interpretation of Wittgenstein’s language games as a method for analysing the social bond intrigued him, and he was also

Experimenting with academic subjectivity  43 impressed with Lyotard’s analysis of perfomativity as part of the condition he called postmodern. His ‘phrase regimens’ define the multiplicity of communities of meaning, with overlapping and incommensurable systems, that erode the status and ideological content of grand narratives. Lyotard also introduces political economy into the study of knowledge and the technologisation of knowledge systems which influenced Michael to focus on political knowledge economy in order to talk of ‘knowledge cultures’ as a critical philosophical term, as neither ‘knowledge economy’ nor ‘knowledge society’ – a standard bifurcation between economics and sociology that hindered the understanding of knowledge in terms of its effects (e.g. Peters & Besley, 2006; Peters, Britez, & Bulut, 2009). Despite his adoption of Lyotard’s skepticism he thought that open education (Peters & Britez, 2009) had potential that escaped the monopoly effects of digital capitalism and the predatory nature of ‘Big Tech’ (Dayen, 2017). He embraced the philosophy of openness (Peters & Roberts, 2015) based on a critical understanding of ‘cognitive capitalism’ and ‘immaterial labour’ (Peters & Bulut, 2011). These works have been recently followed by The Digital University: A Dialogue and Manifesto (Peters & Jandrić, 2018a), and a series of papers on creativity, on subjectivity, on peer and co-production, and collective intelligence (e.g. Peters & Jandrić, 2018b). Often in humanities research it makes sense to see where you have been rather than to detail future research plans. The study of Wittgenstein together with Lyotard, Derrida and Foucault – while a scandalous marriage to some analytic philosophers – enabled Michael to explore linkages. Using Nietzsche and Heidegger enabled him to take the question of the author into the realm of the virtual and social media, to inquire of knowledge cultures and collectivities that offer departures from the regime of academic authorship governed by the genre rules of journals, where authorship is submerged and constructed in a digital system. Woodmansee (1997, p. 280) charts the emergence of the concept of the author as individualised genius from 1815 in the writings of Herder, Goethe, Coleridge and Wordsworth, as first expressed in Edward Young’s Conjectures on Original Composition (1759): The notion that the writer is a special participant in the production process – the only one worthy of attention – is of recent provenience. It is a by-product of the Romantic notion that significant writers break altogether with tradition to create something utterly new, unique – in a word, ‘original.’ She argues that the collective and collboration element in writing becomes more apparent as we move backwards in time into the medieval era. Since electronic communication, new forms of collaboration have emerged that throw up the problem of copyright as it has shaped and formulated the modern notion of the author. Yet the law still largely remains unaffected by the critique of authorship, although there is the growing movement of open access and the ‘creative commons’ that escapes the iron law of copyright.

44  Michael A. Peters, Tina Besley and Sonja Arndt Kuusela (2015) captures this moment and its effects on culture: This tension between private property and crowds has also had clear effects on culture. Cultural production increasingly takes place within this conjuncture, which is characterized, on the one hand, by an economic regime that increasingly brings intellectual processes under the category of private property and, on the other hand, by the influence of masses and crowds. This situation has resulted in countless legal conflicts regarding intellectual property rights and has generated heated debates on piracy and copy-right violation, but these conflicts have also created new interest in notions of the intellectual commons and the public domain. In The Digital University: A Dialogue and Manifesto (Peters & Jandrić, 2018a), Michael and Petar relate personal anarcho-aesthetics to the notion of homo economicus, and the design principle to the notion of homo collaborans, to defend a notion of creativity as the sum of rich semiotic systems that form the basis of distributed knowledge and learning. It is a kind of inherently collective creativity that is enabled by the new digital infrastructures and increasingly augmented by algorithmic reason. In ‘Education, Creativity and the Economy of Passions: New Forms of Educational Capitalism’ (Peters, 2009), Michael reviewed claims for creativity in the economy and in education distinguishing two accounts: what he called ‘personal anarcho-aesthetics’ and ‘the design principle.’ The former, he argues, emerges in the psychological literature from sources in the Romantic Movement emphasizing the notion of creative genius and the way in which creativity emerges from deep subconscious processes, involves the imagination, is anchored in the passions, cannot be directed and is beyond the rational control of the individual. This account, curiously, has a close fit to business as a form of ‘brainstorming,’ ‘mind-mapping’ or ‘strategic planning,’ and is closely associated with the figure of the risk-taking entrepreneur. The latter, by contrast, ‘the design principle’ is both relational and social, and surfaces in related ideas of ‘social capital,’ ‘situated learning,’ and ‘P2P’ (peer-to-peer) accounts of commons-based peer production. It is seen to be a product of social and networked environments – rich semiotic and intelligent environments in which everything speaks. The same digital infrastructural architecture and array of apps also enable citizen science, amateur science, and crowd funding opportunities, as well as the encouragement of collaborative writing in the sciences.4 Pettibone, Vohland, and Ziegler (2017), as part of the Citizens Create Knowledge (GEWISS)5 online platform and capacity-building programme, chart the ways in which citizen science have diversified taking on a range of characteristics sometimes in conflict: ‘a way to collect massive data sets at relatively low cost, a way to break science out of the ivory tower and better engage the public, an approach to educate lay people in scientific methods.’ They find ‘evidence supporting previous findings that citizen science is a phenomenon

Experimenting with academic subjectivity  45 strongest in biodiversity and environmental monitoring research, but at home in a number of scientific fields, such as history and geography.’ The Citizens Create Knowledge (GEWISS) online platform lists the building blocks for citizen science in their programme, including: • Networking and exchange for those engaged or interested in citizen science through our online platform and events • Analysis of current citizen science activities as well as of needs of citizens and researchers through dialogue workshops • Participatory creation of a toolkit for practitioners to realise citizen science projects • Development of a Citizen Science Strategy 2020 for Germany through a moderated consultation process • Production of technical and organisational resources, such as training workshops and a short film It doesn’t take much imagination to see that citizen science provides a new collaborative way of doing science and of doing collaborative science writing.6 The new mandate is to involve citizens and stakeholders in future projects and in the design of research agendas developing new forms of citizen participation and the communication of science with the prospect of merging them into an overall concept.7 Certainly, citizen science is a new movement that flows out of the concept, philosophy and digital practice of openness (Peters & Roberts, 2015), and collective writing is another ‘experiment’ that recasts the ideology of the author and shifts the governance of subjectivity. Watson and Floridi (2016) refer to ‘crowdsourced science’ and examine the sociotechnical epistemology of the e-research paradigm. They analyse Zooniverse as ‘the world’s largest citizen science web portal’ (p. 1). Their empirical investigation reveals how information and communication technologies enhance the reliability, scalability, and connectivity of crowdsourced e-research, giving online citizen science projects powerful epistemic advantages over more traditional modes of scientific investigation. The change of practice that results from the sociotechnical epistemology similarly promotes collaboration in science and the humanities. The important element in citizen science is that it promotes public participation in scientific research, creating roles for interested amateurs and developing scientific communities that blend the professional and the amateur. This development is certainly well suited to subjects that require mass observation like astronomy and environmental monitoring (Peters & Wals, 2016; Wals & Peters, 2017), but it also has significant opportunities for peer-to-peer pedagogy combined with citizen science or with collective writing – what we can call the peer production of symbolic public goods.

46  Michael A. Peters, Tina Besley and Sonja Arndt The League of European Research Universities (LERU) recognises the potential of citizen science and its role in the open science movement. Their paper ‘Citizen Science at Universities’ (2016) introduces the history and state-of-the-art of citizen science and identifies three significant trends: 1. Increasing coordination and collaboration between citizen science practitioners from different fields, which leads to sharing procedures and best practices, and to the creation of networks and associations. 2. Emergence of platforms that support a variety of citizen science projects, creating broader public awareness and encouraging a greater retention of volunteers. 3. Expanding the role played by citizens in the projects beyond simple tasks to include greater participation in all phases of the research process from conceptualisation to publication (p. 3, Executive Summary). There is no doubt that citizen science has taken off and governments around the world have become aware of its significance in crowdfunding and public participation in science.8 James Surowiecki’s (2005) The Wisdom of Crowds provides the argument for the significance of the wise crowd in situations where information aggregation among groups enhance the cognition, coordination and cooperation that optimises disorganised decision making groups. The same processes have been used to understand crowd organisation in large-scale networked protests. Bennett, Segerberg and Walker (2014, p. 253) show how ‘technological stitching platforms play an important role in enabling large-scale crowds to achieve macro-level organization involving many different networks’ and they ‘identified a basic package of peer-production processes that are integral for achieving the coherent organization that network stitching implies. All three categories – production, curation, and dynamic integration – are important.’ Of course, not all crowds are wise, as we have seen in various investment bubbles, mob mentality (as in the Tulsa Race riots in 1921 and lynchings during the US Civil Rights era), responses to viral health panics, moral panics, populism and even the crowds who follow politicians in ethnic cleansing (e.g. during the Bosnian War, the Holocaust and so on). Much of the original work on peer production springs directly from the publications of Yochai Benkler (2006) who argues that peer production constitutes a new form of production. He argues ‘organizational innovation that has emerged from Internet-mediated social practice’ combines three core characteristics: (a) decentralization of conception and execution of problems and solutions, (b) harnessing diverse motivations, and (c) separation of governance and management from property and contract. (Benkler, 2016, p. 1)

Experimenting with academic subjectivity  47 Working with colleagues, Benkler investigates peer production in relation to contributions made to Wikipedia. They begin: Wikipedia, the collaboratively edited encyclopedia, is one of the Internet’s most valuable global public goods. With 37 million freely usable articles in 285 languages and 500 million unique visitors per month worldwide, its revealed informational value seems to be enormous to society. (Hergueux, Algan, Benkler, & Morell, 2015, p. 2) They demonstrate ‘the quantity of field contributions that our subjects make to Wikipedia is strongly related to their taste for reciprocal exchange, their social image concerns and their altruistic preferences’ (Hergueux et al., 2015, p. 21). While this may well be the case, Wikipedia continues to be soundly criticised in terms of factual reliability of content, and specifically for systematic gender and racial editorial bias, American and corporate bias, and being an open encyclopedia, it lists some of these (https://en.wikipedia. org/wiki/Criticism_of_Wikipedia). Many were shocked when it emerged in October that 2018 Physics Nobel laureate, Donna Strickland, the first female physics winner in 55 years had been ‘not deemed significant enough to merit her own page’ by a site moderator who stated, ‘This submission’s references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article,’ only in March 2018! This highlighted the ongoing marginalisation of women in science and the gender bias at Wikipedia. ‘The episode also cast light on Wikipedia’s own gender bias: just 16% of the site’s volunteer editors are female and only 17% of entries dedicated to notable people are for women’ (https://www. theguardian.com/science/2018/oct/03/donna-strickland-nobel-physics-prize-wikipedia-denied). In a personal experience, Michael has been subject to a hostile environment and in fact had his Wikipedia page taken down and objective of his career history and publications altered several times by a NZ Wikipedia editor who is a technical specialist at Victoria University of Wellington, and someone had previously completed his PhD at Waikato University. Surely a case of conflict of interest and maybe even some unknown vendetta? This is despite the information at the time being on his employer, the University of Waikato’s website and verifiable from many independent sources. The NZ editors of Wikipedia cast aspersions on the construction of the site and even removed all verified publications. As of August 2018, the objections to the entry are that ‘a major contributor appears to have a close connection with its subject; this article contains wording that promotes the subject in a subjective manner without imparting real information; the article relies too much on references to primary sources’ (https://en.wikipedia. org/wiki/Michael_Adrian_Peters). Biographies of living persons must adhere to strict rules, neutral point of view, verifiability and no original research, yet this ‘editing’ over several years seems to go well beyond this. (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons).

48  Michael A. Peters, Tina Besley and Sonja Arndt These studies ‘extend the existing empirical literature on public goods provision beyond its current focus on explaining individual contributions’ to gauge pro-sociality and the foundations of cooperation in public goods environments that speak to concepts of collective intelligence, involving changes in subjectivity in relation to authorship and scientific practice.

Guattari experimenting with the collective subject Further diverse conceptions of authorship and science lead to questions about the collective author subject. For example, literary and legal literatures on the author, bring to bear more centrally notions of the collective author subject and forms of subjectivity that spring from creative appropriations of available networks in the peer production of symbolic public goods. These new forms are new experiments in pedagogy, in learning exchanges, and in intersubjectivity – the self-conscious academic and creative writing, scientific or activist communities – with elements sometimes all happening together in, for example, existing environmental and ecology groups (Wals & Peters, 2017). Calling into question the very nature of the relationship between the subjectivity of the author and its exteriority (Guattari, 2000), calls us to question the wider ecological interconnectedness of authors not only with co-authors, but also with all human and non-human life, and with the wider world and planet Earth itself. Guattari urges a move against a contemporary stasis, for an ‘ecosophical revival’ (p. 23), that is, through his idea of three ethico-political ecological registers: ‘the environment, social relations and human subjectivity’ (p. 18). This calls into question not only the idea of the individual or collective author subject, but ties authors in to every aspect of individual and collective living in contemporary society. Rather than conceptualising the individual author as the subject, an ecosophical perspective calls for a consideration of subjectivity, or ‘components of subjectification’ (p. 23) as the critical aspect of working on or through oneself, in as much as one is a collective singularity; constructed and in a permanent way re-constructed in the collectivity of a multivalent collective liberation project. Collective authorial projects not only allow academic subjectivities to shift away from pre-determined, scientistic measures of subjectivity, they demand it. Equally, they are not the social or in any way a solution to all worldly problems. Recognising phenomenology as limited by its aim for transparency, ethical re-framings of subjectivity allow for the knowable and the unknowable, that is the conscious, and the unconscious, ‘conceptual … and affective or perceptive’ (Guattari, 2000, p. 25), as entirely complementary. Such reframings invoke the principle of transversality (Guattari, 2015), whereby the collective must work on many different ways of working together, not top down, but constantly renegotiating ways in which it may not necessarily play out as an even, level plane. Renegotiating thus embeds such work in the complexities of the relational, knowledge and orientational divergences implicated in peer productions.

Experimenting with academic subjectivity  49

Peer production Burdened perhaps by their complexity, the power of collective assemblages to develop and exceed their known potential speaks to the power of peer production. Working towards a common theme, individual contributions driven by the collaborative desire to innovate beyond each individual’s ordinary capacity, inhere in and arise from the collective give and take, working towards and working through, the issues arising in such collaborations. Guattari (2000), in his writings on analysts, calls for innovative approaches, to avoid becoming ‘trapped in a cycle of deathly repetition’ (p. 26). Transposed to the examination of academic subjectivities, collective peer productions of thought allow a re-elevation of progressive, creative, new, ethico-aesthetic paradigms, elevating both the potential of the individual and the collective. Relatedly, viewed through a Kristeva (1980) lens, the power in peer production provokes the further consideration of the intertextuality between the writings of each author and the elements they represent (histories, stratifications, interpretations and ideological positions) in time and place. The multiple voices enacted in the production of each aspect of the collective are thus never constructed on the basis of the author’s own thoughts alone. This intertextuality, first between peers, but also between each author and her or his positionings and multiple voices, thus challenges anew the ferocity of copyright and individualistic claims to knowledge, truth, genius and particular utterances. Peer production, then, in terms of an academic authorial collaboration, such as in the Editors Collective, and in terms of rewriting the script for the ethico-political workings of academia in the contemporary world, calls also for a reconsideration of globalisation. Fears for the very existence of academia, in the face of the likes of Trump, the rise of the Alt-Right and rightwing populism (Peters, 2018) coincide with the need for encounters with both the minutiae of academic subjectivities, and their worldly implications, in the convergence of diversity amongst student bodies, historical and contemporary events, and desires for world peace and ecological sustainability, as alluded to also above.

The philosophy of collective intelligence A philosophy of collective intelligence offers a way of conceptualising the performance of the collective, as called for in the previous sections. A key thinker on knowledge processes, and on their collective cyberculture presence, Pierre Lévy presents the notion of collective intelligence and openness in a global collective, as ‘the capacity of human communities to cooperate intellectually in creation, innovation and invention’ (Peters, 2015). Emanating from Guattari’s advice to him as a student, Lévy’s idea of collective intelligence favours the exploratory nature of collective authorship, of pushing boundaries, and questioning, developing a ‘disregard for academic consensual intellectual conservatism’. It represents thus, from its inception,

50  Michael A. Peters, Tina Besley and Sonja Arndt the inventive, collaborative, co-operations invoked in the collective writing experiments of the Editors Collective, and the wider ecologies of future collective innovations and enterprises. It is ‘neither the opposite of collective stupidity nor the opposite of individual intelligence. It is the opposite of artificial intelligence.’ As such, Lévy outlines in an interview with Peters, ‘[i] t is a way to grow a renewed human/cultural cognitive system by exploiting our increasing computing power and our ubiquitous memory’ (p. 261). The focus on computing power points to the most advanced stage of acquisition of writing (in comparison to speech and language, for example, which are innate), as a representation of knowledge and ideas. It represents anew not just authorship, but writing itself, beyong a semiotic representation of meaning through symbols and signs, and rather as a form of programming, where the writing sets corresponding processes in motion. Some of these processes are knowable, as in computer programming languages, and planned or learned, and some less so, for example the wide-ranging implications and algorithms set in motion by a Facebook ‘like’ or online advertisements. At the same time, drawing in our ‘ubiquitous memory’ recognises that which converges in the individual and collective assemblages of already-there, omnipresent histories, pasts, realities, voices. It makes space in these confluences, not only for such knowledge valued in Western philosophical and academic constructs, but also for wider thought, knowledge and affective sense, arising in diverse ways of being, for example in Eastern or indigenous philosophies.

Conclusion The experiment with academic subjectivity through collective writing, peer production and collective intelligence is under constant reinvention. In some ways it can therefore be seen as in a kind of infancy. With the recent work and experiments with collective writing and publishing as an attempt to reinvent the concepts of authorship, the author subject and author subjectivity, that were traditionally served and often perpetuated by the ‘lone’ individualist author model with all its accompanying ideals, this experimental work is itself continually contested. Such concepts as processes of peer review, and associated questions of ownership (for example, of what remains in a revision, whose contribution becomes revised and by whom), blurr some of the boundaries around author/collective voice discussed in this paper. Its transversality is proving as complex as the term suggests, in terms of developing new ways of connecting, thinking, examining and working, in ways that have not been the norm at least in the field of philosophy of education. New opportunities arise through the blurring, as authors, editors and publishers innovate their own practices, through wider forms of ‘writing’ in the sense of both an exilic self subjectivity – shifting to and recognising the potential of capacities beyond those of the individual academic author, editor, publisher – and a recognition of the multiple convergences and implications, of which the individual and the collective may or may not be aware or in control.

Experimenting with academic subjectivity  51 Some of the seemingly obvious questions raised in the introduction have been responded to here, while others have arisen and will play out in the ongoing experiments of the Editors Collective and other collective writing projects. In what ways might the points that have been raised about the nature and purpose of academic writing, its history, its networked potential, its contribution to or place in the rise or proliferation of the journal and academia in general, develop this field of academia? And what might be the important openings through which we collectively intervene in the contemporary lack of serious action taken towards pressing worldly problems arising in and beyond neoliberal globalisation (Peters, 2018), mass refugee crises and culturally-based detentions and extremisms resulting in terror attacks and mass shootings? Undoubtedly questions of the potential social, philosophical, legal, epistemological and ethical implications for and of authorship and subjectivity have barely been touched on to date, at least in their contemporary manifestations. Much of this work remains to be done.

Notes 1 http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00131857.2016.1240987; for the Editors Collective see http://editorscollective.org.nz/. 2 For the journal see http://www.tandfonline.com/toc/rept20/current and for the Society, see https://pesa.org.au/. 3 All references are to the English translation that appears in the journal Aspen 5 & 6, Three Essays, http://www.ubu.com/aspen/aspen5and6/threeEssays.html#barthes. 4 See http://citizenscience.org/ and https://www.citizensciencealliance.org/. 5 http://www.buergerschaffenwissen.de/sites/default/files/assets/dokumente/gewiss_flyer_dez14_en.pdf. See also https://www.goethe.de/en/kul/ wis/20441694.html. 6 For a list of citizen science projects that demonstrate the form and variety see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_citizen_science_projects. For a NZ example see ‘Citizen Science Meets Environmental Restoration: measuring success through monitoring,’ http://www.landcare.org.nz/Regional-Focus/ManawatuWhanganui-Office/Citizen-Science-Meets-Environmental-Restoration. See also https://www.curiousminds.nz/stories/extreme-citizen-science-in-new-zealand/. 7 https://www.open-science-conference.eu/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/04_ Aletta_Bonn_-_Citizens_create_knowledgeknowledge_creates_citizens.pdf. 8 See e.g. https://www.citizenscience.gov/.

References Barthes, R. (1967). The death of the author. Retrieved from http://www.ubu.com/ aspen/aspen5and6/threeEssays.html#barthes Benkler, Y. (2006). The wealth of networks: How social production transforms markets and freedom. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Benkler, Y. (2016). Peer production and cooperation. In J. M. Bauer & M. Latzer (Eds.), Handbook on the economics of the internet (pp. 91–119). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. Retrieved from http://www.benkler.org/Peer%20production%20 and%20cooperation%2009.pdf Bennett, W. L., Segerberg, A., & Walker, S. (2014). Organization in the crowd: Peer production in large- scale networked protests. Information, Communication & Society, 17(2), 232–260. doi:10.1080/1369118X.2013.870379

52  Michael A. Peters, Tina Besley and Sonja Arndt Besley, T. (A. C.). (2018). PESA president’s foreword for the EPAT 50th-anniversary issue. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 50(14), 1297–1298. doi:10.1080/0013 1857.2018.1522711 Burke, S. (1992). The death and return of the author: Criticism and subjectivity in Barthes, Foucault and Derrida. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Reprinted. 1998. Dayen, D. (2017). Big tech: The new predatory capitalism. The American Prospect. Retrieved from http://prospect.org/article/big-tech-new-predatory-capitalism Foucault, M. (1969). What is an author? Retrieved from https://www.open.edu/ openlearn/ocw/pluginfile.php/624849/mod_resource/content/1/a840_1_ michel_foucault.pdf Foucault, M. (1977). What is an author? In D. F. Bouchard (Ed.), Language, conreter-memory, practice (pp. 113–138). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Guattari, F. (2000). The three ecologies. London: Athlone Press. Guattari, F. (2015). Transdisciplinarity must become transversality. Theory, Culture & Society, 32(5–6), 131–137. doi:10.1177/0263276415597045 Hergueux, J., Algan, Y., Benkler, Y., & Morell, M. F. (2015). Cooperation in a peer production economy experimental evidence from Wikipedia. Retrieved from https:// www.aeaweb.org Jackson, L., Peters, M. A., Benade, L., Devine, N., Arndt, S., Forster, D., … Ozolins, J. (2018). Is peer review in academic publishing still working? Open Review of Educational Research, 5(1), 95–112. doi:10.1080/23265507.2018.1479139 Jandrić, P., Devine, N., Jackson, L., Peters, M. A., Lazaroui, G., Locke, K., … Benade, L. (2017). Collective writing: An inquiry into praxis. Knowledge Cultures, 5(1), 85–109. doi:10.22381/KC5120177 Jaszi, P. (1994). On the author effect: Contemporary copyright and collective creativity. In M. Woodmansee & P. Jaszi (Eds.), The construction of authorship: Textual appropriation in law and lit- erature (pp. 29–56). Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Kaplan, B. (1967). A unhurried view of copyright. New York, NY: Columbia University Press. Keefer, D. (1995). Reports of the death of the author. Philosophy and Literature, 19, 78–84. Kristeva, J. (1980). Desire in language: A semiotic approach to literature and art (T. Gora, A. Jardine, & L. S. Roudiez, Trans.). New York, NY: Columbia University Press. Kuusela, H. (2015). Writing together: Mapping the terrain of contemporary collaborative writing. Scriptum: Creative Writing Studies, 2(1), 103–135. Lamarque, P. (1990). The death of the author: An analytical autopsy. The British Journal of Aesthetics, 30, 319–331. Lessig, L. (1999). Code and other laws of cyberspace. New York, NY: Basic Books. Lessig, L. (2001). The future of ideas. New York, NY: Random House. Lessig, L. (2008). Remix: Making art and commerce thrive in the hybrid economy. New York, NY: Penguin Press. Peters, M. A. (2009). Education, creativity and the economy of passions: New forms of educational capitalism. Thesis Eleven, 96, 40–63. doi:10.1177/0725513608099119 Peters, M. A. (2015). Interview with Pierre A. Lévy, French philosopher of collective intelligence. Open Review of Educational Research, 2(1), 259–266. doi:10.1080/ 23265507.2015.1084477 Peters, M. A. (2018). The end of neoliberal globalisation and the rise of authoritarian populism. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 50(4), 323–325. doi:10.1080/001 31857.2017.1305720

Experimenting with academic subjectivity  53 Peters, M. A. (Ed.). (1995). Education and the postmodern condition. Westport, CT: Bergin & Garvey. Peters, M. A., & Besley, T. (2006). Building knowledge cultures: Education and development in the age of knowledge capitalism. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. Peters, M. A., & Britez, R. (2009). Ecopolitics of ‘green economy’, environmentalism and education. Economics, Management, and Financial Markets, 4(4), 9–28. Peters, M. A., Britez, R., & Bulut, E. (2009). Cybernetic capitalism, informationalism and cognitive labor. Geopolitics, History and International Relations, 1(2), 11–40. Peters, M. A., & Bulut, E. (Eds.). (2011). Cognitive capitalism, education and digital labor. New York, NY: Peter Lang. Peters, M. A., & Jandrić, P. (2018a). The digital university: A dialogue and manifesto. New York, NY: Peter Lang. Peters, M. A., & Jandrić, P. (2018b). Education and technological unemployment in the fourth indus- trial revolution. In S. Crump, A. Drew, & G. Redding (Eds.), Oxford handbook of comparative higher education systems and university management. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Peters, M. A., Jandrić, P., Irwin, R., Locke, K., Devine, N., Heraud, R., … Benade, L. (2016). Towards a philosophy of academic publishing. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 48(14), 1401–1425. doi:10.1080/00131857.2016.1240987 Peters, M. A., & Roberts, P. (2015). Virtues of openness: Education, science, and scholarship in the digital age. London: Routledge. Peters, M. A., Tesar, M., & Jackson, L. (2018a). After postmodernism in educational theory? A collective writing experiment and thought survey. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 50(14), 1299–1307. doi:10.1080/00131857.2018.1457868 Peters, M. A., & Wals, A. E. J. (2016). Transgressive learning in times of global systemic dysfunction: Interview with Arjen Wals. Open Review of Educational Research, 3(1), 179–189. Peters, M. A., White, E. J., Grierson, E., Stewart, G., Devine, N., Craw, J., … Locke, K. (2018b). Ten theses on the shift from (static) text to (moving) image. Open Review of Educational Research, 5(1), 56–94. doi:10.1080/23265507.2018.1470768 Pettibone, L., Vohland, K., & Ziegler, D. (2017). Understanding the (inter)disciplinary and institutional diversity of citizen science: A survey of current practice in Germany and Austria. PLoS ONE, 12(6), e0178778. Retrieved from http://journals.plos.org/ plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0178778 Rose, M. (1993). Authors and owners: The invention of copyright. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Samuelson, P. (2007). Preliminary thoughts on copyright reform. 2007 Utah L. Rev. 551. Berkeley Law Scholarship Repository, Berkeley Law. Retrieved from https:// scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google. com/&httpsredir=1&article=1430&context=facpubs Stewart, G., Arndt, S., Besley, T., Devine, N., Forster, D., Gibbons, A., … Tesar, M. (2017). Antipodean theory for educational research. Open Review of Educational Research, 4(1), 61–74. doi:10.1080/23265507.2017.1337555 Surowiecki, J. (2005). The wisdom of crowds. New York, NY: Anchor. Sutrop, M. (1994). The death of the literary work. Philosophy and Literature, 18(1), 38–49. doi:10.1353/phl.1994.0067 Wals, A. E. J., & Peters, M. A. (2017). Flowers of resistance: Citizen science, ecological democracy and the transgressive education paradigm. Retrieved from

54  Michael A. Peters, Tina Besley and Sonja Arndt http://transgressivelearning.org/2017/11/08/flowers-resistance-citizen-science-ecological-democracy-transgressive-education-paradigm-abbreviated-version-full-chapter-published-xxxxx/ Watson, D., & Floridi, L. (2016). Crowdsourced science: Sociotechnical epistemology in the e-research paradigm. Synthese, 26, 1–24. Wilson, A. (2004). Foucault on the “question of the author”: A critical exegesis. The Modern Language Review, 99(2), 339–363. Retrieved from http://eprints. whiterose.ac.uk/4458/1/s5_%282%29.pdf Woodmansee, M. (1997). On the author effect: Recovering collectivity. Faculty Publications. Paper 283. Retrieved from http://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/ faculty_publications/283

Websites http://editorscollective.org.nz/ https://www.theguardian.com/science/2018/oct/03/donna-strickland-nobelphysics-prize-wikipedia-denied https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Adrian_Peters

3 Collective writing An inquiry into praxis Petar Jandrić, Nesta Devine, Liz Jackson, Michael A. Peters, George Lăzăroiu, Ramona Mihăilă, Kirsten Locke, Richard Heraud, Andrew Gibbons, Elizabeth Grierson, Daniella J. Forster, E. Jayne White, Georgina Stewart, Marek Tesar, Sonja Arndt, Susanne Brighouse and Leon Benade Introduction Petar: This is the second paper in the series of texts collectively written by members of the Editors Collective – a small New Zealand-based organisation comprised of editors and reviewers of academic journals, most in the fields of education and philosophy.1 The first paper in the series, ‘Toward a philosophy of academic publishing’ (Peters, Jandrić, Irwin, Locke, Devine, Heraud, Gibbons, Besley, White, Forster, Jackson, Grierson, Mika, Stewart, Tesar, Brighouse, Arndt, Lăzăroiu, Mihăilă, Bernade, Legg, Ozolins, and Roberts, 2016) was an experiment in the collective writing process. The experiment consisted of two stages. In the first stage, each contributor (or group of contributors) was invited to write 500 words on a topic that was initially arrived at through discussion and sequenced by agreement. The idea behind the process was for contributors individually or in groups to submit their work to a moderator (Richard Heraud) who sequenced the contributors as they became available and to post it to the Collective. In the second stage, before the final discussion section was written, the paper was submitted to open review by two senior members of the journal Educational Philosophy and Theory (Professors John Ozolins and Peter Roberts). Their remarks were also restricted to 500 words, and included at the end of the paper. In sum, the paper was collectively written by 23 authors. This second paper, moderated by Petar Jandrić, is a follow-up inquiry into the process of collaborative writing. All contributors to ‘Toward a philosophy of academic publishing’ were invited to reflect upon their experience. Apart from a simple invitation to contribute, authors received no further instructions about length, format, or nature of the requested contribution. Based on collective e-mail discussion, the paper is structured as follows: 1. Introduction 2. Setting the scene 3. Experiences and challenges – contributors

56  Petar Jandrić et al 4. 5. 6. 7.

Experiences and challenges – moderators Emerging themes and challenges Discussion Conclusion.

During the process of collective writing and moderation, the planned structure of the article has organically changed and developed, illustrated by two characteristic examples. Firstly, the section “Setting the scene” was not originally planned. Given a completely open call, however, contributors approached the theme in very different ways. Several contributors understood the theme in fully theoretical terms, and contributions by Nesta, Liz Jackson and Michael seemed to draw an appropriate scene for the rest of the article. Therefore, these contributions have naturally emerged as a standalone section. Secondly, during the process of collecting contributions, the moderators of ‘Toward a philosophy of academic publishing’ (Richard) and ‘Collective writing: An inquiry into praxis’ (Petar) shared experiences pertaining to their role in the process of collective writing. Richard suggested that moderators’ experiences might provide another useful perspective for the research and the collective agreed, so a section on moderators’ experiences has been added.

Setting the scene Nesta and Elizabeth J.: There is no question in our minds that writing in collaboration can be an extremely productive process. Discussing in collaboration, whether or not the writing is collaborative, can also be very productive. Indeed, if we take this series to its natural conclusion, then thinking with others, that is to say, using language whether by oral/aural exchange or reading/writing exchange is a productive way to think, and if we consider the relation between language and thinking to be deeply embedded, quite possibly these amount to the only way we can think, since to use language is to use the thinking of our forebears. As soon as we use a word, and expect it to be understood, we enter into an act of collaboration with both those who have used the word previously and those who are part of the same language community engaged in receiving that word, whether by listening or reading, in the here and now. Given this state of affairs, since all acts of reading, writing, speaking, listening are collaborative by definition, why should we now, at this moment, be emphasizing collaboration in research and writing? It seems that this is a natural and perhaps a necessary rejoinder to the emphasis put upon individualism in academic life. The neoliberal impulse to accountability inspires managers to counting the indicators of productivity – students taught, students supervised, papers written, networks joined, research teams partaken in. … and the overwhelming effect is to emphasise the isolated individualism of the performer-academic, even when they are being exhorted to join things. So to collaborate, especially to collaborate in

Collective writing  57 ways that obscure who wrote what, is in itself a dissident act, even as, at the same time, it fulfils a repeated theme, almost a requirement, of the neoliberal university. There will be rewards for collaboration but – here is the point of resistance – the university will never know if they were justified or not. We have to consider, however, some other dimensions to this collaborative project. As teachers we should be aware that for some of our students, and presumably for some of our colleagues, co-operation is significantly more challenging than it is for others. For the autistic child, co-operation, social skills – and these are what make collaborative writing, like most other forms of collaboration, actually work – are often painfully acquired, and only then through deliberate teaching, repetition, and reward – a combination of Aristotelean habituation and Behaviorist reinforcement. Like the Flexible Learning Environment, which is based on a utopian notion of happy little children working independently and energetically side by side, collaboration can pose all sorts of challenges, anxieties, pitfalls to the person who does not have the necessary preliminary training and ability to exclude extraneous ‘noise’. So, in our view, collaboration should be treated with care: when it works, it is very, very good, and when it does not, people should be able to go off quietly to do their own thing. We can take one further step back as we consider the educational implications of valuing collaboration in thinking and producing research and other professional and vocational outputs (for teaching and other processes). If we see neoliberalism as a historical process in higher education, professional and work life, over time scholars have been discouraged from casual chats in the pub after seminars and informal social networking. Accountability demands for individual outputs have become entrenched and intensified in the lives of academics within a new hidden curriculum of job scarcity and uncertainty (which may be particularly felt by junior academics). Time spent in philosophical, abstract, and informal discussion of ideas and work with colleagues in one’s fields and relevant subfields now might be seen as time not spent in direct processes of accountable work production. If it does not wind up on the CV, it does not ‘count’. Individualism in counting and measuring results in higher education at the same time creates an environment where competition rather than collaboration is prioritized, despite the discourse promoting the latter that can be found in every university’s policies. Working under the gun, peer review transforms from an ideally constructive process of collaboration in developing and communicating new ideas in one’s field, into more discrete events of evaluating others harshly against her own criteria for success, carried out in an irate mood as she feels pressured for time for such ‘service’ work. In such an environment scholars who wish to promote collaboration at all levels of academic and educational life are disabled by material pressures, lack of experience, lack of necessity, and lack of human capital and human resources. Who can teach a new generation to be more collaborative and to value collaboration, and what can motivate them to do so, to push against the grain? Here the benefits of collaboration must be considered from a

58  Petar Jandrić et al philosophical perspective against the contemporary neoliberal backdrop of higher education, scholarly publishing, and academia, moving away from a pedagogy of jigsaw puzzling (each student has one clue and fits them together to solve the problem), to elaborate collaboration as a normative practice and critically trace what is meant by collaboration from a holistically individual, psychological, social, theoretical, and economic-political perspective. Michael: The modern concept and philosophy of the author is defined primarily in a legal definition as the writer and author of ‘original works’ under copyright as a form of intellectual property. It was this view that also encouraged a philosophical view about the meaning of the text as an expression of authorial intention. In school I was bemused at the game of literary criticism that appeared to be reducible to guessing the author’s intention. How was I to guess Wordsworth’s intention when he poetised about Nature from his experience in the highly manicured Lake District? For a boy from an untamed pastoral New Zealand landscape in retrospect, this seems preposterous. I never understood Wordsworth until I visited his house in the Lake District and read his poems in that context. Both Barthes and Foucault have challenged the Romantic idea and the argument that a text can be attributed to any single author. Certainly, given the context and the fact that the author herself is a product of an historical context, there is no reason to believe that reference to the author’s intentions exhausts the meaning of a text or even provides the best and only principle of interpretation, even if the first blush of ‘the death of the author’ seems to have abated. I was brought up and educated at a time when the notion of the author was an unassailable truth and all knowledge of the text flowed from the primacy of this principle. (‘Yes but Michael, what did Shakespeare mean?’ I hear my teacher saying with annoyance.) That the notion of the author might be a social construction had to wait for another generation and until the idea of ‘intertextuality’ (the text as a product of other texts) took hold. The author from the Old French auctor meaning ‘father, author, originator, creator, instigator,’ and the Latin auctorem meaning ‘enlarger, founder, master, leader’ and literally ‘one who causes to grow’ was not always associated with the writer or the scribe or the notion of self and its expression. (The meaning of the text betrays its patriarchal culture.) Only when the text was being canonized did the notion of author as originator, as genius and a man of letters come into being at the time when a set of legal definitions began to shape modern literary culture. If the notion of author is socially constructed, then it can be constructed otherwise especially in the context of the contemporary university. It can also upset the institution’s neoliberal ethos of privatization and research monitoring and evaluation based on the author of journal research papers. The Editors Collective seemed a great space to experiment with collective authorship and now the first experiment is almost complete it is reasonable to reflect on the process which I found quite liberating. Of course, there have been other experiments in collective creations – literary ones like the James I Bible, the edited collection, the encyclopaedia, the orchestra,

Collective writing  59 and movie – and also more recently experiments with distributive writing often developed through social software. But principally, my interest really stems from an interest in collective intelligence in an age of technologically enhanced interconnectivity. I like the concept and the process and felt that ‘progress’ can be made quickly from among those who make up the ecosystem. As to the question of subjectivity, I would argue that the success of the model is a result of intersubjectivity – the new platform for learning. Collective authorship through collaborative writing is already well advanced in digital storytelling (Sevilla-Pavón, 2015) which ‘can be related with the creation of a new collaborative culture resulting from the advent of Web 2.0’ and enables ‘participants to switch back and forth between the roles of Writer, Editor, Reviewer, Team Leader and Facilitator.’ This conception surely works against the Romantic notion of individual and heroic authorship and begins to unthread the philosophy of locating meaning in the intentions of an author, rather than in the interactive system of which the reader is a constituent and necessary part.

Experiences and challenges – contributors George: I have co-authored a lot of published papers so far. We may create jointly as an addition and an upgrading of our deep acquaintanceships: the practice and the investigation of teamwork may be undertakings of destabilization and of liberatory implication (Barnett, 2015), constituting a difficult task to established research practices in the humanities. An obstacle to scholarly partnership in the humanities is the persistence of the notion of primary and secondary authorship (Ede & Lunsford, 1990). In joining forces on writing, co-authors should pursue a definite choice, without repudiating their separate beliefs or suppressing their disagreements to one another’s positions, finding out to pay attention to each other, developing each other’s judgements, and reaching at a manner of communicating as a group what we rely on. Sometimes our collaborative writing cannot be disentangled into components that we want to ascribe to one or the other of us (Haddad & Wang, 2015); however, each of us takes the main accountability for various elements, the research output entirely is the result of shared endeavours and networking of initiatives (Field Belenky et al., 1997). Mass authorship makes it more difficult to identify who did what and who is worthy of the real recognition for a leap forward (Lăzăroiu, 2015), or disapprobation for misbehaviour (there may be no manner to clarify how significant each co-author might be). Credit on an academic piece counts greatly in employment, promotion and tenure decisions. The position of first author generally provides the most prominence, distinguishing the individual who participates the most to the execution of the paper, whereas the last author is frequently the senior scholar who supervises the research enterprise. Numerous peer-reviewed outlets demand that all co-authors inspect and approve the final version of a manuscript, and clarify their contribution.

60  Petar Jandrić et al The latter should also be responsible for all features of the research process (Lee Hotz, 2015). Ramona: While co-authoring has many advantages – developing new ideas, improving research methods, or sharing the workload – there are also a lot of disadvantages. On the one hand, it is important to have an explanatory note to mention who the main author is (in fact) or to underline each author’s contribution. Some universities have different evaluation criteria for scholar’s research activities in terms of co-authoring, thus the main co-author may get 60% out of the percentage of the article, while the rest of it (40%) is divided for the rest of the co-authors, or, in the happy cases, all the co-authors get an equal share out of the percentage. In terms of citation, there is also a little disadvantage when there is mentioned only the name of the first co-author while the others are hid behind the phrase et al. Sometimes, in the social sciences and humanities the authors are listed in alphabetical order to indicate equal contributions (if specified in the footnotes) or are listed in the order of substantive contributions they have made. Kirsten and Nesta: ‘Will you write with me?’ A simple question, said over a cup of tea at a conference in Christchurch at the start of the week. By the end of that same week I am sitting in Nesta’s office in Auckland, cup of tea beside the computer. We get down to business quickly. We talk and I type. We finish each other’s sentences, sometimes orally, sometimes on my laptop screen. Sentences take visual shape in black and white as we dab together at our colourful palette of ideas: Let’s move away from historicity, let’s critique the determinism of development, let’s see what remains the same, what changes. We’re on the same page, our words and us. This collaborative writing process is one that draws on a specific history that manifests in this physical meeting of minds. We live and work in Auckland and it makes sense to book in an appointment to write together as a good excuse to meet. This may well be different to the other collaborations in this series. For Nesta and me, technology takes a back seat in favour of the chance to converse and think together in person. Does this make the collaborative process easier? Perhaps. There is something specific about the pacing of a conversation that takes place in physical proximity; something luxurious that feels almost indulgent when contrasted with the digitally mediated context of our writing lives. We can spark off each other and dip into the performative dimension of a dialogue that unfolds in real time and unfurls around a ten-year history of meeting, conversing, thinking, and sharing stories of life and academia in the learned society that is PESA. ‘We should have recorded this,’ I say at the end. It would have been interesting to see this collaboration played back to us to analyse. We may have been able to pinpoint the negotiations that take place to structure the argument, or the moments when we pass our ideas for the other to catch, discard or carry forward. For two people who enjoy the art of conversation, we stay remarkably and steadfastly focussed on the task at hand. Perhaps the recording would have caught the snippets of conversation that make reference to our busy academic lives as we write about the lineage of academic thought

Collective writing  61 expressed through the form of the scholarly journal. In this way collaboration encompasses the marginalia of academic lives like ours, written around the labour of academic writing. What did we learn? Academic writing in the humanities particularly is often viewed as an individual pursuit. The bespectacled academic staring at a screen with their fingers gliding over a keyboard may have replaced romantic images of the scholar bent over parchment with quill in hand, but both these images capture the ascetic dimension to academic writing. While the technical tools have changed, much of what we consider to be the nature of academic writing still fits these individualistic pictures in essence if not in truth. Perhaps this project brings in a more postmodern notion of writing as bricolage, where small pieces of collaborative writing fragments are knitted together by a common history and shared membership of a learned society that joins together disparate thought and common intentions. Nesta: Because I have had the privilege of taking part in two of these collaborative experiments, one by email and one with the participants together in person, I have the luxury of being able to compare the process. Although both have been pleasant experiences, they have been quite different. The email process has involved one person writing the initial paragraph, then each person penning separate paragraphs, perhaps altering sentences to ensure that they fit together. So the result may be in some sense schizoid – the joins are probably clearly visible! With the collaboration between Kirsten and myself I can now identify the ideas that each brought to the table (the big working dining table in my office), but it would be very difficult to unravel the sentences and ascribe them to one or the other of us. The email process is more like the original methodology of the academic letter, the face-to-face conversation more like the dynamic interchange of ideas that causes immediate change in thinking. In both cases the respect that each has had for the partner in the process has been vital to the success of the enterprise, and the existence of a shared language has also been essential. Richard: While this was the first piece of so-called collaborative writing that I have written with Andrew, this is not the first time we have written together. We have written in various forms off and on over the last decade or so. This is not the reason either why we wrote together on this occasion: when the idea to write collectively was proposed, Andrew was sitting beside me – simply that: it might have been someone else, someone I had never written with before, and this would have been an equally attractive proposition. If, however, it were someone else, my experience of writing with Andrew would have been an influence as it is with him that I learned that the capacity to write together is more founded on the nature of friendship than it is on an understanding of the problem of writing. In other words, the problem of writing could be thought of as a problem of friendship. To write together, we therefore need new friends. In the context of such a friendship as Andrew’s and mine, it does not matter who begins, who assumes the protagonism, who provides the key to or the crux of the argument. We do not have a system for articulating something,

62  Petar Jandrić et al for putting it together, for completing something – our friendship functions perfectly without a system: we are comfortable with our uncertain knowledge of each other, realizing that the uncertainty must in fact be preserved. A friendship as a basis for working together recovers writing from the ambit of work, from conventions, from the obligation of a certain type of outcome, from the critical self-consciousness that informs the attitude that one gives to a good performance, to a career. A friendship, as a basis for writing, enables us to retrieve writing from the regime of work and to return it, as an act, to the realm of action that speaks – making it once again possible to reveal something that the regime of work is unable to produce on its own. In everything said thus far, a key element is missing: the notion that an idea has more possibilities if it is paradoxical in nature. Perhaps our friendship would die a banal death without paradox. This said; this is not something we fear as certain conditions tend to work in our favour. Disagreement is more useful than agreement; we use different tools – each invisible to the other – to turn the idea over (the cow pat). The idea’s epistemological arrival is both irreconcilable and yet formed under the same sky. Hence we begin from a sensation of having already broken from the mould of its form – the mould of the idea. Friendship cannot exist in an experience of anarchy. We are adventurous not only because the search for a way would be stilted without adventure. Adventure is to change the face of what already exists. And we do this not for ourselves, although we ourselves do it. It is not a philosophical friendship or even a political friendship. In relation to the former, a paradox is thought individually in the sense that thought as an action must have a protagonist. In relation to the latter, we do not have the numbers to be ourselves and also be political actors. We are two actors of the self and two collective actors. Perhaps the most defining condition in our favour is space: not free time as space to write but space when it presents itself as the space of possibility, the invitation to break with the manner in which duty binds itself to space and ascribes in its aesthetic the false notion that philosophy and politics are the same thing. A friendship always needs a new terrain and this is best sought in the place where tacit knowledge is both most evident and hardest to define. This space could be a charred forest without leaves that nevertheless has birds. Andrew: Richard provided the important impetus for the task, he had the first contact with the theory – I had never read anything on technological disruptions. I was imagining some kind of machine or system that freed the standing reserve from exploitation. So, I got a couple of readings from Richard that were excellent at getting me up to speed and in revealing a theory more inclined to exploit than to reveal exploitation. Mainly I was disappointed in the description and scope of the theory and I think or hope that this comes out in the drafted contribution. In the writing process that followed, Richard was taking the theory to new depths while I was trying to point out that we were in the wrong submarine. That was a productive arrangement as it turns out, because in very quick time we had a developed a position and I think also that we shared the position. Maybe this is more

Collective writing  63 possible because we have written together before, and that happened in part because as students in the philosophy of education class of 2001 (or thereabouts, but 2001 sounds good to me), we decided to form a word group (not a reading group). Back to the task of writing about technological disruptions … I’m a bit suspicious, unconvinced, by/with any task to turn a theory into something it was not intended to be. Affordance theory springs to mind (blah, blah, blah). What I think we are doing is something new, and that comes out in the last paragraph which Richard had initially drafted into the first few sections of the paper. However, I suggested moving it to the end, and I think it is a powerful end that starts something new. Elizabeth G: What I did. It is a Tuesday in August and our group is near completion of our contribution to the collective writing of the article, ‘Towards a philosophy of academic publishing’ (Peters, Jandrić, Irwin, Locke, Devine, Heraud, Gibbons, Besley, White, Forster, Jackson, Grierson, Mika, Stewart, Tesar, Brighouse, Arndt, Lăzăroiu, Mihăilă, Bernade, Legg, Ozolins, and Roberts, 2016). When I say completion, this may not be true, it may never be in completion; however, the academic labour to date, as applied to a ‘natural’ resource, that of our minds, seems complete. This is what I did. The piece I have been co-writing with Georgina Stewart and Carl Mika is section 7, ‘Ownership and rights’. This, I thought, would be a walk in the park – just cover a bit on intellectual property and apply it to academic labour. Georgina had written her part first and had raised the issue of indigenous knowledge. Yes, I thought, I need to extend my walk in this park, in a meaningful way, down the paths of traditional knowledge in terms of IP interests. This meant more research, another day of academic labour. Did I find it enjoyable and worthwhile? Enjoyable: yes, worthwhile: yes. I enjoyed the enquiry, the task of putting together what at first sight seemed simple, but at further investigation was not. I enjoyed writing on from Georgina’s text. I did not consider it my right to write ‘into’ her text as that would seem to transgress the very moral rights that I was writing about. Therefore I regarded her text as complete in itself and I had no right to alter it or add to it. We had not considered these ground rules so had not discussed them. I just followed the IP protocols of collaborative writing that I was addressing and was confident that Carl would finalise the piece with the same approach. What of my individual academic labour? In terms of Lockean theory of labour, I was mining the ‘natural’ resources of my mind, with plenty of thought and energy left over in common for future labouring pursuits. It seemed clear to me that the consequential property, intangible in IP terms, was apparent via the relationship between the labour and ownership rights. The fruits of my labour earned the right to ownership of these ideas in published form, but it also gives rise to my obligation to others in the collaborative contract. This was also clear. It was not a one-woman band. Cadavre Exquis: Exquisite Corpse

64  Petar Jandrić et al How would our contribution to the article come together with a little bit from Georgina, a little bit from me, and a little bit from Carl? And how will the whole article shape up with all the other different voices? In 1925 André Breton devised a game, Exquisite Corpse, based on the parlour game of Consequences, where each person in a collaborative group adds a bit to the unseen drawing or words to make the whole. Breton’s surrealist group would each secretly add a word, a noun, verb, adjective, or adverb – or image, a head, body, arm, etc. – and fold the paper before passing it on. A sentence or completed drawing would be the result. One of the first games produced this sentence: Le cadavre exquis boira le vin nouveau (The exquisite corpse will drink the young wine) (Pouzet-Duzer 2011), and so the game was named Exquisite Corpse. Undecidability, paradox, and a strange hybridity became the usual outcome in another form of reality, a “disruption of everyday logic” as Breton said. Such was the surrealist’s attention to chance and automatism ECC Exquisite Collaborations. To what extent do we, as scholarly writers, adhere to chance or automatism? Probably not much if at all, as we are conditioned already to be critical, to give thought to, and to deliberately mine the resources of our mind in our Lockean version of academic labour. But a possible and paradoxical philosophy of academic publishing may be the outcome. Perhaps the end result of our collaborative enterprise will be a delightfully uncanny creature, an original form of expression ‘fixed’ by its published form, whose design will be worthy of IP protection. Perhaps we could apply collectively for trademark protection: ECC Exquisite Collaborations has a nice ring to it, and the commercialisation benefits could be a worthy outcome of our collective labour. Incidentally Breton and his friend, Paul Eluard, talked about the collaboration invoking “love and friendship” (Askew 2005). I thought that was relevant for our Editors Collective Council, and a relevant place to leave this reflection. Daniella and Jayne: We both love writing and do it with relative ease. We are both also well accustomed to collaborative writing and have done so over many years. This writing project was, however, something new and different – calling for revised approaches, which we will explain. Our writing experience for the Editors Collective was forged out of several very pragmatic factors and led us to an approach that summoned Google Docs as a writing platform that was, as it turned out, unexpectedly helpful for our mutual endeavours: 1. We had never worked together before and were unfamiliar with each other’s writing styles or philosophical interests. At the outset all we had in common was a shared curiosity for Open Access in our work, shared interest in Philosophy of Education, joint membership on the newly established Editors Collective, and an important conversation about one year-old Ruby in the lobby after the Editor’s meeting (more on that soon).

Collective writing  65 2. We worked across two separate countries, two institutions, two disciplines. This is not an unusual state of affairs, in general, for philosophers in education; since we are all too often sprinkled around the globe’s universities, standing alone, across the occasional education department. But in our case, it meant that there was no possibility of sitting together in the same room to talk through our interests, ideas, or issues at hand. No coffee encounters were possible, which posed a problem since such rituals have often been critical in previous writing relationships. We had to rely on the goodwill that we had recently established. 3. This task was offered to us at the beginning of a very busy teaching semester and in the midst of several institutional upheavals and other new projects. Not only this, but during the time of writing this paper, Ruby teethed her four first molars (and if you have had teething children in the house, you will remember that the pain and swelling wakes them overnight and they fuss), and Bram, who started ‘big school’ earlier this year, began to refuse school (and if you have had school-refusing children, you might be able to imagine what each morning before school looks, feels, and sounds like.) These factors meant that there was an outright incapacity to make writing a top priority accompanied by a degree of anxiety concerning our ability to give the project the time it deserved. In the end we each gave it two sessions – in order. We just wrote and the only way this could be achieved, that we could see, was via Google Docs because it is an important portal for community, and the creation of intellectual and personal space. 4. I cannot speak for Daniella but I am aware that it was the Ruby connection that meant I had an instinctive rapport at the outset of this project. It was one that enabled us to proceed without placing any pressure on one another to meet certain deadlines. 5. As it turns out, Jayne, you are right. Knowing that you understood the demands of early childhood mothering was a key factor in choosing to work with you. It could have been on any of these topic chapters, although I did have a special interest in Open Access, and the idea of openness in general. Not knowing you personally until we met so recently, I had an awareness that I could trust you to appreciate why I could not work to the fast-tracked deadline, and that it was not simply because I wanted a perfect product, nor had the luxury of suffering writer’s block. 6. As mothers we both knew the challenges that are faced when any additional demands are placed – willingly or otherwise – on an already crazy academic workload. We also knew that Ruby and her brother, Bram, would be the top priority here and not the article – which by no means denigrates the importance of the article (indeed, it became more important as we wrote than either of us had imagined) but it does give it a certain reality and perhaps status in our lives as women who are also nurturers and committed social members of a community.

66  Petar Jandrić et al What these factors made possible was a new way of writing without exchanging a (spoken) word. It seemed to come easily for us – perhaps partially because our quest was very much one of fact finding since neither of us brought much knowledge of the topic to the table, but also we were both accustomed to multi-tasking and the realisation that comes with it that there is always room for improvement. In this sense it may have been made easier because we were not oriented towards proving ourselves but rather a genuine curiosity in the task at hand, and the commitment to understand OA for ourselves and the group. The net is buzzing with ideas about OA, sometimes in polemic contrasts, accusations of bias, hypocrisy, or deceit on both sides and digging into these conflicts raised an understanding in us of just the tip of some deep-seated political-economic attitudes, often expressed by authors in terms of their aspirations or suspicions. We hoped simply to tease open this knot, and expose some of the simmering debates. We did not assume to capture the whole picture, and this made our writing exploratory; testing out terms, categories, narratives. It was also made easier because we did not commit to a finished (i.e. published) submission but rather saw it as a beginning effort, and, as such, a contribution to the larger group. We have learned over time, as writers, that what is written need not be perfect, cannot be perfect. It is what it is at that time – say, 2.25 pm on a Thursday – in between school pickup and during a child’s nap or late at night when the children are asleep and the house is quiet. It can be revised, and shared, and opened for reinterpretation perhaps the next day, or perhaps a week later when the next writing space appears. We understood it was by no means complete and this ‘unfinished’ nature of the project made it less threatening, more achievable, and, in consideration of the topic we chose, more appealing. Whilst I set up the document on Google and planned out a few notes, it was Jayne who wrote first, in that lengthy way that maps out the terrain and sets the tone and purpose. In doing so, she made it possible for me to ‘fill the gaps’; to test out her claims and to gather perspectives on OA that had not yet been given space. This part of our writing process was perhaps more significant than I realised at the time. On reflection, and in the context of our shared understanding of what it is like being a mother-academic, I realise that it was an act of solidarity. In a very real sense, Jayne’s act in putting the first elaborated words down made a bridge for me to begin engaging with this unknown, extra challenge that I had not anticipated fitting into my schedule until, literally, the previous week. At first, I began tentatively, with some very simple conceptual clarification tasks, and then more intensively when I began to grapple with the material objections and variety of shifting forms that the potential of OA can take. Jayne’s solidarity with my day-to-day motherhood meant that even if I took longer, she would stand with me. Being a mother-academic, working from home, means that often I can snatch only 30 minutes of good, uninterrupted writing time. Like now, when my partner is reading a bedtime story to Bram, and Ruby is already asleep. And then we might spend some time

Collective writing  67 cleaning up and putting the toys away after the day’s play. After a week of snatching precious half-hour blocks of writing, I could give over my part to Jayne and she would reply. An extra paragraph or two. A bit of reorganisation, some comments, a question or thought bubble, and then swap turns again. On each occasion when we went into Google Docs (sequenced by an email that simply said “your turn”), there was delight in reading what had been discovered in the interim, and a fresh eye on the ideas that had been there before. In some ways it felt as if we were living what we were writing – open, free, and accessible across time and space. While we are not so naive as not to understand that there are risks in such approaches, we also trust that the group will respond in kind. We trust this because of our previous liaisons but also, as women, recognise that our writing is never our ‘own’ in its broadest sense and that all writing is a relational encounter to one degree or other. We give birth to an idea, we nurture it and sustain it as we would our own dear child. But we also know that ideas, like children, grow up, take root in other places. Such is our approach to this writing experience. Georgina: Responding with a poem is a strategic attempt to bring a different voice to academic writing, and part of my ongoing exploration of the role of narrative modes of writing in educational research. When the muse strikes, the poem quickly appears: words pared to a minimum; each carefully considered, with punctuation to sculpt the rhythm and flow of the overall piece. The last line alludes to the traditional Maori proverb, ‘Nau te rourou, naku te rourou, ka ora te iwi’ (‘With your food basket, and my food basket, the people will thrive’). Collaborative writing When we are together we bounce off each other, the ideas grow and spiral, we make plans It all seems so easy, achievable, what we should be doing. Then we take our leave, each returning to our own place Fall once more into the rhythms of everyday – classes, meetings, traffic, home – Later, sitting down at the computer alone, the excitement is hard to rekindle: What was it that inspired me so much? They want it when? Are they joking? After a few such abortive attempts, the desire to get it done builds, Creates its own imperative: just write something! I start, as usual, by scribbling on a piece of scrap paper On this occasion, only four words – But each of those words becomes a paragraph Are four paragraphs enough? I hope so, and send them to my collaborators. Soon the piece is finished. Is it perfect? No, but then what is? With my little piece, and your little piece, we have something worth saying.

68  Petar Jandrić et al

Marek, Sonja, Liz, Susanne: Collaborative writing as a collective emotional Selfie Collective writing is not something that is conceived easily. There is a striking difference between writing as a ‘collective’ and co-writing. If we are to point out our experience, it is in a certain way a new form of subjectivity, which has become utilized in a sense as an authorless experience. It does not matter how much or how in-depth each member of the collective was involved in the writing; what their experience or academic rank is: every contributor’s presence determined the shape and moulded the argument so the writing became both enriched and authorless as a final product and a gift. Reflection on one’s own writing can sometimes be seen as indulgent. It is also a kind of collective emotional selfie that outlines not only our knowledge and experiences, but also the process of thought in becoming and growing up in public. We may never reckon whether or not it is a success, and each author might remain unsure about the impact of his or her writing on others. What does this process do in a collective authorship, to all contributors? Does it lessen the burden, ease the process; or does it bring additional complexities and narratives that the authors never considered to be of importance? In a peculiar way, there is both despair and hope in collective writing. Authors, on the one hand, are unaware and lack any knowledge about how the writing will end, and on the other, they are very much aware that it will, and must, in fact end well. Collective writing also creates an extra pressure of the performance – the experience that there are other subjects waiting for our words, for our contribution, can be at the same time very daunting and liberating. There is an element of international solidarity that becomes an essential cog in the process: different backgrounds, countries, time zones. The reflection on the collective authorship serves as a mirror on our current thinking and academic work. It reflects also where we are currently in our lives; our personal and professional endeavours and relationships are interlinked and cannot necessarily be ignored, but quite the opposite, it becomes the productive space that allows us to produce more thorough examinations of ourselves as subjects-in-writing-process. We are the subjects-in-writing-process that through a collective authorless authorship allow for a place of resistance to the machinery of demands for clearly outlining the contributions – outputs – of each author. As a productive space, a gift to and from all of us, the writing process then becomes some form of a mask, allowing us, simultaneously hidden and exposed, to take certain risks. Masked in a sense behind our collective pseudonym, we are freed by the knowledge that we are building a greater united whole, with each of our contributions, greater than a singular effort, sparked and spurred on not only by each other’s thoughtful input, how much we revere the other authors in our group, their standing in the academe, or their important work in the greater educational and academic publishing milieu, but by the collective energy and buzz emanating from the shared

Collective writing  69 expectations, and collective intercontinental and intercity dynamics. Collectively we have shaped something, then, that is determined by more than a solitary stance. Our humble individuality has become multiplied, in this temporary exilic departure from ourselves, but through ourselves, opening possibilities for distancing ourselves towards a more irreverent, ruthless whole. But maybe, as the collective strength of all of our contributions determines the shape and cohesion of the eventually-to-be-published whole, the pseudonymic mask also offers a space to hide our fear. The same reverence towards our colleagues’ thought contributions can lead to a wary tentativeness. Standing on the precipice of uncertainty – will my contribution measure up? What can my thinking add? Nevertheless, taking strength from the idea that thought itself is always a form of dissidence, we take the leap. We compile our individual thoughts together in a collective expectation to add to the whole, relinquishing expectations of knowing, or certainty, subjects-in-writing-process, to think through and contribute not only to the final ‘thing’, nor only to the process, but to ourselves and to each other.

Experiences and challenges – Moderators Richard: Moderation, in the context of the previous article (Peters et al., 2016), is not to argue for an adjustment in relation to the value of one text to another. The symmetry already exists on account of the number of words that each author has to work with and the presumption that the maximum diversity of approach in the collective will render not a universal picture but one where its problems are approachable and able to be engaged with. In this sense, we are both breaking with professional expertise and creating a beginning without end; a colloquial revelation of serious and practical consequence! Moderation of engagement and collection is here an act of caring for the aperture and the need to be hospitable without conditions. Of course, our diversity creates conflict, but this seems mostly to do with the challenge of transforming the academic habitus and the fact that we have constituted ourselves as academic performers. In the previous article, there is a different kind of performance: a leap without time for research and a return to the idea of the academic as an already intellectual, as already innovative and an already creative being. Observation of the process of collaboration and collective contribution – choice of collaborator, the choice of a section topic (the articulation of which was already ascribed) and 500 words each, written in collaboration, and an initial time limit of one week – has me thinking of Drucker’s words: “Innovation, as we now use the term, is based on the systematic, organized leap into the unknown. Its aim is to give us new power for action through a new capacity to see, a new vision. Its tools are scientific; but its process is of the imagination, its method the organization of ignorance rather than that of known facts” (1959, p. 13). When there is both a limit on time available and a word limit, academic performance can be threatened. A leap into the unknown can only be structured and systemized up to a certain point: the unknown by definition

70  Petar Jandrić et al presumes that the actor and his or her collective will always be unprepared for what they are about to meet. Yes, our expertise tells us that we have the scientific tools that enable us to organize known facts, but this is not all we need for such a project. In this instance, the task was to stand, speak, and disappear back into the profession; the action of speaking being the action of thought. The organization of our ignorance of an already chosen topic, that we individually accepted to write on, is what makes actors and listeners. The technology of this genre of collective writing cannot be self-serving and, as such, its process becomes collaborative not just with one’s collaborator or with the collective as a whole, but more importantly with those who populate the realm of the problems that are herein spoken to. Technology is only the means, not the end: as a means it is more important that we transform ourselves than it is that we transform technology as an artefact: the former we cannot do for its own sake (we must do it for others), while the latter we can. When there is conflict, it needs to be treated as soft conflict: I have to put my hand over my mouth as each actor of the self is exposing himor herself in a new way – as I am too. This requires the utmost respect and humility, something I must learn. When working with a collective producing new works in such a genre, the moderator commits many errors as he tries to find his place in the spectrum of experience that falls between his listening and his actions. When listening to Jacotot’s (Rancière, 1991) conversation with the parents of his students and to David Bowie’s (1999) description of his conversation with his audience, what is happening is already happening out there. This is their report and the report of this editorial collective. Petar: Online moderation is my bread and butter – working in digital distance education since the beginning of my career, my daily work has always consisted of moderating numerous distance students. Then there is my research – working from the periphery of Europe, I often co-write with colleagues from all around the world. As (co-)editor of edited books and journal articles, I also need to manage a vast number of physically remote writers. Finally, various digital learning development projects I have been a part of, in and beyond the European Union, have a strong component of managing distance teams. In the age of online collaboration, I guess that my case is far from unique … Therefore, it is worthwhile to ask: What, if anything at all, makes the act of moderating collaborative writing unique? Power relationships seem a good place to start this inquiry. In teaching, I am obviously positioned above students; in editing, my judgement decides whether something will be published; in projects, I am either the leader or the subordinate. It is only in co-writing, that I am completely equal to my partner(s). Yet, it is quite rare to co-write with unknown people – typically, our writing partners are carefully selected amongst our colleagues and friends. In this project, however, the majority of my partners are almost complete strangers – yet everyone has an equal say at how this paper will look like. Such radical equality amongst strangers requires a leap of faith, and establishing trust between strangers. In this project, all contributors have all been gathered by Michael, whom I deeply respect. So my trust, and my leap

Collective writing  71 of faith, has a name and a face: instead of trusting you, unknown stranger, I trust that Michael did a good job in inviting you. I wonder, what would happen if all collaborators were my close friends? Vice versa, what would happen if we were just randomly selected from an academic database? As moderator, I am in permanent contact with everyone included in the project. I get to see draft versions of every contribution; I receive all complaints. In this sense, my position is different from all others. For instance, the majority of contributors to this piece could not read other people’s contributions before writing their own – in this sense, their contributions are clean of peer influence. However, I first received all contributions, then I read them, then I formatted them, then I re-read them, and I fiddled with their sequence. Unlike other contributions, therefore, my piece is heavily influenced by all other pieces. My initial impulse was to simply skip writing own impressions – conceived in a radically different context, they are simply incommensurable with the others. When, however, Richard proposed that we should include a separate section on moderators’ impressions, I realized that these might be of value – for as long as we do not put them in the same pot with the rest. I wonder, what would be the moderator’s position in a differently themed paper? Then, there is the pure ‘mechanics’ of moderation. In student-teacher relationships, project partner relationships, author-editor relationships, and even writer-writer relationships with people I know well – I can be strict about deadlines, I can openly express (dis-)agreement, I can nag people to do the work. In this project, however, things are radically different. No one gets a mark for this at the end of the semester; no one is getting paid for this collaboration; the article with more than ten authors will not significantly (if at all!) contribute to anyone’s tenure … So who am I to interfere with authors’ daily lives and push them to do something? Out of 23 authors in the original article, only 16 people agreed to this follow-up. I would definitely like to get better take-up, but how should I go about it? And how can I motivate people who are already there? Every time I send a group e-mail to 23 addresses, I am well aware that I am using quite a lot of collective work time – 23 people, times 5 minutes of reading, equals 2 hours! And if everyone spends just a couple of hours in drafting their contributions, reading other people’s contributions, and then reading the whole article and commenting on it – workload goes beyond the roof. Obviously, contributing to an article such as this is based on love for inquiry, intellectual curiosity, passion for new, and tolerance for my (and other people’s) errors. So how do you moderate love, curiosity, passion, and tolerance? One of the most important aspects of all writing is timing – this is not a Wiki, and we are here to produce a complete article. Therefore, the project cannot go forever – it needs a reasonable timeframe, and an end. Projects that are too short, will leave people frustrated; projects that are too long, will make everyone lose their interest. Long ago, Hegel wrote: ‘The owl of Minerva spreads its wings only with the falling of the dusk’ (Hegel, 1991,

72  Petar Jandrić et al p. 23). So what is the right timing for this paper? When should I say, ‘No worries, take your time’, and when should I say ‘This is the deadline, and late submissions will be ignored’? Timing, like musical rhythm, is always a matter of feeling … But how do you develop a feeling for people you do not know? This moderator’s rant could go on and on … Saying too little puts the whole project in jeopardy – how can I expect other people to diligently work on this, if I am not giving my fair share? But saying too much is probably even worse – this project equally belongs to all its contributors, I am only the individual means to the collective end. So if I continue this small text, and monopolize the paper, then I deferred the whole purpose of collective writing. Moderation – surprise, surprise – should be moderate … So what can I do about that? I will wrap up the argument, and say that the act of moderating collaborative writing definitely seems like a unique experience. Then I will just leave these unfinished impressions – and hope that someone will pick them up further.

Emerging themes and challenges Georgina: The open invitation to reflect on the process of collective writing for this article resulted in an impressive breadth and quality of responses being received. As already noted, the nature of the pieces themselves suggested the section headings of the paper, and the sequence in which the contributions appear above. The authorial question – who is speaking? – is prompted by the ‘borders’ between contributions, which are left visible in this patchwork paper. Ultimately, the article speaks in the collective voice of the Editors Collective. Emerging from the contributions are the following themes: 1. Various genres are represented: the responses range in type from synoptic analyses supported by literature, to personal narratives and accounts of experience, to poetry, to reflections on academic work as performance. 2. Seen positively, this collective way of working stakes a claim as cutting-edge research; but the flipside is a nagging worry about ‘navel-gazing’, ‘vanity presses’, and the like. 3. The contributions pay attention in different ways to the material circumstances of academic labour, located in time and space; straddling intellectual, emotional, and physical aspects of the identity of authors; and exploring the multiple demands on our time, both within and beyond the institutional contexts of our employment. 4. Many responses spoke of the fluidity and opportunism that characterizes the lives of today’s academics – for example, squeezing in 30 minutes each evening to review the collaborative Google Doc. 5. There is an interplay between the demands of collective writing and the network of friendships that binds together the members of the Editors Collective, which suggests a need to maximise time spent together in person at conferences and meetings. Not everyone is friends with everyone else in the collective, but the friendships ‘hold hands’ so that ‘your friends are my friends’ within the group.

Collective writing  73 The challenges are obvious within the above-listed themes: 1. The challenge of time: everyone reports being expected to do more and more. 2. The challenge of visibility: working on projects for the Editors Collective may not be recognised by employers. 3. The challenge of distance: personal, geographical, disciplinary, linguistic and other forms of distance may prevent us from collaborating as productively as we might. In collective writing, the contributors identified some of the following benefits: 1. The benefit of productivity: collective writing is often understood as more productive, and sharing workload is listed as one of the key benefits. 2. The benefit of creativity: collective writing is typically seen as creative and innovative – it is seen as less predictable, and it is said to develop (grow and spiral) new ideas, improve research methods, open more possibilities. 3. The benefit of emotions: authors report various emotional benefits, such as developing mutual connections through motherhood. Collective writing is seen as liberating, and provides a space to hide own fear of exposure. 4. The benefit of politics: collective writing is said to upset the neoliberal ethos of the contemporary university; it is also considered as a natural counterbalance to rabid and prevalent individualism. 5. The benefit of originality: authors compare this article to various genres of collective writing from the Bible to editing books and journals, and indicate that experiments like this article might be seeds of a new genre of academic writing.

Discussion Leon: The writers here are thinkers too; what has been conceived in this writing project (following hard on the heels of the earlier ‘Toward a philosophy of academic publishing’, Peters et al., 2016) is a metatheoretical exercise of sorts. It is a dwelling on the possible outcome of having brought together a disparate, yet unified, group of colleagues, associates, and friends, to engage in the process of reflecting and writing the earlier article as a collective. It is a writing about writing, and a thinking about the business of thinking about writing. Critics might suggest this is mere navel-gazing; we suggest it is an entirely appropriate philosophical, theoretical, and pedagogical activity – one, we might add, that is keenly required in an overly reductionist education world. One dimension of education life in the academy that is particularly redolent of this reductionism is the regime of performative writing – writing for publication, not for the benefit of the public, or to make valuable research

74  Petar Jandrić et al results known, but for the potential value of the well-chosen journal, or the successful international publishing house. The translation of publication by individual academics into the potage of research funding to universities drives significant levels of activity in universities. This all-consuming activity calls into question, however, the motives of busy academics to share in a writing project that scarcely identifies their individual contribution to the project. This collective of writers, editors, academics, and educators works in the context of significant enhancements to print and authorship, brought upon by digitisation and interconnectivity. The postmodern challenge to authorial intent is provided an added facet by the social media notion, ‘everyone is an author’. Unlike social media, however, we, the writers, continue to work under the aegis of collective responsibility and peer review – with the twist that this responsibility and review is openly transparent. Or is it? Despite this openness, it is not necessarily clear who has shouldered precisely which responsibility, nor is it clear the extent of individual responsibility, when a collective of writers gathers to produce an article such as this one. In the world of metrics and measured accountability, who takes the primary credit for the published output? Our collective of writers simultaneously troubles, and is troubled by, questions of credit and responsibility. Perturbations notwithstanding, collective writing presents opportunities as it presents challenges. Some of the challenges have been mentioned; there are others, however. Clearly time and distance present challenges, though electronic technology and digital communication, for all its hooks, presents a ready solution to the spatial and temporal challenges of working in busy cities or centres that are geographically apart. The opportunity of spending quality time in the company of kindred spirits is not to be underestimated, however; the conviviality of company, refreshment and related interests is a stolen pleasure from the frenetic pace of daily work. Perhaps we (writers and readers) may learn much from the example of Paulo Freire, who engaged in ‘talking books’, such as his collaboration with Ira Shor that produced A Pedagogy for Liberation (1987). Here, Freire suggested that a talking book “can be serious without being pedantic … rigorously approach[ing] the ideas, the facts, the problems … in a light style, almost with a dancelike quality, an unarmed style” (1987, p. 2), to which Shor replied, “I hope we find a dancing style. So, let’s take turns being poetic and comic and profound” (p. 3). While the act of shared writing suggests a shared commitment, does it imply or presuppose shared views, opinions, and beliefs? Writing on the same subject, two authors may find they are working from different perspectives that may test the limits of their friendship and collegiality. The greater challenge is finding a way to reconcile disparate perspectives to create a harmonious end result. Perhaps, however, harmony is less desirable than discordance, which may itself create new possibilities for novel thought. The discordance created by bringing together two (or more) writers with a common goal but with uncommon background interests, experience or ontological assumptions, does indeed open new possibilities, and can lead to a Gadamerian ‘fusion of horizons’, which does not imply agreement, but rather a shared

Collective writing  75 understanding (Vessey, 2009), and the possibilities for ongoing development. Metaphors of midwifery, nurture, and collective care spring easily to mind, with commitment to the birth and growth of new ideas being more important than individual egos. Underpinning this commitment is a deep vein of trust – in the ability of all contributors, in their willingness to contribute, and their mutual faith in one another, even if some scarcely know the other.

Conclusion Richard: ‘Collective writing: An inquiry into praxis’ comprises a series of individual and collaborative reflections upon the experience of contributing to the previous and first text written by the Editors Collective: ‘Towards a philosophy of academic publishing’ (Peters, Jandrić, Irwin, Locke, Devine, Heraud, Gibbons, Besley, White, Forster, Jackson, Grierson, Mika, Stewart, Tesar, Brighouse, Arndt, Lăzăroiu, Mihăilă, Bernade, Legg, Ozolins, and Roberts, 2016). These texts have been collectively written, albeit in a slightly different manner, so the reflections are inevitably drawn from both writing experiences. There is collaboration in both, between individuals and the idea of the collective and between authors who have collaborated on the same section. The second text was born out of the first – not as a means of extending the discursive act, but in response to an internal need to stand back and re-engage with something most of us have never done before. The conditions that make the second feature of this double-act are necessary and multiple. I am not going to write about these conditions as all academics, who have gone on to act in an editorial capacity, will know that the paradox that these conditions comprise. That is, the conditions under which critical reflection is invited, encouraged, permitted, tolerated, or prohibited are particular to the distinctive situation of the academic and furthermore can only be thought philosophically according to his or her intellectual capacity. If there is something to say here, it is that the ambiguous domain in which collaborative writing engages educational and publishing institutions should not be reined in and shaped too quickly. After all, if collective writing is to reflect a genuinely new development, it needs to be engaged not only collaboratively – involving academics and institutions (and most definitely students too) – but also collectively. This, to say the least, is a complex endeavour. What does it mean that collaborative reflection should be shaped collectively? We are in a very early phase of ‘the age of creative col(labor)ation” (Peters and Jandrić, 2015: 194) in knowledge production, education, (academic) publishing, and in the transformation of political economy in general. Therefore, it is probable that collaborative and collectively shaped reflection can only be understood through an action for which we are unprepared. The collaborative and collective action is a thing of learning-by-doing. In the first instance, it is an act that cannot be instrumentally selective with regards to who the participants should be. Furthermore, it is an act that cannot be selective about what is said – the nature of what is written is largely circumstantial.

76  Petar Jandrić et al This approach is disruptive when it comes to the need to provide performative objectives that articulate outputs. Financial planning in the existing model immediately falls over. Clearly there are new sensations. In neoliberalism giving permanence to its methodology for future vision, the unexpected departures and the creation of new orientations appear in the social space where adventure is demanded. To put it graphically, these new sensations may belong to another category of public good (see Lévy, 1997). Instead of writing being thought of as a measurable output that uniquely serves the commercial imperatives of the commodity space in which we all perform, reading writing, speaking and listening, to quote Nesta and Elizabeth J.’s introductory notes, must once again begin to be thought of as collaborative acts – and as knowledge acts rather than knowledge assets, as economists are prone to think of knowledge. ‘Creative col(labor)ation in knowledge production’ (Peters and Jandrić, 2015: 194) is in a formative stage of its development, and the directions for its further growth, as well as the tools for its evaluation, will come from the actors responsible for the development of this field. ‘In making our collective path by walking together’ (McLaren, 2005: 160), we necessarily engage in the act of critical praxis, where theory and practice shape various aspects of our interactions and their products. At the moment, collective writing seems to offer a dynamics of knowledge production which is positioned slightly external to economic relationships. However, this is far from enough: an analysis needs to be done of the co-opting of academic activities by economics and the transformation of these activities into a form of work that is exclusively economic. Without this, we will not be able to understand how to avoid that which is written being reduced to an information and commercial asset, when it should become a reflection of the presence of new forms of participation, collaboration, and transformation. When ‘the knowledge space’ (Lévy, 1997: 138– 141) is no longer a disciplined subset and logistical asset of “the commodity space” (ibid.: 135–138), creative col(labor)ation (Peters and Jandrić, 2015: 194), and its embodiment in collaborative and collective writing, begin to address the problem of forming new collective intelligences.

Notes 1 See the Editors Collective website: www.editorscollective.org.nz/. This chapter lists authors in order of authorship of sections. All citations of this paper should include the full list of authors.

References Askew, L. (2005). André Breton, Nusch Eluard, Valentine Hugo, Paul Eluard. Exquisite Corpse c. 1930. Tate. http://www.tate.org.uk/art/artworks/breton-eluard-hugoexquisite-corpse-t12005/text-summary Barnett, R. (2015). Conceiving the university. Psychosociological Issues in Human Resource Management, 3, 85–94.

Collective writing  77 Bowie, David (1999). David Bowie speaks to Jeremy Paxman on BBC Newsnight. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FiK7s_0tGsg Drucker, P. (1959). The landmarks of tomorrow. Melbourne: Heinemann. Ede, L. S., & Lunsford, A. A. (1990), Singular texts/Plural authors: Perspectives on collaborative writing. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press. Field Belenky, M., Clinchy, B. M., Goldberger, N. R., & Tarule, J. M. (1997). Women’s ways of knowing: The development of self, voice, and mind. New York, NY: Basic Books. Haddad, N., & Wang, K. (2015). Participatory global citizenship: Civic education beyond territoriality. Journal of Self-Governance and Management Economics, 3, 26–44. Hegel, G. F. W. (1991). Elements of the philosophy of right. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lăzăroiu, G. (2015). The role of the management consultancy industry in the knowledge economy. Psychosociological Issues in Human Resource Management, 3, 71–76. Lee Hotz, R. (2015, August 10). How many scientists does it take to write a paper? Apparently, thousands. The Wall Street Journal. Lévy, P. (1997). Collective Intelligence: Mankind’s emerging world of cyberspace. Trans. R. Bononno. London: Plenum Trade. McLaren, P. (2005). Capitalists & conquerors: A critical pedagogy against empire. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. Peters, M. A., & Jandrić, P. (2015). Learning, creative col(labor)ation, and knowledge cultures. Review of Contemporary Philosophy, 14, 182–198. Peters, M. A., Jandrić, P., Irwin, R., Locke, K., Devine, N., Heraud, R., Gibbons, A., Besley, T., White, J., Forster, D., Jackson, L., Grierson, E., Mika, C., Stewart, G., Tesar, M., Brighouse, S., Arndt, S., Lăzăroiu, G., Mihăilă, R., Bernade, L., Legg, C., Ozolins, J., & Roberts, P. (2016). Towards a philosophy of academic publishing. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 48, 1401–1425. doi: 10.1080/00131857.2016.1240987. Pouzet-Duzer, V. (2011). The exquisite corpse. Chance and collaboration in Surrealism’s Parlor Game, by Kanta Kochhar-Lindgren, Davis Schneidermann, and Tom Denlinger, University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln & London, 2009. Papers of Surrealism, 9, Summer. http://www.surrealismcentre.ac.uk/papersofsurrealism/ journal9/acrobat_files/Exquisite%20Corpse%207.9.11.pdf Rancière, J. (1991). The ignorant schoolmaster: Five lessons in intellectual emancipation. Kristin Ross, trans. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Sevilla-Pavón, A. (2015). Examining collective authorship in collaborative writing tasks through digital storytelling. European Journal of Open, Distance and E-Learning, http://www.eurodl.org/?p=current&sp=brief&article=685 Shor, I., & Freire, P. (1987). A pedagogy for liberation: Dialogues on transforming education. Westport, CT: Bergin & Garvey. Vessey, D. (2009). Gadamer and the fusion of horizons. International Journal of Philosophical Studies, 17, 531–542. doi: 10.1080/09672550903164459.

4 Knowledge socialism The rise of peer production – collegiality, collaboration, and collective intelligence Michael A. Peters

Introduction The terms ‘knowledge economy’ and ‘knowledge capitalism’ have been used with increasing frequency since the 1990s as a way of describing the latest phase of capitalism in the process of global restructuring. ‘Knowledge economy’ is often referred to as deep structural transformation of the economy caused by a technological revolution altering the production and transmission of knowledge (and information), leading to a shift to knowledge-intensive activities. Conceptually, this process of redefinition began with Drucker (1969), Fritz Machlup, Daniel Bell and others who described nascent postindustrial tendencies towards increasing abstract, mathematical and symbolic processes that were part of an emerging and interlocking information technologies that constituted a new global algorithmic and datadriven knowledge architecture. These features comprised the ‘economics of knowledge’ that the OECD (1996) synthesised and systematised around Romer’s (1994) endogenous growth theory, Machlup’s (1962) distribution studies, Porat’s (1977) work on the information economy and various innovation studies of the science system (e.g., Gibbons et al., 1994; Lundvall & Johnson, 1994). Curiously, the OECD’s report did not refer to Gary Becker’s human capital or seek to integrate it as part of the policy synthesis, but human capital, after its first phase (1962–1992), also was very much part of the mix. The OECD’s report became the touchstone for policy in the era of the late 1990s and after. The old liberal metanarratives of knowledge inherited from the Enlightenment based on high sounding knowledge ideals peeled away to reveal an economic discourse based on the calculated use of computing power, the significance of electronic networks, the efficiency and quality of knowledge, planning and progress in R&D, human capital theory, with increasing frequency in the use of these terms to describe the interface of new knowledge and technology, and a conception of technology-led science. Innovation, growth and productivity became instant key words, and statements like ‘Knowledge is the engine of productivity and economic growth’ became the sloganised blanket legitimation for structural reforms for investments in public education and science that increased competition at the global level.

Knowledge socialism  79 1. Economic value of knowledge studies by Fritz Machlup (1962) of the producon and distribuon of knowledge in the U.S.; 2. Gary Becker's (1964; 1993) analysis of human capital with reference to educaon; 3. An emphasis on 'knowledge workers' by the management theorist Peter Drucker (1969) who coined the term in 1959 and founded 'knowledge management'; 4. Daniel Bell's (1973) sociology of posndustrialism that emphasized the centrality of theorecal knowledge and the new science-based industries, a shiŒ from manufacturing to services and the rise of a new technical elite; 5. Alain Touraine's (1971) The Post-industrial Society hypothesized a 'programmed society' run by a 'technocracy' who control informaon and communicaon; 6. Mark Granove‘er's (1973; 1983) theorizing of the role of informaon in the market based on weak es and socialnetworks; 7. Marc Porat (1977) defined 'the informaon society' for the U.S. Department of Commerce; 8. Alvin Toffler (1980) talked of knowledge-based producon in the 'Third Wave economy'; 9. Jean-Francois Lyotard (1984) defined The Postmodern Condion as an age marked by the 'incredulity towards metanarraves' and David Harvey (1989) talked of the large-scale shiŒs from Fordist to flexible accumulaon; 10. James Coleman's (1988) analysis of how social capital creates human capital and the development and applicaons of related noons by Pierre Bourdieu (1986) and Robert Putnam (2000); 11. The standard or received business model associated with knowledge management prevalent in the 1980s became an established discipline in 1995 (Stankosky, 2004); 12. Paul Romer (1990) argued that growth is driven by technological change arising from intenonal investment decisions where technology as an input is a nonrival, parally excludable good; 13. The' new economy' readings of the decades of the 1990s (Delong et aI., 2000; Sglitz, 2003; Hubner, 2005); 14. the OECD's (1994) influenal model based on endogenous growth theory uses the term 'knowledge-based economy'; 15. Joseph Sglitz (1998;1999) developed the World Bank's Knowledge for Development and Educaon for the Knowledge Economy based on knowledge as a global public good; 16.'The learning economy' developed by Lundvall (1994; 2001, with Johnson; 2006, withLorenz); 17. The digital or 'weightless' economy proposed by Danny Quah (2003) andothers; 18. The 'global informaon society' based on the World Summit on the Informaon Society (WSIS)'; 19. Postmodern global systems theory based on network theory, aŒer Manuel Castells (1996;2006); 20. Public policy applicaons and developments of the 'knowledge economy' concept (Rooney et aI., 2003; Hearn & Rooney, 2008).

Figure 4.1.  Interpretations and Genealogy of the Knowledge Economy (Peters et al., 2009: pp. 2 and 3).

This was a kind of unvarnished technological determinism thesis about technology-led development in the knowledge economy that eclipsed the agency of academics and concentrated power in the hands of knowledge managers and brokers. The liberal humanist idea of the university began to shrivel up and die as languages, philosophy and other humanities departments were down-sized or closed down and MBA business and organisation studies flourished (up to the Global Financial Crisis crash of 2007). These changes and the determined push for STEM subjects permanently altered the university curriculum, leaving the arts and humanities behind. The development of innovation capacity and the modernisation of IT infrastructure were seen as the necessary pillars of the knowledge economy with an emphasis on the speed of technological development and the development of technologies that were regarded as ‘knowledge generators’. In the discourse of the knowledge economy, knowledge was commonly referred to as the main factor in production that focused on the intangibles, such as ideas and trademarks, networked

80  Michael A. Peters through the rapid evolution of new digital communication technologies that made volume, storage and processing information possible at decreasing cost and created digital networks that formed the basis of the internet. The discourse of knowledge economy, presented in Figure 4.1, in schematic and ideal terms, was presented as neutral, objective and inevitable – an aspect of Western-driven economic modernisation theory (Appendix). It was a progressive discourse that issued out of progress and ‘development’ studies that represented a kind of evolutionary sequence taught in universities.1 In actual fact, the discourse in the phase after the 1980s combined elements of neoliberalism on the one hand, especially New Public Management, and liberal internationalism especially on free trade on the other, at least up until the point that Trump initiated the trade-tech wars with China.

From knowledge capitalism to knowledge cultures and knowledge socialism The term ‘knowledge capitalism’ was rarely used or referred to in the discourse of the knowledge economy. The first time the concept was used was by Alan Burton-Jones (1999) in Knowledge capitalism: Business, work, and learning in the new economy. This was a book at the beginning of the 2000s that revealed ‘how the emerging knowledge-based economy is redefining firms, empowering individuals and reshaping learning and work. It provided a practical tool-set for business managers to interpret and manage change’. In 2003 as the founding editor of Policy Futures in Education, I asked Burton-Jones (2003) to write a piece with the title ‘Knowledge capitalism: the new learning economy’. His abstract reads The increasing economic importance of knowledge is redefining firm– market boundaries, work arrangements and the links between education, work and learning. This article describes a framework for identifying organisational knowledge assets and learning needs, optimising knowledge supply and planning knowledge growth. The framework enables firms to improve their selection and deployment of internal and external knowledge resources and individuals to improve their career planning. It also assists learning institutions to tailor their products and services to the needs of individual and corporate knowledge consumers. I started using the term soon after in a variety of publications working with Tina Besley and others but I was using it not as a term of approbation but as a disruptor, as a term that first historically situates knowledge economy as ‘knowledge capitalism’ in an info-tech digital capitalist late phase that signalled a profound structural transformation. Yet as I noted, it was a conception that paradoxically contained within it also other radical open possibilities that also enhanced free knowledge exchange and approximate conditions of ‘knowledge socialism’ based on collaboration, sharing, collegiality and the peer economy, often in spite of the neoliberal university.

Knowledge socialism  81 Impressed with Jean-Francois Lyotard’s (1984) arguments in The Postmodern Condition, I began to flirt with the idea of ‘knowledge socialism’. For instance, in 2003 under the title ‘Post-structuralism and Marxism: Education as Knowledge Capitalism’ (Peters, 2003) I argued for ‘post-structural Marxism’ as the pedagogical practice of reading and rereading Marx in a critical manner, and I briefly discussed the concept of the social in the post-modern condition before reviewing relations between post-structuralism and Marxism. Poststructuralist Marxism is not an oxymoron. It is simply another reading of Marx, developed under the model of Louis Althusser’s Reading Capital (1977). I provided an account of Deleuze’s Marxism, using it to analyse education as a form of ‘knowledge capitalism’. I was using the term in an analytical way and contrasting it with an account I later christened ‘knowledge socialism’. Frankly, I did not understand those who wanted to christen Lyotard a ‘postmodernist’. To me it meant that they hadn’t read his work carefully – it wasn’t a celebration but rather a critique of capitalism in the post-modern condition (Peters, 1996, 2001). In Building knowledge cultures: Education and development in the age of knowledge capitalism, working with Tina Besley (Peters & Besley, 2006), I developed the notion of ‘knowledge cultures’ as a basis for understanding the possibilities of education and development in the age of knowledge capitalism. ‘Knowledge cultures’, we argued, refers to the cultural preconditions in the new production of knowledge and their basis in shared practices, embodying preferred ways of doing things often developed over many generations. These practices also point to the way in which cultures develop different repertoires of representational and nonrepresentational forms of knowing. We discussed knowledge cultures in relation to claims for the new economy, as well as ‘cultural economy’ and the politics of postmodernity. The book focuses on national policy constructions of the knowledge economy, ‘fast knowledge’ and the role of the so-called new pedagogy and social learning under these conditions. We concluded with a postscript – ‘freedom and knowledge cultures’ – commenting on the shift from a metaphysics of production to one of consumption and mentioned the emergence of a knowledge global commons as the basis for a global civil society as yet unborn. Here, we were attempting to realise in outline the development of knowledge cultures based on nonproprietary modes of production and exchange. Somewhat later I tried to work up this idea in terms of the promise of creativity, giving the concept a reading by reference to an emerging form of openness in a book called Knowledge, science and knowledge capitalism (Peters, 2013a, 2013b) where I argued: We live in the age of global science – but not, primarily, in the sense of ‘universal knowledge’ that has characterized the liberal metanarrative of ‘free’ science and the ‘free society’ since its early development in the Enlightenment. Today, an economic logic links science to national economic policy, while globalized multinational science dominates an

82  Michael A. Peters environment where quality assurance replaces truth as the new regulative ideal. This book examines the nature of educational and science-based capitalism in its cybernetic, knowledge, algorithmic and bioinformational forms before turning to the emergence of the global science system and the promise of openness in the growth of international research collaboration, the development of the global knowledge commons and the rise of the open science economy. Education, Science and Knowledge Capitalism explores the nature of cognitive capitalism, the emerging mode of social production for public education and science and its promise for the democratization of knowledge. Knowledge cultures was a fundamental concept that we developed in opposition to the dualism of the knowledge economy and knowledge society, and we fleshed out a critical concept that carried normative content by focusing on the epistemological notion of ‘the community of inquiry’ drawing from Wittgenstein, Dewey and Peirce, that also implied an ethics of sharing and collaboration. It seemed to us that these philosophers provided the resources for a social reading of knowledge that was consistent with Marxist reading of knowledge as being based in a set of social relations. The pragmatist emphasis of the ‘community of inquiry’ and especially Peirce’s epistemology seemed to provide a warrant for investigating ‘knowledge socialism’ as a historical program. In 2013, I founded the experimental multidisciplinary journal Knowledge Cultures, published three times a year by Addleton Academic Press, New York, to focus on knowledge futures (with Sean Sturm as the new Editor). The journal description is given in the homepage for the journal as: Knowledge Cultures is a multidisciplinary journal that draws on the humanities and social sciences at the intersections of economics, philosophy, library science, international law, politics, cultural studies, literary studies, new technology studies, history, and education. The journal serves as a hothouse for research with a specific focus on how knowledge futures will help to define the shape of higher education in the twenty-first century. In particular, the journal is interested in general theoretical problems concerning information and knowledge production and exchange, including the globalization of higher education, the knowledge economy, the interface between publishing and academia, and the development of the intellectual commons with an accent on digital sustainability, commons-based production and exchange of information and culture, the development of learning and knowledge networks and emerging concepts of freedom, access and justice in the organization of knowledge production. (https://addletonacademicpublishers.com/about-kc) The journal has carried special issues on the internationalisation of higher education, knowledge cultures, open science, cognitive capitalism, doctoral supervision, neuroscience, political economy of knowledge, creativity,

Knowledge socialism  83 globalisation, interculturalism, Marxism, aesthetics, Bakhtin, power and partnership, academic self-knowledge, curriculum studies, indigenous knowledge, open education and many others. In early 2004, I coined the term ‘knowledge socialism’ in an editorial for a double issue on Marxism in the academy for the newly established journal of Policy Futures in Education (now a Sage journal with Mark Tesar as Editor). ‘Marxist futures: knowledge socialism and the academy’ enquired into the unifying principle for identity politics: There are expressions of new forms of socialism, for instance, that revolve around the international labour movement and invoke new imperialism struggles based on the movements of indigenous and racialised peoples. There are active social movements, perhaps less coherent but every bit as powerful as older class-based movements, such as the anti-capitalism, anti-globalisation movements, women’s and feminist movements, and environmental movements. (p. 436) I went on to argue, if I am allowed a long passage that lays out the case: One form of new expression concerns what I call knowledge socialism to indicate the new struggles surrounding the politics of knowledge that directly involve the academy and I do not mean simply refer to the role of theory. I am referring to what has been called knowledge in the age of ‘knowledge capitalism’, a debate that increasingly turns on the economics of knowledge, the communicative turn, and the emerging international knowledge system where the politics of knowledge and information dominates. One issue concerns intellectual property, not only copyright, patents and trademarks, but also the emergence of international regimes of intellectual property rights, and the accompanying emphasis on human capital and embedded knowledge processes that now drive university management. I argued that issues of freedom and control are central to content, code and information and that the issue of freedom/control concerns the ideation and codification of knowledge and the new ‘soft’ technologies that take the notion of ‘practice’ as the new desideratum of new forms of social learning. The politics of the ‘learning economy’ and the economics of forgetting insist that new ideas have only a short shelf-life. I was not sanguine about the easy adoption and co-option of these forms that often advertise themselves in terms of reflection but really focus on efficiency and turning a profit. I noted that these questions are also tied up with larger questions concerning disciplinary versus informal knowledge, the formalisation of the disciplines, the development of the informal knowledge economy and the pervasiveness of informal education. Informal knowledge and education based on free exchange is still a good model for global civil society in the age of knowledge capitalism (p. 436).

84  Michael A. Peters Invoking the short history of this academic journal, I went on to argue that whatever the encroachment of knowledge capitalism on the universities and higher education more generally, the free and frank exchange of ideas based on the model of peer-review stills serves as a sound model of sociality and in this sense knowledge capitalism is parasitic on knowledge socialism for, as Marx, Wittgenstein and Bourdieu acknowledge, knowledge and the value of knowledge are rooted in social relations. I remarked ‘In this premise is buried the future politics of knowledge both for the academy and for the developing world’ (pp. 436–437). In a later paper, ‘Knowledge socialism and universities: Intellectual commons and opportunities for “openness” in the 21st century’ (Peters & Gietzen, 2012). I deliberately pitted the concept of knowledge socialism as an alternative to the currently dominant ‘knowledge capitalism’ explaining that whereas knowledge capitalism focuses on the economics of knowledge, emphasizing human capital development, intellectual property regimes, and efficiency and profit maximisation, knowledge socialism shifts emphasis towards recognition that knowledge and its value are ultimately rooted in social relations (Peters & Besley, 2006). Knowledge socialism promotes the sociality of knowledge by providing mechanisms for a truly free exchange of ideas enhanced by peer review. Unlike knowledge capitalism, which relies on exclusivity – and thus scarcity – to drive innovation, the socialist alternative recognises that exclusivity can also greatly limit innovation possibilities. Hence rather than relying only on the market to serve as a catalyst for knowledge creation, knowledge socialism marshals public and private financial and administrative resources to advance knowledge for the public good. The paper went on to argue that the university, as a key locus of knowledge creation, becomes – in Openness 3.0 and 4.0 models – the mechanism of multiple forms of social innovation, not merely in areas with obviously direct economic returns (such as techno-science), but also in those areas (such as information literacy) that facilitate indirect benefits not merely beholden to concern for short-term market gains. The paper put the case in this way: Positioning the university in this way might seem overly idealistic, perhaps even disconnected from the tremendous financial realities facing universities, and higher education in general, in much of the world. Reactions of this sort, however, rely on the assumption that the current neoliberal model of higher education, with primacy placed on selling educational ‘products’ to ‘consumers’, is the best remedy to diminishing funding. Furthermore, although individual economic actors maximize personal benefits through their consumption choices, these choices frequently do not correspond to broader societal needs. Free exchange of knowledge in higher education, for instance, does more than provide economic returns to individual actors and institutions. Post-industrial nations, for example, can maximize their place in the global knowledge-based economy by collective, education-based, innovation. Perhaps more importantly, a broader and more social approach to higher

Knowledge socialism  85 education, both in terms of investment and return, provide better means for addressing truly wide-ranging problems such as climate change. The extent to which Openness 3.0, and therefore the Open University 3.0, are practicable remains unclear, but the technical affordances and social needs allow and demand an approach to higher education that moves beyond the limited models remain dominant. By this stage, I had begun to examine concepts of openness as a basis for alternative knowledge practices and alternative conceptions of knowledge. I edited several books on the concept of openness and its connections with the ‘creative economy’ emphasising competing conceptions, the ‘mode of educational development’ and cognitive capitalism, focused on the question of digital labour (Araya & Peters, 2010; Peters & Bulut, 2011; Peters & Britez, 2008). At the basis of the argument, I wanted to explore arguments for an expressive conception of ‘creative labour’ as opposed to ‘human capital’. In ‘Radical Openness: Towards a Theory of Co(labor)ation’ (Peters, 2014a, 2014b, 2014c, 2014d) I examined the conceptual relations between ‘openness’ and ‘creativity’, creativity as the new development paradigm and ‘creative labour’ as a way of beginning a discussion of ‘radical openness’ and its applications to institutions in the age of cognitive capitalism. The paper was the basis of a keynote presentation delivered to International Symposium on ‘The Creative University’ – a conference and book series I established in 2011 (see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iZ5zb8gyAr4). The concept of ‘radical openness’ is a concept that I coined as a result of a series of published articles and books on the concept of openness over a number of years. In particular, I had tried to rework what we called ‘the virtues of openness’ linking it to the development of scientific communication, the reinvention of the public good and the constitution of the global knowledge commons (Peters & Roberts 2011). We put the case, now old hat, for the creation of a new set of rights in a transformed global context of the ‘knowledge economy’, that is, universal rights to knowledge and education. In this perspective, we argued that education needs to be reconsidered as a global public good, with the struggle for equality at its centre. By charting various conceptual shifts, I had previously distinguished between three discourses of the ‘knowledge economy’: the ‘learning economy’, the ‘creative economy’ and the ‘open knowledge economy’, each with its specific conceptions of knowledge and economy (Peters, 2010). In the face of neoliberalism, privatisation of education and the monopolisation of knowledge, I argued that the last of these three conceptions – the open knowledge economy and the model of open knowledge production – offers a way of reclaiming knowledge as a public good and intellectual commons. Over the past decade, I have explored the interrelationships between peer production, collective intelligence, collaboration and collective intelligence as a basis for a socialised academic knowledge (knowledge socialism) firmly anchored in a concept of creative labour (Peters, 2015; Peters & Heraud, 2015; Peters & Reveley, 2015; Peters & Jandrić, 2015a, 2015b; Peters &

86  Michael A. Peters Jandrić, 2018). In particular, with a group of co-authors, I have tried to demonstrate that social innovation can co-create public goods and services by utilizing forms of Collective Intelligence (CI) and CI Internet-based platforms. Collective intelligence is a way new forms and ways of delivering public goods and services through forms of co-creation and co-production or peer production. This approach of collective intelligence, after Pierre A. Lévy (Peters, 2015) becomes an approach to the ‘creative university’ as the digital public university that is philosophically based on a concept of creative labour rather than human capital. The creative university is a concept that we have promoted through a series of conferences and books (Peters & Besley, 2013; see the seven volumes in the series at https://brill.com/view/serial/ CREA). On a more practical level, I founded the Editors Collective (http://editorscollective.org.nz/) to engage in collective scholarship and collective writing. As the Mission records: This Editorial Collective is based around the journal Educational Philosophy and Theory, the flagship journal for the Philosophy of Education Society of Australasia (PESA) that sponsors the development of a journal ecosystem or hub comprising several journals in order to: • develop an experimental and innovative approach to academic publishing • explore the philosophy, history, political and legal background to academic publishing and publishing models • build a groundwork to educate scholars about important contemporary issues in academic publishing • encourage more equitable collaborations across journals and editors • establish a public journal knowledge infrastructure • develop collective writing projects, and editing, and reviewing, skills for members (the Editorial Development Group) Together we have written several articles on academic publishing and peer review (Peters et al., 2016; Peters, Besley & Arndt, 2019a). The idea behind this research project with its different arms is to chart, develop and experiment with various forms of what I call knowledge socialism. As of 2019, I am engaged in a project to edit a new collection with Tina Besley, Petar Jandrić and Xudong Zhu as editors that takes seriously arguments for knowledge socialism and the rise of peer production as a means for the critical discussion of collegiality, collaboration and collective intelligence. We have invited a group of distinguished international scholars to contribute essays on the theme of the concept of knowledge socialism as a philosophical concept that has the power both to explain aspects of current knowledge practices but also certain contradictions in the structure and practice of knowledge capitalism. These essays are intended also to explore knowledge socialism as a programmatic concept, as a project, as a reality and

Knowledge socialism  87 as a prescriptive concept. I hope that essays may explain knowledge socialism as an historical practice, as a part of knowledge capitalism, or, perhaps, as a complicit aspect of algorithmic capitalism.

Appendix References for Figure 4.1: Interpretations and Genealogy of the Knowledge Economy From ‘Introduction: Knowledge Goods, the Primacy of Ideas and the Economics of Abundance’. In Peters, Tina, and Sonja (2009), Creativity and the Global Knowledge Economy. New York, NY: Peter Lang. Becker, G. (1964, 1993, 3rd ed.). Human capital: A theoretical and empirical analysis, with special reference to education. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Bell, D. (1973). The coming of post-industrial society a venture in social forecasting. New York: Basic Books. Benkler, Y. (2006). The wealth of networks. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Bourdieu, P. (1986). ‘The Forms of Capital,’ Richard Nice (trans). In: J. F. Richardson (Ed.) Handbook of theory of research for sociology of education (pp. 241–258), Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. Bradford DeLong, J., & Summers, L. H. 2001. The ‘new economy’: background, historical perspective, questions, and speculations. Economic Review, Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, issue Q IV, 29–59. Castells, M. (1996, 2000, 2nd ed.). The rise of the network society: The information age: Economy, society and culture (Vol. 1). Cambridge, MA: Blackwell. Coleman, J. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology, 94 (Supplement), 595-5120. Drucker, P. F. (1993). Post-capitalist society. New York, NY: Harper Business. Granovetter, M. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78(6), 1360–1380. Granovetter, M. (1983). The strength of weak ties: A network theory revisited, Sociological Theory, I, 201–233. Hayek, F. (1937). Economics and knowledge. Presidential address delivered before the London Economic Club, 10 November 1936; Reprinted in Economica IV (new ser., 1937), 33–54. Hayek, F. (1945). The use of knowledge in society. The American Economic Review, 35(4), 519–530. Hearn, G., & Rooney, D. (Eds). (2008). Knowledge policy: Challenges for the twenty first century. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. Lundvall, B.-A., & Archibugi, D. (2001). The globalizing learning economy. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

88  Michael A. Peters Lyotard, J-F. (1984). The postmodern condition: A report on knowledge. (G. Bennington, B. Massumi, Trans.). Manchester: Manchester University Press. Quah, D. (2003a). Digital goods and the new economy. In Derek Jones, (Ed.), New economy handbook (pp. 289–321). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Academic Press Elsevier Science. Quah, D. (1999). The weightless economy in economic development. CEP discussion paper; CEPDP0417 (417). London: Centre for Economic Performance, London School of Economics and Political Science. Romer, P. M. (1990). Endogenous technological change. Journal of Political Economy. 98, 71–102. Rooney, D., Hearn, G., Mandeville, T., & Joseph, R. (2003). Public policy in knowledge-based economies: Foundation and Frameworks. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. Stankosky, M. (2004). (Ed.) Creating the discipline of knowledge management: The latest in university research. London: Butterworth-Heinemann. Stiglitz, J. (1998). Towards a new paradigm for development: Strategies, policies and processes. Paper presented at the 9th Raul Prebisch Lecture, Palais des Nations, Geneva, UNCTAD, October 19, 1998. Stiglitz, J. (1999). Knowledge for development: Economic science, economic policy, and economic advice. Proceedings from the Annual Bank Conference on Development Economics, 1998. World Bank, Washington, DC: Keynote Address, pp. 9–58. Toffler, A. (1980). The third wave. New York, NY: Bantam Books. Touraine, A. (1971) The post-industrial society: tomorrow’s social history; classes conflicts & culture in the programmed society (L. Mayhew, Trans.). New York, NY: Random House.

Note 1 See for example the Master’s program at https://master-iesc-angers.com/ towards-a-knowledge-economy/

References Althusser, L., et al. (1977). Reading Capital. London: New Left Books. Araya, D. & Peters, M. A. (Eds.) (2010). Education in the creative economy. New York, NY: Peter Lang. Burton-Jones, A. (1999). Knowledge capitalism: Business, work, and learning in the new economy. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Burton-Jones, A. (2003) Knowledge capitalism: The new learning economy. Policy Futures in Education, 1(1): 143–159. doi:10.2304/pfie.2003.1.1.4 Drucker, P. (1969). The age of discontinuity. Guidelines to our changing society. New York, NY: Harper & Row. Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P., & Trow, M. (1994). The new production of knowledge: The dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. London: Sage.

Knowledge socialism  89 Lundvall, B.-A., & Johnson, B. (1994). The learning economy. Journal of Industry Studies, 1(2), 23–42. Lyotard, J-F. (1984) The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge. Trans. G. Bennington & B. Massumi. Foreword, F. Jameson. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Machlup, F. (1962). The production and distribution of knowledge in the United States. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. OECD (1996). The knowledge-based economy. Paris: The Organization. Peters, M. A., & Jandrić, C. P. (2018). Peer production and collective intelligence as the basis for the public digital university. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 50(13), 1271–1284. doi:10.1080/00131857.2017.1421940 Peters, M. A., Tina, B., & Sonja, A. (2019b). Experimenting with academic subjectivity: Collective writing, peer production and collective intelligence. Open Review of Educational Research, 6(1), 25–39. doi:10.1080/23265507.2018. 1557072 Peters, M. A. (1996). (Eds.) Education and the postmodern condition. Foreword J-F Lyotard. Westport, CN: Bergin & Garvey. Peters, M. A. (2001). Poststructuralism, Marxism and neoliberalism: Between theory and politics. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield. Peters, M. A. (2003). Marxist futures: Knowledge socialism and the academy. Policy Futures in Education, 18(2), 115. doi:10.2304/pfie.2004.2.3.1 Peters, M. A. (2013a). The concept of radical openness and the new logic of the public. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 45(3), 239–242. doi:10.1080/00131 857.2013.774521 Peters, M. A. (2013b). Radical openness: Creative institutions, creative labor and the logic of public organizations in cognitive capitalism. Knowledge Cultures, 1(2), 47–72. Peters, M. A. (2010). Three forms of the knowledge economy: Learning, creativity and openness. British Journal of Educational Studies, 58(1), 67–88. doi:10.1080/00071000903516452 Peters, M. A. (2014a). Competing conceptions of the creative university. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 46(7), 713–717. doi:10.1080/00131857.2013.785074 Peters, M. A. (2014b). Open science, philosophy and peer review. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 46(3), 215–219. doi:10.1080/00131857.2013.781296 Peters, M. A. (2014c). Openness and the intellectual commons. Open Review of Educational Research, 1(1), 1. doi:10. 1080/23265507.2014.984975 Peters, M. A. (2014d). Radical openness: Towards a theory of co(labor)ation. In: Weber, S., Gohlich, M., Schroer, A., & Schwarz, J. (eds.). Organisation und das Neue. Organisation und Pa€dagogik (vol. 15). Wiesbaden: Springer VS. Peters, M. A. (2015). Interview with Pierre A. Lévy, French philosopher of collective intelligence. Open Review of Educational Research, 2(1), 259–266. doi:10.1080/ 23265507.2015.1084477 Peters, M. A., & Besley, T. (2006). Building knowledge cultures: Education and development in the age of knowledge capitalism. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. Peters, M. A., & Besley, T (Eds.) (2013). The creative university. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. Peters, M. A., Besley, Tina & Arndt, Sonja (2019a). Experimenting with academic subjectivity: collective writing, peer production and collective intelligence. Open Review of Educational Research, 6:(1), 25–39. doi:10.1080/ 23265507.2018.1557072 Peters, M. A., & Britez, R. (Eds.) (2008). Open education and education for openness. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.

90  Michael A. Peters Peters, M. A., & Bulut, E. (Eds.) (2011). Cognitive capitalism, education and the question of digital labor. New York, NY: Peter Lang. Peters, M. A., & Heraud, R. (2015). Toward a political theory of social innovation: Collective intelligence and the cocreation of social goods. Journal of SelfGovernance and Management Economics, 3(3), 7–23. Peters, M. A., & Gietzen, G. (2012). Knowledge socialism and universities: Intellectual commons and opportunities for ‘openness’ in the 21st Century. In R. Barnett (Ed.) The future university: Ideas and possibilities. New York, NY: Routledge. Peters, M. A., & Jandrić, P. (2015a). Learning, creative col(labor)ation, and knowledge cultures. Review of Contemporary Philosophy, 14, 182–198. Peters, M. A., & Jandrić, P. (2015b). Philosophy of education in the age of digital reason. Review of Contemporary Philosophy, 14, 162–181. Peters, M. A., Petar, J., Ruth, I., Kirsten, L., Nesta, D., Richard, H., & Leon, B. (2016). Towards a philosophy of academic publishing. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 48(14), 1401–1425. doi:10.1080/00131857.2016.1240987 Peters, M. A., & Reveley, J. (2015). Noosphere rising: Internet-based collective intelligence, creative labour, and social production. Thesis Eleven: Critical Theory and Historical Sociology, 130(1), 3–21. Peters, M. A., & Roberts, P. (2011). The virtues of openness: Education, science and scholarship in a digital age. Boulder, CO: Paradigm Publishers. Peters, M. A., Tze-Chang, L., & Oncerin, D. (2012). The pedagogy of the open society: Knowledge and the governance of higher education. Rotterdam: Sense. Peters, M. A., Marginson, S., & Murphy, P. (2009). Creativity and the global knowledge economy. New York, NY: Peter Lang. Porat, M. (1977). The information economy. Washington, DC: US Department of Commerce. Romer, P. (1994). The origins of endogenous growth. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 8(1): 3–22. doi:10.1257/jep.8.1.3.

Part 2

Openness

5 Inaugural editorial Openness and the intellectual commons Michael A. Peters

‘Openness’ is one of the central contested values of modern liberal society and falls under different political descriptions. In this brief editorial I employ ‘openness’ to signal and introduce a new spatialization, interconnectivity, mobility, personalization and globalization of learning and education. Rather than editorialize on the technical aspects of openness in relation to Open Review of Educational Research which is governed by the Open Access Policy of Taylor & Francis1 and easily read, I prefer to expand upon the video interview I recorded recently that discusses the vision for the journal and the significance and prospects for openness in higher education more generally.2 Open Review of Educational Research is an omnibus ‘metajournal’ that utilizes new open technologies according to the Gold Standard outlined by the Finch Report,3 to publish findings, results, different forms of analysis including empirical, philosophical, ethnographic and practitioner based reports across the many different specialist fields of education to promote an engagement of scholars speaking to one another and of education speaking to itself in a discipline that is often fragmentary and fractionalized. It is also a journal of its time that can promote the technical and production expertise of a well-established big publisher in collaboration with an editorial team and host of scholars to reach out to researchers, policy analysts, students, the reading general public and, of course, the academic community more broadly conceived. This journal also has a mandate not only to use openness as a modus operandi and business model but also to theorize its future and its prospects for education more generally and the mandate established for open education in all its socially inclusive roles of research, publishing, teaching and scientific communication. The dimensions of openness and ‘open education’ (Peters & Britez, 2008) found a beginning in education with the concept of the Open University as it developed in the United Kingdom (UK) during the 1960s. The concept of openness considered in the light of the new ‘technologies of openness’ of Web 2.0 promises to promote interactivity and encourage participation, collaboration and help to establish new forms of the intellectual commons now increasingly based on models of open source, open access, open archives and open education. Where the former is based on the logic of centralized industrial mass media characterized by a broadcast

94  Michael A. Peters one-to-many mode, the latter is based upon a radically decentralized, ‘many-to-many’ mode of interactivity. To exemplify the progress and possibilities of this second possibility, we might examine Massachusetts’s Institute of Technology’s (MIT’s) OpenCourseWare and Harvard’s open access initiative to publicly post its faculty’s papers online. The real and immediate possibilities of a form of openness that combines the benefits of these first two forms provides a means to investigate the political economy of openness as it reconfigures higher education in the knowledge economy of the twenty-first century. The underlying argument of this editorial focuses upon the ways in which new forms of technological-enabled openness, especially emergent social media that utilizes social networking, blogs, wikis and user-created content and media provide new models of openness for a conception of the intellectual commons based on peer production which is a radically decentralized, genuinely interactive and collaborative form of knowledge sharing that can usefully serve as the basis of ‘knowledge cultures’ (Peters & Besley, 2006; Peters & Roberts, 2011). The first concept of openness was based on social democratic principles that emphasized inclusiveness and equality of opportunity. The mechanism of this notion of openness followed that of industrial broadcast mass media, which was designed to reach a large audience on a one-to-many logic. The second form of openness is based on what might be called principles of liberal political economy, particularly intellectual property and freedom of information. This second iteration of openness employs new peer-to-peer architectures and technologies that are part of the ideology of Web 2.0 and given expression in ways that emphasize the ethic of participation (‘participatory media’), collaboration and file-sharing characterizing the rise of social media. This new form of openness provides the basis for a new social media model of the university that embraces the social democratic articles of the original Open University and that it provides the means to recover and enhance the historical mission of the university in the twenty-first century (Peters, 2006). It also provides mechanisms for jettisoning the dominant neoliberal managerialist ideology and returning to a fully socialized view of knowledge and knowledge-sharing that has its roots in Enlightenment thinking about science and its new practices in commons-based peer-production. At the same time, however, I recognize that any re-theorization of the university must move beyond the limitations of even this form that—despite its logic of openness—often coheres around exclusive institutions such as MIT and Harvard and is correspondingly reliant on factors of exclusivity, including intellectual property and the privileging of ‘expertise’. Consequently, the development of openness as it relates to the university must move from the social democratic model of the first concept, and the liberal political economy model of the second, to a new version of openness based on the ‘intellectual commons’. Only through such a development might this new institutional possibility achieve its potential as a locus of true social and intellectual inclusion and social and economic creativity.

Inaugural editorial  95 With Web 2.0, there is a deep transformation occurring wherein the web has become a truly participatory media; instead of going on the web to read static content, we can more easily create and share our own ideas and creations. The rise of what has been alternately referred to as consumer- or user-generated media (content) has been hailed as being truly groundbreaking in nature. Blogging and social networking with the facility of user-generated content has created revolutionary new social media that characterize Web 2.0 as the newest phase of the Internet. New interactive technologies and peer-to-peer architectures have democratized writing and imaging and, thereby, creativity itself, enabling anyone with computer access to become a creator of their own digital content. Writers and video-makers as ‘content creators’ are causing a fundamental shift from the age of information to the age of interaction and recreating themselves in the process. Sometimes this contrast is given in terms of a distinction between ‘industrial media’, ‘broadcast’ or ‘mass’ media which is highly centralized, hierarchical and vertical based on one-to-many logic versus social media which is decentralized (without a central server), non-hierarchical or peer-governed, and horizontal based on many-to-many interaction. Forms of industrial mass media including the book, newspapers, radio, television, film and video broadcast media were designed to reach very large audiences within the industrializing nation-state. The major disadvantage of this media form is the criticism of manipulation, bias and ideology that comes with a one-to-many dissemination, its commodification of information and its corporate method of production and distribution (Thompson, 1995). Mass media communication is a one-way transmission model where the audience is reduced to a passive consumer of programmed information which is suited to mass audiences. Both industrial and social media provide the scalable means for reaching global audiences. The means of production for industrial media are typically owned privately or by the state and require specialized technical expertise to produce and payment to access. Social media, by contrast, is based on the Internet as platform, and tend to be available free or at little cost, requiring little or no technical operating knowledge. There are also profound differences in production and consumption processes, in the immediacy of the two types of media and in the levels and means of participation and reception. Even so it is not a question of straightforward replacement. Many of the industrial media are rapidly adopting aspects of social media to develop more interactive capacity. CNN, for instance, has introduced its blogs with viewer participation and interaction and encourages viewers to follow stories on Twitter and Facebook. This means that new media will not simply replace old media, but rather will learn to interact with it in a complex relationship Bolter and Grusin (2001) calls ‘remediation’ and Henry Jenkins (2006) calls ‘convergence culture’. Jenkins (2006) argues that convergence culture is not primarily a technological revolution but is more a cultural shift, dependent on the active participation of the consumers working in a social dynamic. Douglas Kellner and George Kim (2009) theorize YouTube as the cutting

96  Michael A. Peters edge of information and communications technology (ICT) and characterize it as dialogical learning community, and for learning-by-doing, learning as communication, learning through reflection on the environment, learning as self-fulfillment and empowerment, learning for agency and social change. The socially networked universe has changed the material conditions for the formation, circulation and utilization of knowledge. ‘Learning’ has been transformed from its formal mode under the industrial economy, structured through class, gender and age, to an informal and ubiquitous mode of learning ‘anywhere, anytime’ in the information and media based economy. Increasingly, the emphasis falls on the ‘learning economy,’ improving learning systems and networks, and the acquisition of new media literacies. These mega-trends signal changes in both the production and consumption of symbolic goods and their situated contexts of use. The new media logics accent the ‘learner’s’ co-production and the active production of meaning in a variety of networked public and private spaces, where knowledge and learning emerge as new principles of social stratification, social mobility and identity formation. New media technologies not only diminish the effect of distance, they also thereby conflate the local and the global, the private and the public, ‘work’ and ‘home’. They spatialize knowledge systems. Digitalization of learning systems increases the speed, circulation and exchange of knowledge highlighting the importance of digital representations of all symbolic and cultural resources, digital cultural archives and new literacies and models of text management, distribution and generation. At the same time the radical concordances of image, text and sound, and development of global information/knowledge infrastructures have created new learning opportunities while encouraging the emergence of a global media network linked with a global communications network together with the emergence of global Euro-American consumer culture and the rise of global edutainment media conglomerates. In the media economy the political economy of ownership becomes central; who owns and designs learning systems becomes a question of paramount political and philosophical significance. New models of flexible learning nest within new technologies that are part of wider historical emerging techno-capitalist systems that promote greater interconnectivity and encompass all of its different modes characterizing communication from the telegraph (city-to-city), the media (one-to-many), the telephone (one-on-one), the Internet (one-to-one, one-to-all, all-to-one, allto-all, many-to-many, etc.), the World Wide Web (collective by content but connective by access), the mobile/cell phone (all the interconnectivity modes afforded by the web and Internet, plus a body-to-body connection). At the same time these new affordances seem to provide new opportunities for learning that reflect old social democratic goals concerning equality, access and emancipation that made education central to both liberal and socialist ideals. Well before the emergence of the Internet and the phenomenon of social networking appeared in the mid-1990s, the model of the ‘open university’ in the UK was established as a technology-based distance education in the 1960s.

Inaugural editorial  97 The Open University was founded on the idea that communications technology could extend advanced degree learning to those people who for a variety of reasons could not easily attend campus universities. The Open University really began when in 1923 the educationalist J. C. Stobart while working for the infant BBC wrote a memo suggesting that the new communications and broadcast media could develop a ‘wireless university’. By the early 1960s many different ideas were being proposed including a ‘teleuniversity’ that would broadcast lectures, as well as providing correspondence texts and organizing campus visits to local universities. Yet the Open University was not merely an institution that followed from the development of technical mechanisms of openness. From the start the idea of the ‘open university’ was conceived, in social democratic terms, as a response to the problem of exclusion. Michael Young (Baron Young of Dartington, 1915–2002), the sociologist, activist and politician, who first coined the term and helped found the Open University, wrote the 1945 manifesto for the Labor Party under Clement Atlee and devoted himself to social reform of institutions based on their greater democratization and giving the people a stronger role in their governance. A Labor Party study group under the chairmanship of Lord Taylor presented a report in March 1963 concerning the continuing exclusion from higher education of the lower income groups and they proposed a ‘University of the Air’ as an experiment for adult education. The Open University was established in Milton Keynes in September 1969 with Professor Walter Perry as its first Vice-Chancellor. It took its first cohort of students in 1970 which began foundation courses in January 1971. Today the Open University has some 180,000 students in the UK (150,000 undergraduate and more than 30000 postgraduate students) with an additional 25000 overseas students making it one of the largest universities in the world. Over 10000 students attending Open University have disabilities. The first and second iterations of university openness have provided significant benefits to society. The social democratic character of openness promoted inclusion and opportunity for a wider range of people than who would have been traditionally enrolled in university. Knowledge exclusivity was challenged by the institutional assertion that knowledge is a public good. The second form of openness, with its confluence of freedom of information and technological affordances, further provided a freedom to use, share and improve knowledge. However, both of these forms of openness are necessarily restricted: the first by technical infrastructure limitations, and the latter by resource imbalances and the exclusivity necessary to intellectual property. The next version of openness, what I will call the ‘intellectual commons’, combines aspects of the two earlier forms to maximize their respective benefits, while reducing limitations. In this model of openness, the nation-state places education at the center of society and human rights. In this sense, it shares similarities to the form of openness based on social democratic goals. At the same time, it also shares with the new form of openness a culture of social, ICTdriven knowledge sharing and innovation. However, the ‘intellectual commons’ differs because its ideological foundation is not social democratic, nor

98  Michael A. Peters that of liberal political economy. Instead, it is based on what can be called ‘radical openness’ and a logic that provides the basis for protecting and expanding public education and for redesigning the public sphere. This is what I have described in terms of a concept of ‘creative labor’ that conceptually and in practice pits itself against human capital theory (Peters, 2013).4 The intellectual commons provides an alternative to the currently dominant ‘knowledge capitalism’. Whereas knowledge capitalism focuses on the economics of knowledge, emphasizing human capital development, intellectual property regimes, and efficiency and profit maximization, the intellectual commons shifts emphasis towards recognition that knowledge and its value are ultimately rooted in social relations, a kind of knowledge socialism that promotes the sociality of knowledge by providing mechanisms for a truly free exchange of ideas. Unlike knowledge capitalism, which relies on exclusivity— and thus scarcity—to drive innovation, the intellectual commons alternative recognizes that exclusivity can also greatly limit innovation possibilities. Hence, rather than relying on the market to serve as a catalyst for knowledge creation, knowledge socialism marshals the financial and administrative resources of the nation-state to advance knowledge for the public good. Consequently, the university, as a key locus of knowledge creation, becomes the mechanism of multiple forms of innovation, not merely in areas with obviously direct economic returns (such as technoscience), but also in those areas (such as information literacy) that facilitate indirect benefits not merely beholden to concern for short-term market gains. Positioning the university in this way might seem overly idealistic, perhaps even disconnected from the tremendous financial realities facing universities, and higher education in general, in much of the world. Reactions of this sort, however, rely on the assumption that the current neoliberal model of higher education, with primacy placed on selling educational ‘products’ to ‘consumers’, is the best remedy to diminishing funding. Furthermore, although individual economic actors maximize personal benefits through their consumption choices, these choices frequently do not correspond to broader societal needs. Free exchange of knowledge in higher education, for instance, does more than provide economic returns to individual actors and institutions. It can also maximize the place of universities in the global knowledge-based economy by collective, education based, innovation based on radical openness and new forms of co-labor-ation (Peters, 2013). In its own way my role as editor of this journal is to attempt to embrace this philosophical vision of what open access means or can mean, all the while being conscious of the historically different accounts of openness especially as it applies to education and to a journal with the ambition of putting into practice within the constraints of an existing policy of open access the full social inclusiveness of research from educational scholars and researchers across the spectrum of fields and practices reports, papers and editorials that speak to an academic community and furthers the aims of research in its original Enlightenment sense where the focus falls on values and norms of scientific communication for the betterment of learners whoever they might be.

Inaugural editorial  99

Notes 1 See http://www.tandfonline.com/page/openaccess and the Taylor &Francis open access program http://journalauthors.tandf.co.uk/preparation/OpenAccess.asp 2 See http://www.tandfonline.com/page/rrer-media. The transcript is available at http://www.tandfonline.com/userimages/ContentEditor/1409056422398/ Video-transcript-rrer.pdf. This editorial is based on an excerpted and edited version of a chapter written with Garett Gietzen and David Ondercin, both PhD students at the time at the University of Illinois (Urbana-Champaign, IL). The chapter is called ‘Knowledge Socialism: Intellectual Commons and Openness in the University’ (Barnett, 2012). 3 See the Finch report, ‘Accessibility, sustainability, excellence: how to expand access to research publications. Report of the Working Group on Expanding Access to Published Research Findings’ at http://www.researchinfonet.org/ wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Finch-Group-report-FINAL-VERSION.pdf; the UK Government’s acceptance ‘Government to open up publicly funded research’ at https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-to-openup-publicly-funded-research; the UK Research Council’s (RCUK) ‘Policy on Open Access and Supporting Guidance’ at http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/RCUKprod/assets/documents/documents/RCUKOpenAccessPolicy.pdf. See also the Research Information Network (RIN) report on these and related development at http://www.researchinfonet.org/finch/ 4 See the YouTube presentation ‘Radical Openness: Creative institutions, creative labor and the logic of public organizations in cognitive capitalism’. Keynote by Prof. Dr Michael A. Peters (Waikato University, New Zealand) at the Conference ‘Organization and the New’ at Philipps-Universität Marburg (Germany) at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iZ5zb8gyAr4

References Barnett, R. (Ed.). (2012). The future university: Ideas and possibilities. London: Routledge. Bolter, J. D., & Grusin, R. (2001). Remediation: Understanding new media. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Jenkins, H. (2006). Convergence culture: Where old and new media collide. New York, NY: NYU Press. Kellner, D., & Kim, G. (2009). YouTube, politics and pedagogy. In R. Hammer & D. Kellner (Eds.), Media/Cultural Studies: Critical approaches. New York, NY: Peter Lang. Peters, M. A. (2006). Higher education, development and the learning economy. Policy Futures in Education, 4(3), 279–291. Peters, M. A. (2013). Radical openness: Creative institutions, creative labor and the logic of public organizations in cognitive capitalism. Knowledge Cultures, 1(2), 47–72. Peters, M. A., & Besley, T. (2006). Building knowledge cultures: Education and development in the age of knowledge capitalism. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. Peters, M. A., & Britez, R. (Eds.). (2008). Open education and education for openness. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. Peters, M. A., & Roberts, P. (2011). The virtues of openness: Education, science and scholarship in a digital age. Boulder, CO: Paradigm Publishers. Thompson, J. (1995). Media and modernity. London: Polity Press.

6 Radical openness Creative institutions, creative labor and the logic of public organizations in cognitive capitalism Michael A. Peters

Homage to Heidegger’s Marburg Elizabeth Hirsch (1979) suggests that Heidegger enjoyed most of all his teaching career the early years he spent at the University of Marburg from 1923, the year he was elected to a professorship, until 1928 when he left to take up an offer to succeed Husserl as Professor of Philosophy at the University of Freiburg, where he remained for the rest of his life. It was in this period that Heidegger met with the theologians Rudolf Bultmann, Nicolai Hartmann and the representative of the neo-Kantian school Paul Natorp. It was at Marburg in these early years that Heidegger began to forge the main concern of the question of being through an engagement with Aristotle and to develop a notion that stressed both historicity and concrete existence as Dasein-being-in the world. As Hirsch (1979) also remarks, he was close to Max Scheler in his critique of the neo-Kantian school’s transcendentalism and his notion of Dasein bore some relation not only to Christian thinkers but also to Scheler’s concept of the person. Heidegger’s thinking presupposes the historicity and temporality of human existence. It was a practical critique of Kantianism. He published Being and Time in 1927 while at Marburg. I begin with a reference to Heidegger at Marburg because one could argue as Giorgio Agamben (2004) has done that the concept “open” is one of the names of Being and of world. Agamben traces Heidegger’s genealogy of the concept as it originates in Rilke’s eighth Duino Elegy (“the open, in which every being is freed … is being itself”!). While Rilke privileges the animal that sees the open (as opposed to Man who looks backward), Heidegger reverses the hierarchy to embrace “the open as the name of what philosophy has thought of as aletheia, that is, as the unconcealedness-concealedness of being” (p. 57). Agamben comments, for Heidegger “Only man … can see the open which names the unconcealedness of beings” and he draws on Heidegger as inspiration ultimately to explore the way in which Western thought has defined “Man” as an unstable signifier that hovers between animality and human being.1 Agamben’s ontic-political theme draws us closer to “the open,” to “openness” and to the philosophy of history, information and biology that are the philosophical preliminaries to preface my paper that

Radical openness  101 focuses on the relation between creative labor and creative institutions and especially the new logic of openness for reconstituting public institutions. I begin with this homage to Heidegger’s Marburg as a mark of respect for an institution which is the oldest Protestant university (Philipps-Universität) in Germany, first established in 1527 (see http://www.uni-marburg.de/ profile-en). At the same time, Heidegger’s concept of openness is a question of ontology, and Agamben’s provides an insightful critique. Were I to follow this theme I would adopt Foucault’s approach to “historical ontology” rather than embrace Heidegger’s ontological position in order to speak of openness in relation to the birth of modern institutions.

Openness and creativity2 Openness has emerged as a global logic based on free and open-source software constituting a generalized response to knowledge capitalism and the attempt of the new mega-information utilities such as Google, Microsoft and Amazon.com to control knowledge assets through the process of largescale digitization, of information that is often in the public domain, of the deployment of digital rights management regimes and of strong government lobbying to enforce intellectual property law in the international context. The Internet is a dynamic, open ecosystem that progressively changes its nature towards greater computing power, interactivity, inclusiveness, mobility, scale, and peer governance. In this regard, and as the overall system develops, it begins to approximate the complexity of the architectures of natural ecosystems. The more it develops, one might be led to hypothesize, the greater the likelihood that it will not merely emulate Earth as a global ecosystem, but will become an integrated organic whole. Open cultures become the necessary condition for the system as a whole, for the design of open progressive technological improvements and their political, epistemic and ontological foundations. Digitization transforms all aspects of cultural production and consumption, favoring the networked peer community over the individual author and blurring the distinction between writers, artists and their audiences. These new digital logics alter the traditional organization of knowledge, education and culture, spawning new technologies as a condition of the openness of the system. Now that the production of texts, sounds and images is open to new rounds of experimentation and development, a new grammar of digital culture is created. The processes of creativity are then transformed: they are no longer controlled by traditional knowledge institutions and organizations, but rather permitted by platforms and infrastructures that encourage largescale participation and challenge old economic and political hierarchies. Every aspect of culture and economy is transformed through processes of digitization that creates new systems of archives and representations, and develops reproduction technologies that portend a Web 3.0 and Web 4.0, where all production – material and immaterial – will eventually be digitally designed and coordinated through distributed “total” information systems.

102  Michael A. Peters The shift to networked media cultures, based on the ethics of participation, file-sharing and collaboration, involves a volunteer, peer-to-peer “gift economy” that has its early beginnings with liberal political economy in the right to freedom of speech, which depends upon the flow and exchange of ideas as essential to political democracy, and includes the notion of a “free press” and the academy with its five essential freedoms. Perhaps even more fundamentally, free speech is a significant personal, psychological and educational good that promotes self-expression and creativity, as well as the autonomy and development of the self, which is necessary for representation – in a linguistic and political sense – and for the formation of identity. The other side of the state and corporate digital reproduction of identity is a tendency that emphasizes the relation between openness and creativity as part of a networked group. The “open self” is self-organizing and self-reproduced formed at the interstices of a series of membership in online communities that shape spontaneously generated self-concept and self-image through digital use.3 Openness to experience is probably the single most significant variable in explaining creativity and there is some evidence for the relationship between brain chemistry and creative cognition as measured with divergent thinking. Openness can also be defined in terms of the number, frequency and quality of links within a network. Indeed, the mutual reinforcement of openness and creativity gels with Daniel Pink’s (2005) contention that right-brainers will rule the future. According to Pink, we are in the transition from an “Information Age” that valued knowledge workers to a “Conceptual Age” that values creativity and right-brain-directed aptitudes such as design, story, symphony, empathy, play and meaning.

Creativity as the new development paradigm The contemporary politics of creativity rests on the intersection between art and politics tracing the influence between art and labor in the form of coproduction, co-creativity and peer collaboration within the new mode of social production.4 This much, at least in its nascent form, has now been recognized by the United Nations (2008): that there is another reality and narrative emerging that provides an interpretation of “globalization as connectivity” rather than economic integration or free trade and that it is “reshaping the overall pattern of cultural production, consumption and trade in a world increasingly filled with images, sounds, texts and symbols” (p. iii). As the “Overview” of the UN Creative Economy Report 2008 clarifies: In the contemporary world, a new development paradigm is emerging that links the economy and culture, embracing economic, cultural, technological and social aspects of development at both the macro and micro levels. Central to the new paradigm is the fact that creativity, knowledge and access to information are increasingly recognized as powerful engines driving economic growth and promoting development in a

Radical openness  103 globalizing world. “Creativity” in this context refers to the formulation of new ideas and to the application of these ideas to produce original works of art and cultural products, functional creations, scientific inventions and technological innovations. (p. 3) This mainstream neoclassical economic orientation endeavors to understand the economic aspect of creativity through its contributions to entrepreneurship, and the ways in which it fosters innovation, enhances productivity and promotes economic growth.5 One might also follow the debates in the literature on “cognitive capitalism” to focus on the side of labor rather than capital and begin to interpret this in the light of “biopolitics” and see it signaling, “the moment that the traditional nation/State dichotomy is overtaken by a political economy of life in general,” where “power has invested life” to create “sites of the production of subjectivity” privileging, “the transformation of work in the organization of labor” (Negri, 2008: 13–14). Antonio Negri investigates the organization of labor under neoliberal globalization and the radical transformation of the production process though new processes of self-regulation and expressive creativity unleashed by information and communication technology that facilitates the rise of what Negri and others call “immaterial labor” (after Karl Marx’s “general intellect”) as the dominant productive force that takes place with the development and cultivation of new laboring subjectivities. A manifesto for education in the age of cognitive capitalism must address the question of new laboring subjectivities and their cultivation, socialization and education (Peters et al., 2009; Peters & Bulut, 2011). In this case we can take as our starting point the “creative energy of labor.” As Negri (2008: 20) argues: In the Fordist era, temporality was measured according to the law of labor value: Consequently it concerned an abstract, quantitative, analytic temporality, which, because it was opposed to living labor time, arrived at the composition of the productive value of capital. As it is described by Marx, capitalist production represents the synthesis of the living creativity of labor and of the exploitive structures organized by fixed capital and its temporal laws of productivity. In the era of post-Fordism, on the contrary, temporality is no longer – nor totally – enclosed within the structures of constant capital: as we have seen, intellectual, immaterial, and affective production (which characterizes post-Fordist labor) reveals a surplus. An abstract temporality – that is to say, the temporal measure of labor – is incapable of understanding the creative energy of labor itself (my emphasis). I like Negri’s phrase very much because while it takes the old Marxist humanist paradigm of human subjectivity it can be taken to ontologize creativity rather than the subject per se and makes “creative labor” the historical

104  Michael A. Peters force rather than a structural and permanent condition of the human subject. Openness and creative labor thus become part of a historical dynamic central to the political economy of post-Fordist capitalism.

The concept of radical openness The concept of radical openness is a concept that I coined as a result of a series of published articles and books on the concept of openness over the last five years.6 In particular, working with colleagues like Peter Roberts, I had tried to rework what we called “the virtues of openness” linking it to the development of scientific communication, the reinvention of the public good and the constitution of the global knowledge commons (Peters & Roberts, 2011). We put the case for the creation of a new set of rights in a transformed global context of the “knowledge economy,” that is, universal rights to knowledge and education. In this perspective, I argued that education needs to be reconsidered as a global public good, with the struggle for equality at its center. By charting various conceptual shifts, I had previously distinguished between three discourses of the “knowledge economy”: the “learning economy,” the “creative economy” and the “open knowledge economy,” each with its specific conceptions of knowledge and economy (Peters, 2010). In the face of neoliberalism, privatization of education and the monopolization of knowledge, I argued that the last of these three conceptions – the open knowledge economy – offers a way of reclaiming knowledge as a global public good and of viewing openness as an essential aspect of an emerging global knowledge commons that fosters open science and open education. There is nothing too remarkable about these arguments and claims. In many ways the arguments echo and find their connection with a range of scholars working in different environments such as: • Jimmy Wales and Wikipedia (http://www.wikipedia.org/) • Hal Abelson, Larry Lessig and the founders of the Creative Commons (http://creativecommons.org/), • Michel Bauwens and members of the P2P Foundation (http:// p2pfoun-dation.net/) • Rufus Pollock and members of the Open Knowledge Foundation (http://okfn.org/) • and by many scholars working independently. We can get some sense of the shared general direction of these Foundations and the educational mission by reference to the advertised objectives. Creative Commons helps you share your knowledge and creativity with the world. Creative Commons develops, supports and stewards legal and technical infrastructure that maximizes digital creativity, sharing, and innovation.

Radical openness  105 The P2P Foundation suggests that peer-to-peer technology, among other things: creates a new public domain, an information commons, which should be protected and extended, especially in the domain of common knowledge creation; and that this domain, where the cost of reproducing knowledge is near zero, requires fundamental changes in the intellectual property regime, as reflected by new forms such as the free software movement; that universal common property regimes, i.e. modes of peer property, such as the General Public License and the Creative Commons licenses should be promoted and extended. The Open Knowledge Foundation states: We are a global movement to open up knowledge around the world and see it used and useful. We bring together a diverse community, building a network of individuals and organizations, founded on key principles. (Bold in original) There are many hundreds of organizations worldwide that are concerned with the promotion of open education or open science, including the institution of the Open University or Open School which seek to promote universal access and are commonly associated with elearning or distance learning, and increasingly with moocs (massive open online course) and open course ware. (See, for instance, The Cape Town Open Education Declaration, http://www.capetowndeclaration.org/, or the conference on open education, http://openedconference.org/2012/). In this regard the Royal Society’s 2012 report Science as an Open Enterprise (http://royalsociety.org/policy/projects/science-public-enterprise/ report/) provides a useful summary: The Science as an open enterprise report highlights the need to grapple with the huge deluge of data created by modern technologies in order to preserve the principle of openness and to exploit data in ways that have the potential to create a second open science revolution. The report indicates six areas for action: • Scientists need to be more open among themselves and with the public and media • Greater recognition needs to be given to the value of data gathering, analysis and communication • Common standards for sharing information are required to make it widely usable • Publishing data in a reusable form to support findings must be mandatory

106  Michael A. Peters • More experts in managing and supporting the use of digital data are required • New software tools need to be developed to analyze the growing amount of data being gathered (See also Peters, 2009). Now we are at a stage where we can begin also to investigate links between creativity, the mode of production, and the logic of public organizations. With the advent of the Internet, Web 2.0 technologies and user-generated cultures new principles of radical openness have become the basis of innovative institutional forms that decentralize and democratize power relationships, promote access to knowledge and encourage symmetrical, horizontal peer learning relationships. In this context radical openness is a complex code word that represents a change of philosophy and ethos, a set of interrelated and complex changes that transforms markets, the mode of production and consumption, and the underlying logic of our institutions. I would argue that we need to examine the significance of peer governance, review and collaboration as a basis for open institutions and open management philosophies. This form of openness has been theorized in different ways by Dewey, Peirce and Popper as a “community of inquiry” – a set of values and philosophy committed to the ethic of criticism that offers means for transforming our institutions in what Antonio Negri and others call the age of “cognitive capitalism.” Expressive and aesthetic labor (“creative labor”) demands institutional structures for developing “knowledge cultures” as “flat hierarchies” that permit reciprocal academic exchanges as a new basis for public institutions. Social processes and policies that foster openness as an overriding value as evidenced in the growth of open source, open access, open education and open science and their convergences that characterize global knowledge communities that transcend borders of the nation-state. Openness seems also to suggest political transparency and the norms of open inquiry, indeed, even democracy itself as both the basis of the logic of inquiry and the dissemination of its results. Institutions are humanly devised; they set constraints and shape incentives; economic institutions such as property rights, or contract shape economic incentives, contracting possibilities and distribution; political institutions, including form of government, separation of powers and so on, shape political incentives and distribution of political power. Today with the advent of the Internet and user-generated cultures, new principles of openness have become the basis of innovative institutional forms that decentralize and democratize power, access to knowledge and encourage peer learning relationships. Openness is a value and philosophy that also offers us a means for transforming our institutions. It was in this context that I was not surprised to learn that TED Global (http://www.ted.com/) held a global conference called “Radical Openness” with the following description:

Radical openness  107 The world is becoming increasingly interconnected and open. Radically open – manifesting itself in open borders, open culture, open-source, open data, open science, open world, open minds. With the loss of privacy that it implies, openness carries its own dangers. But it breeds transparency, authenticity, creativity and collaboration. All bets are off as to what openness and collaboration in an ultra-connected world will mean for human potential. Traditional top-down models of organization no longer reflect reality. Social capital and influence are becoming stronger currencies than hierarchy and formal power. New, collaborative ways of creating meaning and things are developing at fast pace. Only one thing appears certain: Secrecy is no longer bankable: impact is. The future will be built on great ideas, and for that, great ideas need to circulate freely, broadly and openly (http://conferences.ted.com/TEDGlobal2012/program/). Here is a video illustration of the “radical openness” of the TED Global conference 2012 made and presented by Jason Silva. I think it has some interesting features because it attempts to present an evolutionary approach to the concept of ideas:7 http://vimeo.com/38260970 Ross Anderson profiled Jason Silva in The Atlantic under the heading “A Timothy Leary for the Viral Video Age”8 whom he describes as “the fast-talking, media-savvy ‘performance philosopher’ who wants you to love the ecstatic future of your mind.” He adds: Like Leary, Silva is an unabashed optimist; he sees humankind as a species on the brink of technology-enabled transcendence. Silva is an avid evangelist for the technological singularity – the idea that technology will soon bring about a greater-than-human intelligence. It’s an idea that Ray Kurzweil has worked hard to popularize in tech circles, but Silva wants to push it out into the mainstream, and he wants to do it with the slickest, most efficient idea vehicle of our time: the viral video. He has spent the last three years making (really) short films that play like movie trailers for ideas; he compares them to shots of “philosophical espresso.” Silva offers the following analysis of “performance philosophy:” The problem, as I see it, is that a lot of these stunning philosophical ideas are diluted by their academic packaging; the academics don’t think so because this is their universe, they could care less about how these ideas get packaged because they’re so enmeshed in them. But the rest of us need another way in. We need to be told why these ideas matter, and one of the ways to do that is to present them with these media tools. Influenced by Ray Kurzweil, he describes openness in terms of biology and the emergent nature of consciousness:

108  Michael A. Peters you have this interesting thing happening where biology is this emergent phenomenon that builds upon its own complexity, and it leads to the emergence of consciousness, but then consciousness wants to free itself from constraints that biology sets forth. So even though biology causes consciousness, it also burdens it. I think he is right even if his work does not justify the assertions he is making. The notion of radical openness has also been applied to business by Don Tapscot (2012) who, writing for the Harvard Business Review, explains that Globalization and instant communication have changed the rules of the game for business. Today’s organizations are being held to stringent and fluctuating sets of standards by unrelenting ‘webs’ of stakeholders who are quick to pass judgment on their behavior. In what is becoming an ultra-transparent world, every step and misstep is subject to scrutiny and every company with a brand or reputation to protect is vulnerable. As the blurb suggests, Tapscot “describes three key elements of openness that modern organizations should embrace: transparency, opening up the business model and placing intellectual property in an open commons. In doing so, he says, a firm will embrace the three dimensions effective organizations for the 21st century.”9 In the same vein, Tim Leberecht’s i7 Summit 2011 “Radical Openness Workshop”10 discusses “Open innovation,” “Designing for the loss of control” and “Openness in organizations” by reference to: 1. Crowdsourcing; 2. Open design research; 3. Open strategy (organization as network including customers, alumni etc.); 4. Open source software; 5. Open source social networks; 6. Open branding; 7. Openness social capital; 8. Open conversations; 9. Open HR; 10. Open conference (unconference). Fox Business. Closer to home, bell hooks (2003) in Teaching Community: A Pedagogy of Hope urges “radical openness” in teaching and learning as the essence of education as a practice of freedom considered as both a spiritual and mental activity. Hooks is not alone in advocating a theology of radical openness (see, for instance, Lanzetta, 2001). In this paper I am principally interested in this concept as providing a new logic for public organizations, economy and management and as a means of fostering large group creative collaboration and co-creative labor based on being open, peering, sharing, interdependence and acting globally. In this context my argument and concept is that “co(labor) ation” refers to the wisdom of the crowd (so-called “crowdsourcing”), and a systematic mode of collective learning processes that offers the prospect of encouraging “creative labor” and overcoming “estranged labor” (entfremdete Arbeit in the Marxist and Hegelian sense) within cognitive capitalism.

Radical openness  109

 ognitive capitalism, creative labor and the new logic of the C public sphere11 In a recent paper, “Forms of Knowledge Economy: Learning, Creativity, Openness,” I identified three discernibly separate but interrelated developmental strands of the “knowledge economy” based around the notions of: (1) The Learning Economy, based on the work of Bengt-Åke Lundvall; (2) The Creative Economy, based on the work of Charles Landry, John Howkins and Richard Florida; and (3) The Open Science Economy, based on recent technological developments in promoting the openness of scientific communication (Peters, 2010).12 This conception has been part of an ongoing engagement with the discourse of the knowledge economy that views it as a structural transformation of Western capitalism, a third stage of development after mercantile capitalism, a doctrine that characterized the period 1500–1800 based on the premise that national wealth and power were best served by increasing exports and collecting precious metals in return (Coleman, 1969; Miller, 1988), and industrial capitalism, that replaced the merchant as a dominant actor in the capitalist system with the industrialist and established a factory system of manufacturing based on a complex division of labor. David Hume and Adam Smith were among a new group of economic theorists that questioned the fundamental mercantile belief that the amount of the world’s wealth remained constant and that a state could only increase its wealth at the expense of another state. Knowledge capitalism, by contrast, is another transformation of capitalism. The term “knowledge capitalism” emerged only recently to describe the transition to the so-called knowledge economy. Knowledge capitalism and knowledge economy are twin terms that can be traced at the level of public policy to a series of reports that emerged in the late 1990s by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) (1996) and the World Bank (1998), before they were taken up as a policy template by world governments in the late 1990s. In terms of these reports, education is reconfigured as a massively undervalued form of knowledge capital that will determine the future of work, the destiny of knowledge institutions and the shape of society in the years to come. These three forms of knowledge economy and their associated discourses represent three recent related but different conceptions of the knowledge economy, each with clear significance and implications for education and education policy. They indicate that there have been different national policy constructions of the knowledge economy. I argue that the last conception based on openness provides a model of radically nonproprietarian form that incorporates both “open education” and “open science” economies and provides a radical alternative to neoliberal conceptions in providing a way to respond positively to the Great Recession by establishing and encouraging open science and education as part of the global knowledge commons. These developments of openness can be understood as an extension of arguments for the public good in a global context, of knowledge and education as global public goods, and as a necessary platform for the promotion of global civil society.

110  Michael A. Peters Theorists from different political perspectives and disciplines have simultaneously tried to analyze and describe certain deep-seated and structurally transformative tendencies in Western capitalism, society and modernity to move to a form of postindustrial economy that focuses on the production and consumption of knowledge and symbolic goods as a higher-order economic activity that encompasses and affects the entire economy and society. In these studies we should recognize certain long-term structural tendencies of increased formalization that transform both the production and consumption of symbolic goods. These are all tendencies toward increasing (in) formalization and abstraction centered on the sign, symbol and the image including a set of overlapping processes that transform knowledge production – informatization, mathematization, digitalization – together with process that transform consumption – culturalization and aestheticization. Most recently, capitalism has begun to exploit the reproduction of new synthetic life in terms of a set of biological processes. These are the leading processes transforming contemporary postmodern capitalism that rely on new forms of systems (cybernetic) capitalism based on design principles with the capacity to make new connections among old structures; to form areas of exquisitely precise specialization for recognizing patterns in information; and the ability to learn to recruit and connect information from these areas automatically. Cognitive Capitalism is a theory that has become significant in the last few years for analyzing a new form of capitalism, sometimes referred to as ‘third capitalism’ after mercantilism and industrial capitalism. It is a term that focuses on the socioeconomic changes ushered in with the Internet as platform and new Web 2.0 technologies that have transformed the mode of production and the nature of labor. The theory of cognitive capitalism has its origins in French and Italian thinkers, particularly Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari’s Capitalism and Schizophrenia, the work of Michel Foucault on the birth of biopower, and Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri’s Empire and Multitude, as well as the Italian “Autonomst” Marxist movement that had its origins in the Italian “Operaismo” (lit. “workerism”) in the 1960s. Knowledge capitalism involves an increasing and infinite substitution of capital for labor with the automation of secondary (e.g., fully automated factory) and tertiary knowledge activities. The discourse of the knowledge economy has largely ignored the concept of class of the labor or recommended its replacement by a specialized ‘new class’ of scientists or students as a new social movement. This new symbolic development involves a clear mathematization of knowledge with the new search algorithms and the development of an algorithmic capitalism (Peters, 2011) with the attendant “googlization of higher education” (Vaidhyanathan). Cognitive capitalism emerges as a global economic system based on the development of virtual (immaterial) economy (“third capitalism”) focused on the increasing informatization (digitization) of production, with increasing formalization, mathematicization and digitization of language, communication and knowledge (especially journal systems). At the same time, and as a response to the same forces, there is the emergence of

Radical openness  111 social media, social networking and social mode of production enhanced by Web 2.0 technologies and distributed knowledge and learning systems, including online publication and archives leading to open knowledge production systems including open science economy. The decreasing cost of network access, knowledge-sharing and transmission, and greater “borderless” interconnectedness of knowledge spaces (emergence of “world brain”). Distributive knowledge systems under cognitive capitalism lead to the eventual displacement of material production as core of the system with an emphasis on interactive and dynamical relations between material and immaterial sectors, and the digitization and systematization of value (rather than chains) where collective intelligence represents the core of exchange value and profit-making. Coproduction exists through “just-in-time production” where the market precedes production and increases through processes of intellectual property. Private appropriation of global public knowledge goods takes place through the enforcement of patents, copyright and trademark, further increasing the capacity of computing, copying, file-sharing and storage to help enforcement of intellectual property rights. Externalities in complex systems now determine the general conditions of growth, investment and redistribution of revenue. There is accorded a central role of innovation with a new sociotechnical “cybernetic” paradigm of innovation based on “hothouse” social networking and social media. Continuous endogenous innovation is increasingly focused on science as a leading part of the accumulation regime together with the promotion of new models of social and public entrepreneurship. The discourse points to the question of “immaterial labor.” We might argue that cognitive capitalism can accommodate a conception of “creative labor” (construed in terms of “collective intelligence”) that is very different from notions of “creative class” (Florida) or human capital (Becker) that inform accounts of the knowledge economy. Networks and flows of immaterial labor are based on mass participation and collaboration rather than traditional Smithian division of labor that is nonlinear and comprise dynamical systems of labor. Learning economies reinforce autonomy and collective intelligence as the main source of value in the market with emphasis on codification and contextualization of practical and implicit knowledge. Situated, personal and implicit knowledge is not easily reduced to machine or to mere information (codified software or data). Creative learning economies emphasize “right brain” ascendancy with an accent on a psychology of openness, meta-cognition and “learning by doing.” The infinite substitution of capital for labor for “left brain” logical and sequential tasks releases creative energies (Pink, 2006). Fundamental to what characterizes cognitive capitalism is the emergence of team or network as fundamental labor units in a new political economy of peer production (‘Interneting’) based on cooperation and collaboration rather than competition. There is an increasing importance of post–human network knowledge and learning practices based on mega-data bases and global portals.

112  Michael A. Peters

Co(labor)ation: from co-production to co-creation In their manifesto for co-production the New Economics Foundation (2008) suggests that traditional public economy of service is failing because “Neither markets nor centralized bureaucracies are effective models for delivering public services based on relationships”; “Professionals need their clients as much as the clients need professionals” and “Social networks make change possible” (np). The Foundation defines the concept in the following way: “Co-production means delivering public services in an equal and reciprocal relationship between professionals, people using services, their families and their neighbors.” The term was first developed by Elinor Ostrom who used it “to explain to the Chicago police why the crime rate went up when the police came off the beat and into patrol cars” “explaining why the police need the community as much as the community need the police.” Anna Coote and others at the Institute for Public Policy Research use the concept to explain “why doctors need patients as much as patients need doctors and that, when that relationship is forgotten, both sides fail.” Edgar Cahn used it to explain how critical family and community relationships were part of a core economy, originally called oekonomika.13 This reciprocity and mutual help and exchange at the very heart of the social economy is built is principles of that views citizens as equal partners in the design and delivery of services, not passive recipients of public services. Co-production is about a mutual and reciprocal partnership between professionals and citizens who engage and make use of peer, social and personal networks as the best way of transferring knowledge and supporting change. As the Foundation’s manifesto suggests co-production devolved “real responsibility, leadership and authority to ‘users,’ and encourage self-organization rather than direction from above.” Prophetically, the Foundation announces that co-production is “the biggest revolution in social policy since William Beveridge introduced the welfare state” and details its policy prescription in terms of a ten-point program (abridged here): 1. Reward reciprocity in funding regimes. Assess the extent to which the ultimate beneficiaries of funded services have been enabled to play a role – and reserve part of the grant to reward this involvement. 2. Reward people for their efforts in the local neighborhood, and review the benefits system so that it stops discriminating against voluntary engagement to support services by people outside paid employment. 3. Shift the way professionals are trained so that frontline staff are able to learn about the values and skills of co-production and recognized for putting these skills into practice. 4. Develop ways of capturing the real benefits of co-production and the loss when it is absent so that public service commissioning and measurement recognize and record what is important about mutual support.

Radical openness  113 5. Set a duty to collaborate not just between services, but bringing together services, their clients and the public, and require all public bodies to involve clients in the design and production of services. 6. Embed networks of exchange, such as timebanking, within public service institutions, including surgeries, hospitals, schools and housing estates. 7. Swap targets for broad measures of well-being that enable practitioners to demonstrate the value of co-production approaches in terms of individual and social well-being. 8. Review current health and safety measures to ensure that unnecessary regulation and a culture of risk aversion doesn’t present a barrier to the involvement of service users and the communities based around public services. 9. Launch a co-production award scheme and a co-production fund to encourage innovation in the public and voluntary sectors. 10. Acknowledge the importance of size and innovation rather than looking to roll out ‘scaled up’ blue print models of co-production. Recognize instead the importance of human-scale interaction and the ongoing innovation of this approach that leads to the development of appropriate local responses. This aspect of radical openness, while enhanced and facilitated by new social media, has its home in a theory of the commons,14 a policy of personalization and a political theory of anarchism, which forms through peer-to-peer relationships which replace the old emphasis on the autonomous individual. This conception becomes even more helpful as the new logic of the public sphere when the notion of co-creation and co-design sit alongside co-production. Let me briefly see if I can redeem these claims by suggesting the outline of an argument I would like to foreshadow here and take further on future occasions. The theory of the commons begins in the 17th century with common fields and town commons in New England. Simply put, commons are resources jointly shared by a group of people. The notion has experienced a huge revival since the mid-1980s. As Laerhoven and Ostrom (2007) explain, “Scholars working on the study of the commons since the mid-1980s have helped forge a substantial transdisciplinary approach to the study of an important type of social-ecological system.” Nancy Kranich (2004) puts it succinctly when she applies the notion to the realm of information: The Internet offers unprecedented possibilities for human creativity, global communication, and access to information. Yet digital technology also invites new forms of information enclosure. In the last decade, mass media companies have developed methods of control that undermine the public’s traditional rights to use, share, and reproduce information and ideas. These technologies, combined with dramatic consolidation in the media industry and new laws that increase its control over intellectual products, threaten to undermine the political discourse, free speech, and creativity needed for a healthy democracy.

114  Michael A. Peters In particular in the open-access legal regime nobody has the legal right to exclude anyone else from using the resource and the common-pool resources resemble what economists call public goods. A commons analysis is seen as providing the best framework for talking sensibly about the complex relationships between democratic participation, openness, social equity and diversity. The open, flat, peer-to-peer network that is based on open and equal participation is seen as the best hope for promoting democratic discourse that allows for individual freedom of expression (Benkler, 2006). Co-creation is a term that developed in the early 2000s to describe business strategies for involving customers in the production of goods and services.15 It is often seen as a form of mass customization and sometimes also viewed as a form of “individualization.” The radical notion has little to do with markets. This is what Benkler (2006) calls social production or “commons-based peer production.” In recent years the emphasis and trend has been toward open democratic information resources and platforms that provide software and licensing commons and promote open access in scientific communication, digital repositories, institutional commons such as online libraries, as well as subject or discipline specific commons (Peters, 2008, 2010b, 2010c). The connection between “information” and “commons” is still in its infancy yet it holds promise for new forms of the public based on coproduction of public goods and services, cocreation and personalization that decenters the state and all forms of central authority in what I will called using Paul Feyerabend’s (1993) term a new configuration of “epistemological anarchy”. Too often as scholars we emphasize “knowledge that”—as philosophers say, “propositional knowledge,” that which comes to us in the form of sentences or statements generally in books or articles and sometimes in oral or speeches genres like seminars or conference papers. Rarely do we accent the “knowledge who,” the personal contacts that often form friendships and provide the collegiality that form the basis of the academic networks that last a lifetime, transcending the purely professional and exercising a strong and lasting positive influence, a “circle of trust” as Robert De Niro’s character explains to Greg Fokker played by Ben Stiller in Jay Roach’s movie Meet the Parents. Collegial trust is of an entirely different kind to that depicted in the infamous movie: it registers an integrity, a kind of confidence and certainty as well as well hope. Trust allows us to form relationships and to depend on others. It is also dangerous, vulnerable and risky because of the possibility of betrayal. When and who to trust are vital epistemological questions to younger academics who depend on their mentors. The value of trust takes us beyond questions of simple cooperation to the development of a shared moral and political universe. It is within this space that a kind of purposeful or project sharing takes place and collaboration is fostered. I have argued that personalized learning has emerged in the last decade as a special instance of a more generalized response to the problem of the reorganization of the State in response to globalization and the end of the effectiveness of the industrial mass production model in the delivery of public services (Peters, 2009c). I examine personalization as a major strategy

Radical openness  115 for overcoming the bureaucratic State through “mass customization,” a discourse from which the concept of personalization emerged. I argue that personalization exists as a general concept that has become the political basis for a new social democratic settlement encouraging citizen participation in the choice and design of service and thus represents a major change in British social and public philosophy. There have been many attempts to elaborate the crucial importance of the close relationship between universities and the public good, emphasizing links between civil society, public discourses and deliberation, public culture, and the health of democracy. The notion of the public sphere lies at the heart of the liberal theory of civil society distinguished by an institutional setting characterized by openness in communication and the production of public goods (Calhoun, 2001, 2006). Habermas’s (1989/1962) The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere serves as the point of departure for the analysis of the formation of the bourgeois public sphere that depended upon the principle of universal access to constitute a realm characterized by critical-rational debate. The institutionalization of a fully political public sphere took place first in Britain during the eighteenth century and was preceded by a literary public culture that revealed the interiority of the self and emphasized a communicative, rational subjectivity that created a new phenomenon of public opinion and the basis for a new liberal constitutional social order. There have been critiques of Habermas’s conception in terms of marginalized groups excluded from a universal public sphere (Fraser, 1990) and the way in which Habermas draws the distinction between public and private (Benhabib, 1992). Other scholars have sought to develop the concept of the public sphere emphasizing its discursive or rhetorical nature (Hauser, 1998). Habermas’s work of the public sphere was written well before the age of the Internet, and some followers have developed his theories within the new public space of electronic and social media that, unlike traditional industrial one-way broadcast media, are open, interactive and characterized by a plurality of voices and the absence of a central control or authority. Against neoliberal theories that seek to privatize the public sphere, Hardt and Negri (2004, 2009), following Michael Foucault’s (2008) biopolitics, suggest that in liberal political economy the very distinction between public and private spheres is founded upon a concept of private property in an economy of scarcity. With the postmodernization of the production of knowledge and a shift to the knowledge economy, Hardt and Negri (2009) see open source and open access as encouraging new forms of collaboration that no longer hold that economic value is founded upon exclusive possession but rather increasing depends upon new collectives based on the logic of networking that has the power to reconstitute the public sphere. The global knowledge economy represents a set of deep structural transformations in the transition to a networked information economy that has the power to alter not only modes of economic organization and social practices of knowledge production but also the very fabric of liberal economy

116  Michael A. Peters and society. Distributed peer-to-peer knowledge systems rival the scope and quality of similar products produced by proprietary efforts and provide an institutional global matrix for a confederation of public spaces. Rich text, highly interactive, user-generated and socially active Internet (Web 2.0) has seen linear models of knowledge production giving way to more diffuse openended and serendipitous knowledge processes. There have been dramatic changes in creation, production and consumption of scholarly resources – “creation of new formats made possible by digital technologies, ultimately allowing scholars to work in deeply integrated electronic research and publishing environments that will enable real-time dissemination, collaboration, dynamically-updated content, and usage of new media” (Brown et al. 2007: 4). “Alternative distribution models (institutional repositories, preprint servers, open-access journals) have also arisen with the aim to broaden access, reduce costs, and enable open sharing of content” (p. 4). Increasingly, portal-based knowledge environments and global science gateways support collaborative science.16 Cyber-mashups of very large data sets let users explore, analyze, and comprehend the science behind the information being streamed. The new Web 2.0 technologies and development of data sharing with cloud computing has revolutionized how researchers from various disciplines collaborate over long distances, especially in the life sciences, where interdisciplinary approaches are becoming increasingly powerful as a driver of both integration and discovery (with regard to data access, data quality, identity and provenance). The economic crisis of Western neoliberal capitalism brought about through the Great Recession has impacted the nature of public knowledge and education institutions, privatization education and monopolizing knowledge flows. Education and science have always been wedded to principles of free inquiry and to the academic freedoms that are necessary to sustain the open society and social democracy. The project for revitalizing and restoring the publicness of science and education is enhanced, especially in an era of severe budget cuts to public services through the utilization of new platforms of openness based on Web 2.0 technologies that promotes universal access to knowledge and economical forms of collaboration through file-sharing and the nested convergences in open access, open archiving and open publishing (open journals systems) that have the potential to reconstitute science and education as open and public institutions in the years to come. The movement toward greater openness represents a change of philosophy ushering in a new era based on the values of openness: an ethic of sharing and peer-to-peer collaboration enabled through new architectures of participation. These changes as we have argued indicate a broader shift from the underlying industrial mode of production to a postindustrial mode of consumption as use, reuse and modification, in which new logics of social media structure different patterns of cultural consumption, and symbolic analysis becomes a habitual and daily creative activity. This move has been called the advent of user-generated or user-created media. At a deeper level it signifies a fundamental shift in ontology in both the political and the scientific realm

Radical openness  117 in so far as the basic unit of analysis is no longer the individual, the author, the scientist, but rather the network that is embedded in new ecologies of knowledge where creativity resides in self-emergent and self-organization properties of systems. This is the definition that the French poststructuralist Marxist philosopher Gilles Deleuze uses when he talks about rhizomic structures and rhizomic cultures that are a product of invention. In this sense we might also talk about “rhizomic education” or the term we prefer “open education” (Peters & Britez, 2008). Deleuze (1990) makes the following comment: There is today, in the sciences or in logic, the beginning of a theory of systems said to be open, systems founded upon interactions, that refuse linear causation and transform the notion of time. What Guattari and I call rhizome is precisely the case of an open system. I return to the question: what is philosophy? For the response to this question should be very simple indeed. Everyone knows that philosophy deals with concepts. A system is a set of concepts. An open system – that happens only when concepts are referenced to circumstances or events and no longer to essences. Yet concepts are not ready-made ‘givens’ and have no pre-existence: one needs to invent them, one needs to create them, and there is as much creation and invention in this as there is in art or in science. (Gilles Deleuze [1990: 32] ‘On A Thousand Plateaus,’ Negotiations) Open education involves a commitment to openness and is therefore inevitably both a political and social project, especially since what we are witnessing today is a socialization of media and education. Yet the concept of openness in regard to education predates the openness movement that began with free software and open source in the mid-1980s. Not surprisingly, its roots go back to the Enlightenment and are bound up with the philosophical foundations of modern media and education with its commitments to freedom, citizenship, knowledge for all, social progress and individual transformation. Openness is a concept that has come to characterize knowledge and communication systems, epistemologies, society and politics, institutions or organizations, and individual personalities. In essence, openness in all these dimensions refers to a kind of transparency that is the opposite of secrecy and most often this transparency is seen in terms of access to information especially within organization, institutions or societies. Technological developments have taken place in parallel alongside the history of the movement of open education that have heightened certain political and epistemological features and technologically enabled others that emphasize questions of access to knowledge, the co-production and co-design of educational programs and of knowledge, the sharing, use, reuse and modification of resources while enhancing the ethics of participation and collaboration. Openness also implies a form of open government and institutional organization, based upon the freedom of information that demands that citizens

118  Michael A. Peters and users have access to “official” information and that reasonable grounds are advanced for withholding information from the public domain. Wikileaks is an ideological statement or philosophy based on a logical progression of this view. The doctrine of open government is related to the theory of free inquiry and the free expression of opinion based on traditional freedoms such as freedom of speech, freedom to publish and freedom of the press, which originate in Enlightenment philosophies that are the basis for modern theories of rights and stand against state secrecy and the use of state secrecy against its citizens. Openness has come to mean a certain mode of operation characterized by cooperative or collaborative management motivated by the belief that democracy provides a set of principles, not only for civil society, but also for public and private organizations and especially for public institutions like education and science. The mode of organizational openness is associated with features of democratic procedure including open meetings, free debate and freely expressed opinion, elected positions, and voting as a means of decision-making. We might even call this feature more generically open discourse. Openness can also be construed as an epistemological doctrine that also implies a central role for science and philosophy as one of the central means for achieving a rational society based on its openness to criticism. This is not simply an endorsement of Karl Popper’s criticizability assumption, for there are different accounts of openness to be realized, defended, justified and developed. It is better regarded as a massive evolutionary and cultural experiment that takes to heart the critical principles of post-Kantian culture that now characterize education, science, and government in the age of the global knowledge commons. This is in essence the outline for a theory of creative institutions in the era of cognitive capitalism; it is a theory that brings upon historically emergent technological processes and the collaborative potential of creative labor.

Notes 1 The fact is for Agamben, unlike Heidegger, that there are no clear biological differences and the human form of life can only differentiate itself by subjecting other mammals, animals and life itself to unimaginable violence. His exploring of the human and its animality not only reworks Heidegger’s concept of Being but also investigates theorizations of the animal and its relation to the human in Kojeve and Hegel that also captures now well-known themes of the state of exception in the production of human subjectivity that he calls “the anthropological machine” responsible for animalizing humans (e.g., Jews in the Holocaust) and humanizing animals (e.g. slaves and barbarians). The animalhuman divide sets up the very possibility of politics because it raises the questions of who is included in the polis. The question for Agamben is not a question about human rights but rather about the production of the human, how it is maintained against the category of “animal” and how it functions as a political ontology to decide those who are inside the polis as citizen-subjects and those who are classified as sub-human and, therefore, become expendable.

Radical openness  119 2 I have taken this formulation of the issues from a composite piece of writing (Peters, 2012) from past scholarly articles entitled “Freedom, Openness and Creativity in the Digital Economy” in TruthOut at http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/9547-freedom-openness-and-creativity-in-the-digital-economy. I have been writing on the concept of openness for several years: see Peters (2008, 2009a, 2009b, 2009c, 2009d, 2010, 2013), Peters et al. (2012). 3 Openness to experience is one of the five major traits that has shaped personality theory since its early development by L. L. Thurstone in the 1930s and is strongly correlated with both creativity and divergent thinking. Sometimes referred to as the “big five” personality traits or “the five factor model,” trait theory emerged as a descriptive, data-driven model of a personality based on openness, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism. Openness is associated with creativity and the appreciation of art, emotionality, curiosity, self-expression and originality. One of the limitations of personality theory is its focus on the individual: in the age of networks, this centeredness might seem somewhat misplaced. There are close links between open content, open science and open collaboration that makes collaborative creativity sustainable. 4 See my Education, Science and Knowledge Capitalism: Creativity and the Promise of Openness (Peters, 2013). 5 For debates surrounding the “knowledge economy” see Peters and Besley (2006), Peters (2007, 2008, 2010a), and for the “creative economy” see Peters et al. (2009), Marginson et al. (2010), Murphy et al. (2010), Araya & Peters (2010). 6 See for instance the collection of papers at http://www.ffst.hr/ENCYCLOPAEDIA/doku.php?id=the_idea_of_openness, (Peters, 2010; see also 2008). 7 RADICAL OPENNESS – An anthem on the power of IDEAS created by Jason Silva at Therapy Studios. Presented at TEDGlobal 2012 – blog.ted.com/ 2012/06/26/exploring-openness-in-radical-video-jason-silva-at-tedglobal2012/ Inspired by the ideas of TED, Chris Anderson, Richard Dawkins, James Gleick, Matt Ridley, Steven Johnson, Kevin Kelly, Ray Kurzweil, Imaginary Foundation and many others. Special thanks to Bruno Giussani, European Director, TED Conferences. Selected stock footage courtesy of Shutterstock. Still images provided by The Imaginary Foundation. Music composed and performed by Bix Sigurdsson. 8 See http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/04/a-timothyleary-for-the-viral-video-age/255691/ 9 See Tapscot, “Big Ideas for 2012: Radical Openness and Entrepreneurship” at http://video.foxbusiness.com/v/1340484924001/big-ideas-for-2012-radical-open-ness-and-entrepreneurship/; See also New Rules of Openness by The Boston Consulting Group, 2011. 10 See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mnSEBK5ExNk 11 In this section I draw selectively on my “‘Knowledge Economy,’ Economic Crisis & Cognitive Capitalism: Public Education and the Promise of Open Science” (Peters, 2011). 12 For work on the knowledge economy and its different modes see Peters and Besley (2006), Peters (2007), Peters, Marginson and Murphy (2009b), Marginson, Murphy and Peters (2010), Murphy, Peters and Marginson (2010), Araya and Peters (2010). 13 See http://www.neweconomics.org/publications/co-production 14 On the theory of the commons see the International Journal of the Commons (http://www.thecommonsjournal.org/) especially Laerhoven & Ostrom (2007) and Berge & Laerhoven (2011). See also http://dlc.dlib.indiana.edu/ cpr/index.php for the Comprehensive Bibliography of the Commons. 15 See Alford (2007), Bovaird & Loeffler (2010, 2012). 16 See for instance the collection of papers at http://www.ffst.hr/ENCYCLOPAEDIA/ doku.php?id=the_idea_of_openness (Peters, 2010; see also 2008).

120  Michael A. Peters

References Agamben, G. (2004), The Open: Man and Animal. Trans. Kevin Attell. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press; L’aperto: L’uomo e l’animale. Torino: Bollati Boringhieri, 2002. Alford, J. (2007), Engaging Public Sector Clients: From Service Delivery to Co-production. Houndmills, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Araya, D., and Peters, M. A. (eds.) (2010), Education in the Creative Economy. New York: Peter Lang. Berge, E., and Laerhoven, F. (2011), “Governing the Commons for Two Decades: A Complex Story,” International Journal of the Commons, at http://www.thecommonsjournal.org/index.php/ijc/issue/view/19 Bovaird, T., and Loeffler, E. (2010), “User and Community Co-production of Public Services and Public Policies through Collective Decision-making: The Role of Emerging Technologies,” In T. Brandsen and Marc Holzer (eds), The Future of Governance. Newark, NJ: National Center for Public Performance. Bovaird, T., and Loeffler, E. (2012), “From Engagement to Co-production: How Users and Communities Contribute to Public Services,” In Taco Brandsen and Victor Pestoff (eds.), New Public Governance, the Third Sector and Co-Production. London: Routledge. Brown, Laura, Rebecca Griffiths, and Mathew Rascoff (2007), University Publishing in a Digital Age (The Ithaka Report). At http://www.ithaka.org/ithaka-s-r/strategyold/Ithaka%20University%20Publishing%20Report.pdf Calhoun, Craig (2001), “Civil Society/Public Sphere: History of the Concept(s),” In International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 1897–1903. Calhoun, Craig (2006), “The University and the Public Good,” Thesis Eleven 84: 7–43. Calhoun, Craig, and Diana Rhoten (eds.) (2011), Knowledge Matters: The Public Mission of the Research University. New York: Columbia University/SSRC Books. Deleuze, G. (1990), “On A Thousand Plateaus,” In Negotiations, 1972–1990, M. Joughin (trans.). New York: Columbia University Press, 25–34. Feyerabend, P. (1983), Against Method. London: Verso. Florida, R. (2002), The Rise of the Creative Class. New York: Basic Books. Foray, D. (2000), The Economics of Knowledge. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Foucault, Michel (2008), The Birth of Biopolitics: Lectures at the Collège de France, 1978–1979. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Fraser, Nancy (1990), “Rethinking the Public Sphere: A Contribution to the Critique of Actually Existing Democracy,” Social Text 25(26): 56–80. Habermas, Jürgen (1962/1989), The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An Inquiry into a Category of Bourgeois Society. Thomas Burger, Trans. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Hardt, Michael, and Antonio Negri (2004), Multitude: War and Democracy in the Age of Empire. New York: Penguin Press. Hardt, Michael, and Antonio Negri (2009), Commonwealth. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. Hauser, Gerard (1998), “Vernacular Dialogue and the Rhetoricality of Public Opinion,” Communication Monographs 65(2): 83–107. Hearn, G., and Rooney, D. (eds.) (2008), Knowledge Policy: Challenges for the 21st Century. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

Radical openness  121 Hirsch, E. (1979), “Remembrances of Martin Heidegger in Marburg,” Philosophy Today (Summer): 160–169. Hooks, B. (2003), Teaching Community: A Pedagogy of Hope. London: Routledge. Jasanoff, Sheila (2006), States of Knowledge: The Co-Production of Science and the Social Order. New York: Routledge. Kranich, N. (2004), The Information Commons, at www.fepproject.org/policyreports/InformationCommons.pdf Laerhoven, F., and Ostrom, E. (2007), “Traditions and Trends in the Study of the Commons,” International Journal of the Commons, at http://www.thecommonsjournal.org/index.php/ijc/issue/view/IJC071 Lanzetta, B. (2001), The Other Side of Nothingness: Toward a Theology of Radical Openness. Albany, NY: State University of New York. Marginson, S., Murphy, P., and Peters, M. A. (2010), Global Creation: Space, Connection and Synchrony in the Age of the Knowledge Economy. New York: Peter Lang. Murphy, P., Peters, M. A., and Marginson, S., (2010), Imagination: Three Models of Imagination in the Age of the Knowledge Economy. New York: Peter Lang. Negri, Antonio (2008), “The Labor of the Multitude and the Fabric of Biopolitics,” Trans. Sara Mayo, Peter Graefe and Mark Coté. Ed. Mark Coté. Mediations 23(2): 8–25. OECD (1996), The Knowledge-Based Economy. Paris: OECD. Peters, M. A. (2003), “Education Policy in the Age of Knowledge Capitalism,” Policy Futures in Education 1(2): 361–380. Peters, M. A. (2007), Knowledge Economy, Development and the Future of Higher Education. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. Peters, M. A. (2008a), “The History and Emergent Paradigm of Open Education,” In Open Education and Education for Openness. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers, 3–16. Peters, M. A. (2008b), “Education and the Knowledge Economy,” In Greg Hearn, David Rooney, and David Wright (eds.), Knowledge Policy: Challenges for the 21st Century. London: Edward Elgar. Peters, M. A. (2009a), “On the Philosophy of Open Science,” International Journal of Science in Society 1(1): 1–27. Peters, M. A. (2009b), “Education, Creativity and the Economy of Passions: New Forms of Educational Capitalism,” Thesis Eleven 96: 40–63. Peters, M. A. (2009c), “Personalization, Personalized Learning and the Reform of Social Policy: The Prospect of Molecular Governance in the Digitized Society,” “When the Virtual Meets Virtue: From E-learning to E-education,” Guest Editors: Aharon Aviram and Igal Dotan, Policy Futures in Education 7(6): 615–627. Peters, M. A. (2010a), “Three Forms of Knowledge Economy: Learning, Creativity, Openness,” British Journal of Educational Studies 58(1): 67–88. Peters, M. A. (2010b), “Knowledge Economy and Scientific Communication: Emerging Paradigms of ‘Open Knowledge Production’ and ‘Open Education’,” In M. Simons, M. Olssen, and M. A. Peters (eds.), Re-Reading Education Policies: A Handbook Studying the Policy Agenda of the Twenty-First Century. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers, 293–318. Peters, M. A. (2010c), “Open Education and the Open Science Economy,” In Thomas Popkewitz and Fazal Rizvi (eds.), Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education. National Society for the Study of Education, Vol. 108. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 203–225.

122  Michael A. Peters Peters, M. A. (2010d), “Open Works, Open Cultures, and Open Learning Systems,” In T. W. Lukes and Jeremy Hunsinger (eds.), Putting Knowledge to Work and Letting Information Play. Blacksburg: Virginia Tech, Center for Digital Discourse and Culture, 75–99. Peters, M. A. (2010e), “The Idea of Openness,” In M. Peters, P. Ghiraldelli, B. Žarnić, A. Gibbons (eds.), Encyclopaedia of Philosophy of Education. Retrieved 13 February, 2013 from http://www.ffst.hr/ENCYCLOPAEDIA/doku. php?id=the_idea_of_openness. Peters, M. A. (2011a), Neoliberalism and After? Education, Social Policy and the Crisis of Capitalism. New York: Peter Lang. Peters, M. A. (2011b), “Manifesto for Education in the Age of Cognitive Capitalism: Freedom, Creativity and Culture,” In C. McCarthy et al. (eds.), New Times: Making Sense of Critical/Cultural Theory in a Digital Age. New York: Peter Lang. Peters, M. A. (2011c), “‘Knowledge Economy,’ Economic Crisis & Cognitive Capitalism: Public Education and the Promise of Open Science,” In David R. Cole (ed.), Surviving Economic Crises through Education. New York: Peter Lang. Peters, M. A. (2012), “Bio-Informational Capitalism,” Thesis Eleven 110(1): 98–111. Peters, M. A. (2013) Education, Science and Knowledge Capitalism: Creativity and the Promise of Openness. New York: Peter Lang. Peters, M. A., and T. Besley (2006), Building Knowledge Cultures: Education and Development in the Age of Knowledge Capitalism. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. Peters, M. A., T. Besley, M. Olssen, S. Maurer, and S. Weber (eds.) (2009a), Governmentality Studies in Education. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. Peters, M. A., and R. Britez (eds.) (2008), Open Education and Education for Openness. Rotterdam-Taipei: Sense Publishers. Peters, M. A., R. Britez, and E. Bulut (2010), “Cybernetic Capitalism, Informationalism, and Cognitive Labor,” Geopolitics, History and International Relations 1(2): 11–40. Peters, M. A., and Bulut, E. (eds.) (2011), Cognitive Capitalism, Education and Digital Labor. New York: Peter Lang. Foreword Antonia Negri. Peters, M.A., Marginson, S., and Murphy, P. (2009b), Creativity and the Global Knowledge Economy. New York: Peter Lang. Peters, M. A. and Roberts, P. (2011), The Virtues of Openness: Education, Science and Scholarship in a Digital Age. Boulder, CO: Paradigm Publishers. Peters, M. A., Tze-Chang Liu, and Oncerin, D. (2012), The Pedagogy of the Open Society: Knowledge and the Governance of Higher Education. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. Peters, M. A., and P. Venkatesan (2011a), “Biocapitalism and the Politics of Life,” Geopolitics, History and International Relations 2(2): 100–122. Peters, M. A., and P. Venkatesan (2011b), “Bioeconomy and the Third Industrial Revolution in the Age of Synthetic Life,” Contemporary Readings in Law and Social Justice 2(2): 148–162. Peters, M., S. Marginson, and P. Murphy (2009c), Creativity and the Global Knowledge Economy. New York: Peter Lang. Pink, D. (2005), A Whole New Mind: Why Right-brainers Will Rule the Future. New York: Penguin. Schuchardt, K., C. Pancerella, L. Rahn, B. Didier, D. Kodeboyina, D. Leahy, J. Myers, O. Oluwole, W. Pitz, B. Ruscic, J. Song, G. Von Laszewski, and C. Yang. (2007),

Radical openness  123 “Portal-based Knowledge Environment for Collaborative Science,” Concurrency Computation Practice and Experience 19(12): 1703–1716. Tapscot, D. (2012), “Succeeding through Radical Openness,” Harvard Business Review, Jan 1st. von Hippel, E., and von Krogh, G. (2003), “Open Source Software and the ‘Privatecollective’ Innovation Model: Issues for Organization Science,” Organization Science 14(2): 209–223. Wagner, C. (2008), The New Invisible College: Science for Development. Foreword by Francis Fukuyama. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Press.

7 Citizen science and ecological democracy in the global science regime The need for openness and participation Michael Peters and Tina Besley The emergence of global science regime The emerging political economy of global science is a significant factor influencing development of national systems of innovation, and economic, social and cultural development, with the rise of multinational actors and a new mix of corporate, private/public and community involvement. It is only since the 1960s with the development of research evaluation and increasing sophistication of bibliometrics and webometrics that it has been possible to map the emerging economy of global science, at least on a comparative national and continental basis. The question of the political economy of world science and its geographic distribution cannot be easily separated from its measurement and evaluation or the pattern of journal ownership. Increasingly, emphasis has fallen on the economics and productivity of science in both firms and higher education institutions, as policy-makers and politicians seek to foster innovation and to draw strong links between scientific performance and emerging economic structures. In science policy, the accent often falls on measuring scientific productivity, on ‘intellectual property’ and the codification of knowledge, and on research collaboration, partnership and cooperation in regional, national and international contexts. Investment in science, engineering and technology has received strong attention from governments as the basis of the ‘knowledge economy’ and most governments now look to their international science policy strategy to emphasize national competitive advantage and to encourage research collaboration in global science projects. Education at all levels has become an integral part of an emerging global knowledge system that starts with elementary learning and builds on national research systems focused on universities and borderless private–public partnerships. Indeed, it is the age of global science, but not primarily in the sense of ‘universal knowledge’, which has characterized the liberal meta-narrative of ‘free’ science since its early development, where scientific findings or results are open to peer review and public scrutiny and, in principle, are reproducible by others following the same procedures. It is the age of global science but not necessarily in the sense of ‘international’ collaboration (part of the same liberal meta-narrative) as, say, the incipient norms of free exchange of

Citizen science and ecological democracy  125 ideas, free inquiry and collaboration developed during the so-called ‘scientific revolution’ and period of classical science when ‘scientists’, particularly within Europe, travelled to meet one another and to share their ideas. This was the period when learned societies were established and the first journals flourished with the growth of publishing during the 17th and 18th centuries, helping both to generate the international exchange of theories, concepts, methods and discoveries, and to aid the processes of research collaboration. This (older) liberal meta-narrative of science has now been submerged by official narratives based on an economic logic linking science to national purpose, economic policy, and national science policy priorities. In the era of ‘post-normal’ science (Funtowicz & Ravetz, 1992), where globalised corporate science dominates the horizon and scientific ‘outputs’ differ from the traditional peer-reviewed published scientific papers, quality assurance replaces ‘truth’ as the new regulative ideal. In contemporary science, policy regimes outputs often take the form of patents, unpublished consultancy, ‘grey literature’ or are covered by legal arrangement and ‘lawyer-client confidentiality’. As a result, there are expressed concerns about the fate of scientific publishing. The rise of digitized publications has led to a counter-revolution in scholarly publishing where actual sales are recast into licences and commercial publishers are taking advantage of the growth of open archives. The Select Committee on Science and Technology in the United Kingdom Parliament (2003), for example, has urged the adoption of a new government strategy to address the problem of increasing journal prices imposed by commercial publishers, recommending ‘that all UK higher education institutions establish institutional repositories on which their published output can be stored and from which it can be read, free of charge, online’. Lyotard (1984) raised similar questions a generation ago (Peters, 1995; Peters & Besley, 2006). Open access publishing has a new momentum after the launch of ‘Plan S’ by Science Europe in 2018, an initiative of ‘cOAlition S’ that is a consortium of national research agencies from 12 European countries: ‘Plan S is an initiative for Open Access publishing that was launched in September 2018. The plan is supported by cOAlition S, an international consortium of research funders. Plan S requires that, from 2020, scientific publications that result from research funded by public grants must be published in compliant Open Access journals or platforms’ (https://www.coalition-s.org/). Signatories to Plan S holds that OA is ‘foundational to the scientific enterprise’: Universality is a fundamental principle of science (the term “science” as used here includes the humanities): only results that can be discussed, challenged, and, where appropriate, tested and reproduced by others qualify as scientific. Science, as an institution of organised criticism, can therefore only function properly if research results are made openly available to the community so that they can be submitted to the test and scrutiny of other researchers. Furthermore, new research builds on established results from previous research. The chain, whereby new

126  Michael Peters and Tina Besley scientific discoveries are built on previously established results, can only work optimally if all research results are made openly available to the scientific community. (https://www.coalition-s.org/why-plan-s/) Paywalls are seen to disrupt this universality principle – ‘no science should be locked behind paywalls!’ (ibid). Global science as a term to describe the emerging geography of scientific knowledge and collaboration as an aspect of globalization and its new interconnectedness within a globalized world is a distinctly new phenomenon, although, judging by scholarly criteria, it still reflects a strong Western control and bias and is still heavily nationalistic and seen as a vital part of national culture and state economic policy. In modern Baconian statecraft, science belongs to a knowledge economy and is the source of innovation and growth in productivity. To a large extent, the developing infrastructure of global science is an outgrowth of earlier historical conditions, particularly, the industrial-military research complex established during the two world wars and extended through nuclear escalation and the space race of the Cold War, and the incipient infrastructure provided by ‘colonial science’ of the European expansionist era (arguably the first globalization of science). On one reading, the term global science reflects an extension of the ‘old’ liberal (as opposed to the market-driven neo-liberal) ideology of ‘universal free knowledge’ based on exchange and peer review that developed with the emergence of the modern research university in the nineteenth century. Yet it is also clear that it also smacks of ‘imperial science’—science in the service of the empire—which strongly motivated Francis Bacon’s new philosophy and the views of the founders of the Royal Society in the 17th century during the early institutionalization of British science. At the same time, the emergence of ‘global science’ also reflects new global exigencies, new global problems and an enhanced global network of science communicative practice. Today, ‘big science’ projects require massive state and intergovernmental funding support in an era of intense international competition for knowledge assets, which has forced governments and institutions to collaborate with one another on certain issues. Global science in the form of international science agencies also recognizes the need for cooperation on a number of pressing common global issues that run across borders, such as global warming and other ecological problems, AIDS/HIV, other global diseases and virus outbreaks, natural species extinction, preservation of biomass features, etc.

Open science as a new participatory model The open science economy is an alternative growing sector of the global knowledge economy utilizing open source models and its multiple applications (open access, open archiving, open publishing, open repositories, etc.) in distributed knowledge and learning systems that encourage innovation-smart processes based on the radical non-propertarian sharing of

Citizen science and ecological democracy  127 content, cloud data sourcing, and leveraging of cross-border international collaborations. Open science provides an alternative to the intellectual property approach to dealing with difficult problems in the allocation of resources for the production and distribution of information). Rich-text, highly interactive, user-generated, and socially active Internet (Web 2.0) activity has seen linear models of knowledge production giving way to more diffuse, open-ended, decentralised and serendipitous knowledge processes. Distributed peer-to-peer knowledge systems rival the scope and quality of similar products produced by proprietary efforts where the speed of diffusion of open-source projects is an obvious advantage. The successful projects occur in both software and open-source biology. Open science economy can play a complementary role with corporate and transnational science and implies a strong role for governments. Increasingly, portal-based knowledge environments and global science gateways support collaborative science (e.g. Science.gov & Science.world). Open science economy demonstrates an ‘exemplar of a compound of ‘private-collective’ model of innovation’ that contains elements of both proprietary and public models of knowledge production (von Hippel & von Krogh, 2003). Powerful new cognitive tools and Web 2.0 and 3.0 platforms enabled by the Internet are changing the practice of science and greatly accelerating scientific discovery (Peters & Roberts, 2011; Nielsen, 2011). Open science encourages a distributed, collaborative, de-centralized model of research culture that is genuinely participatory involving the wider public and amateur scientists along with experts in the social mode of open knowledge production (OpenScienceSummit.com; http://www.opensciencegrid.org/). The new model highlights the prospect of this growing aspect of the knowledge economy with the prospects of: (i) expanding the size and scope of the open science economy and its significance for future participatory knowledge and science, especially in schools and universities; (ii) enhancing the science education infrastructure in the digital age by providing opportunities for promoting closer linkages between schools and university science through portals and engines of open science; and (iii) creating conditions for national debate concerning the production of public science goods and the role of science in a more democratic science culture. The interdisciplinary study and integrated nature of open science can determine the greater integration of the logic of digital distribution to realise a closer alignment of school science.

Citizen science and ecological democracy In science, sustainability science, post-normal science and science-in-transition are gaining strength representing a recognition of multiple ways of being (ontological pluralism) and knowing (epistemological pluralism) and the inevitability of complexity, ambiguity and uncertainty. In society, the call for living more lightly and equitably on Earth is leading to transitions in energy (away from fossil fuel and centralized energy systems), food (away from agri-business and industrial farming towards more localized and

128  Michael Peters and Tina Besley sustainable food systems), economics (away from profit and growth oriented capitalist systems towards economies of sharing and meaning), and health care (away from centralized and privatized care systems towards localized cooperatives). Muki Haklay (2015) provides a comprehensive report on how citizen science can significantly contribute to policy formation especially in environmental monitoring and decision-making. He makes the case this way: The past decade has witnessed a sustained growth in the scope and scale of participation of people from outside established research organizations, in all aspects of scientific research. This includes forming research questions, recording observations, analyzing data, and using the resulting knowledge. This phenomenon has come to be known as citizen science. While the origins of popular involvement in the scientific enterprise can be traced to the early days of modern science, the scale and scope of the current wave of engagement shifts citizen science from the outer margins of scientific activities to the center—and thus calls for attention from policymakers. An emerging challenge of citizen science is its deployment in education at all levels to promote participatory scientific practices integrating school, STEM education and environmental science and green studies at university to promote DIY science for local communities that encourages committed and objective, disinterested research based on rigorous and systematic data collection on the one hand, and, on the other, environmental responsibility for an action agenda—an indissoluble link carrying an ethical and political obligation to act on results. Indeed, we might better characterize the action imperative as a result of the shift from the industrial science model to an ecological systems view that recognizes the interconnectivity of all things and problematizes the disinterested scientist and spectator theories of knowledge. The European Commissions’ Green Paper on Citizen Science entitled ‘Citizen Science for Europe: Towards a better society of empowered citizens and enhanced research’ (2014) puts the argument powerfully in terms that readily carry educational and pedagogical possibilities: ICT facilitates a shift of paradigm, with a more open research process sharing good and bad experiences through digital media and collaboration efforts. These new participative and networked relationships promote the transformation of the scientific system, allowing collective intelligence and new collaborative knowledge creation, democratizing research and leading into emergence of new disciplines and connections to study emerging research questions and topics. While doing this, participatory approaches contribute to long-term inclusive education, digital competences, technology skills and wider sense of initiative and ownership.

Citizen science and ecological democracy  129 We are at the beginning of a new era characterized by the cooperation of amateur and professional scientists where enhanced computing and computation power along with big and linked data signal an exciting mix of local and global, humans and machines, humans and nature in the transgressive pedagogical paradigm that moves beyond the industrial scientific model of applied science. In the introduction to a special issue on citizen science in Conservation Biology, Dillon et al. (2016) introduce a particular strand of citizen science that fits well with the idea of ecological democracy. They speak of ‘transition-oriented civic science’ to emphasize that not the questions and concerns of scientist are the point of departure of collaborative inquiry but rather those of concerned citizens. In other words, it is not so much about citizens supporting science but rather about science supporting citizens. The ‘transition-oriented’ suggests a normative stance towards a shift away from unsustainable routines and systems that tend to lead to the earlier global systemic dysfunction (e.g. planned obsolescence, built-in inequality, fossil fuel dependency, loss of identity and sense of place, etc.). This relatively new approach can be traced back to a post-normal science perspective, which assumes that: citizens have or need to have agency, there are multiple ways of knowing and different types of knowledge that all are relevant (e.g. indigenous knowledge and local knowledge) and that improving a ‘wicked’ sustainability challenge requires social learning between the multiple stakeholders/actors affected by an issue (scientists being one of many). In their conclusion Dillon et al. (2016, p. 454) write: … our civic-science version of citizen science calls for expanding public participation beyond the volunteers who normally populate citizen science projects, shifting the role of scientists to one of the stakeholders (but with recognized important technical expertise), and engaging all stakeholders as co-creators and co-learners in a deliberate and systematic process of knowledge building. An important part of this process is treating emerging goals and knowledge as tentative and subject to revision based on ongoing critical and collaborative dialogue, inquiry, and action. Recursion is one of the keys of science. The history of science reveals how science itself has changed over time. Kevin Kelly1 has chronicled a sequence of new recursive devices in science from earliest times: 2000 BC – First text indexes 200 BC – Cataloged library (at Alexandria) 1000 AD – Collaborative encyclopedia 1590 – Controlled experiment (Roger Bacon) 1600 – Laboratory 1609 – Telescopes and microscopes 1650 – Society of experts 1665 – Repeatability (Robert Boyle)

130  Michael Peters and Tina Besley 1665 – Scholarly journals 1675 – Peer review 1687 – Hypothesis/prediction (Isaac Newton) 1920 – Falsifiability (Karl Popper) 1926 – Randomized design (Ronald Fisher) 1937 – Controlled placebo 1946 – Computer simulation 1950 – Double blind experiment 1962 – Study of scientific method (Thomas Kuhn) To this list we can ‘1995 – The Emergence of Open Science’ and ‘2005 – Citizen Science’. These participatory models are particularly powerful in the ‘new biology’, in astronomy, in mathematics and physics, and in ecological science. In the future, there will be accelerated change especially in the crossovers of science and computing such as bioinformatics, and new ways of knowing will emerge with distributed instrumentation and experiment that will yield smart-mob, hive-mind science, based on greater interconnectivity at the global level that offers the prospect of integrating science in schools more closely with research.

Notes 1 http://www.kk.org/thetechnium/index.php

References Dillon, J., Stevenson, R. & Wals, A. (2016). Special section: Moving from citizen to civic science to address wicked conservation problems: moving from citizen to civic science. Conservation Biology, 30(3). doi:10.1111/cobi.12689. European Commissions (2014). Citizen science for Europe: Towards a better society of empowered citizens and enhanced research. Green Paper. Retrieved from https://www. researchgate.net/publication/259230549_Green_Paper_on_Citizen_Science Funtowicz, S. O. & Ravetz, J. R. (1992). Three types of risk assessment and the emergence of postnormal science. In S. Krimsky & D. Golding (Eds.), Social theories of risk (pp. 251–273). Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. Haklay, M. (2015). Citizen science and policy: A European perspective. Washington DC: Woodrow Wilson Center. Retrieved from https://www.wilsoncenter.org/ sites/default/files/Citizen_Science_Policy_European_Perspective_Haklay.pdf Lyotard, J-F. (1984). The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge (Bennington G & Massumi, Trans.). Manchester: Manchester University Press. (Translated from La condition postmoderne: Rapport sur le savoir. Paris: Minuit (1979)). Nielsen, M. A. (2011). Reinventing discovery: the new era of networked science. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Peters, M.A. (Ed.) (1995). Education and the postmodern condition. Foreword by J.F. Lyotard. Westport, CT: Bergin & Garvey, Praeger Publishers. Peters, M. A. & Besley, T. (2006). Building knowledge cultures: Education and development in the age of knowledge capitalism. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

Citizen science and ecological democracy  131 Peters, M. A. & Roberts, P. (2011) The virtues of openness: education, science, and scholarship in the digital age. London: Routledge. von Hippel, E. & von Krogh, G. (2003). Special issue on open source software development. Research Policy, 32(7), 1149–1157.

8 Citizen science and post-normal science in a post-truth era Democratising knowledge; socialising responsibility Michael A. Peters and Tina Besley The question of how scientific theories, concepts and methods change over time is an enduring issue. Science, like all forms of intellectual activity, can undergo rapid and dramatic periods of change, as it did during the Newtonian period sometimes called the ‘Scientific Revolution’ of the 17th century. In other times, change has been very gradual. Questions of this nature occupied Thomas Kuhn who in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1970) argued for a philosophical conception of scientific change based on historical evidence that questioned the standard conservative history of science as the gradual cumulative development of discoveries that took place progressively over many generations. As is well known, Kuhn characterizes the history of science in terms of periods of ‘normal science’ followed by paradigm-changing ‘revolutionary science’. Normal science is activity ruled by consensus over the problems, concepts and model solutions that together form a ‘paradigm’ or set of community understandings and procedures (a form of consensus). When problems begin to stack up and do not seem to be amendable to the accepted disciplinary solutions, they stand out as anomalies for current theory. Particularly recalcitrant anomalies come to constitute a crisis. The concept of ‘revolutionary science’ is Kuhn’s answer to the death of the old paradigm and the inception of a new one. But paradigm change is not a rational process; scientists tend to want to hold on to the metaphysical core of the old paradigm even in the face of evidence (through face-saving ad hoc hypotheses) and only reluctantly give it up when the alternatives seem unassailable. Kuhn describes the process of paradigm as more like a ‘gestalt switch’ than a rational or evidential shift based on methodological procedures. Be that as it may, the history of science in the modern period has been dominated by Kuhn’s conception and by those after him like Imre Lakatos and Larry Laudan who responded to Kuhn by describing the history of science in terms of progressive research programmes or a progression of problems. What seems common to these histories is that they all see science as an autonomous activity and picture change as a product largely of ‘internal’ developments (logic, problems, anomalies, etc.). Part of the novelty of Kuhn’s analysis was in providing a naturalistic account of theory change that displaced positivist explanations in terms of rules of method governing verification that many saw as constitutive of rationality. Kuhn’s legacy

Citizen science and post-normal science  133 is undoubtedly a powerful one. His Structure book is one of the most cited books of all time. Mladenović (2017, p. 1) tries to save Kuhn from relativism and irrationality by arguing that in line with American pragmatism he argues for the rationality of science as a form of collective rationality: At the purely formal level, Kuhn’s conception of scientific rationality prohibits obviously irrational beliefs and choices and requires reason-responsiveness as well as the uninterrupted pursuit of inquiry. At the substantive, historicized level, it rests on a distinctly pragmatist mode of justification compatible with a notion of contingent but robust scientific progress. Science changes through its own historical evolution through largely disciplinary mechanisms both formal and contingent, yet it also changes through historical forces that impact upon its conditions of possibility, through larger economic, social and technological historical factors sometimes referred to as ‘social studies of science’, an academic field that has grown considerably since the 1970s and that replaces epistemological questions with social ones.1 In this vein, Collins and Evans (2010, p. 300) entertain the problem of legitimacy to ask a question about expertise rather than truth: ‘If it is no longer clear that scientists and technologists have special access to the truth, why should their advice be specially valued?’ And they probe the ‘Problem of Extension’: ‘How far should participation in technical decision-making extend?’ In addition, the approach from political economy proceeds from the assumption that as technical change has radically altered economic development, it has become essential to understanding the sources, nature and consequences of innovation in science and economic development. In the current digital era, science faces three major kinds of changes and challenges that originate outside it. First, the accelerating effects of technology-driven developments that signal the critical term ‘techno-science’ is perhaps even more descriptively accurate than when it was introduced decades ago. On the standard view, technology was always seen to be the application of science, but the traditional theory-practice understanding of the relationship of science and technology no longer holds and is often seen in an inverted relationship to science with technology dominant. Notably, Heidegger (1977) reversed the idea that modern science was the foundation of technology, arguing that the technological essence is the source of the form and function of science. Early usage by philosophers like Jean-Francois Lyotard and Bruno Latour used the term ‘techno-science’ to express a critical reaction against the theoretical conception of contemporary science that was philosophically blind to the importance of technology. As a contemporary example, it might be argued that current US-China trade wars are driven by newly emergent conceptions of ‘techno-development’ and ‘techno-nationalism’ (Peters, 2018). For instance, the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) released its report in March

134  Michael A. Peters and Tina Besley 2018, Findings of The Investigation into China’s Acts, Policies, and Practices Related to Technology Transfer, Intellectual Property, and Innovation Under Section 301 of The Trade Act of 1974,2 indicating that the stakes involved in a collection of next generation strategic technologies including AI and quantum computing determine the future of scientific innovation in the global economy. As one commentator remarks: Techno-nationalism marries two trends that are central to our current historical moment. First, the remarkable acquisition of power through data and ‘network effects’ of just a few companies based mainly near San Francisco, and the escalating battle between these companies and Chinese rivals. And second, the decline of the post-1945 Western-led world order (https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-45370052). Second, a set of co-evolving technologies have created ‘convergence science’ based on the ‘nano-bio-info-cogno’ paradigm that together define a creative synergy shaping both the next stage of science and an advanced stage of the knowledge society.3 The National Science Foundation describes convergence science as: … a means of solving vexing research problems, in particular, complex problems focusing on societal needs. It entails integrating knowledge, methods, and expertise from different disciplines and forming novel frameworks to catalyse scientific discovery and innovation. Convergence research is related to other forms of research that span disciplines—transdisciplinarity, interdisciplinarity, and multidisciplinarity. Third, we are witnessing the emergence of ‘post-normal science’, a term introduced into the discourse by Funtowicz and Ravetz (1992) in the early 1990s, to signal the notional shift to an ecological systems perspective and the scientific management of uncertainty and of quality. Some critics interpreted this as the shift from ‘truth’ to ‘quality assurance’. Fourth, there has been a rapid growth of what is referred to as Open Science or Science 2.0 that uses new technologies to increase and explore the democratization of and citizen participation in science (Peters & Heraud, 2015; Wals & Peters, 2018). As Halkay (2015) observes, The past decade has witnessed a sustained growth in the scope and scale of participation of people from outside established research organizations, in all aspects of scientific research. This includes forming research questions, recording observations, analysing data, and using the resulting knowledge. This phenomenon has come to be known as citizen science. While the origins of popular involvement in the scientific enterprise can be traced to the early days of modern science, the scale and scope of the current wave of engagement shifts citizen science from the

Citizen science and post-normal science  135 outer margins of scientific activities to the centre—and thus calls for attention from policymakers. The European Commission’s (2014) Green Paper on Citizen Science entitled ‘Citizen Science for Europe: Towards a better society of empowered citizens and enhanced research’ puts the argument powerfully in terms of a paradigm shift towards a more open research process where ‘new participative and networked relationships promote the transformation of the scientific system, allowing collective intelligence and new collaborative knowledge creation, democratizing research and leading into emergence of new disciplines and connections’. Citizen science is but one manifestation of a larger movement for openness that has determining effects for science and its reception. The movement for Open Access Science, such as Plan S,4 is a recent initiative from cOAlition S backed by Science Europe to make full and immediate Open Access to publicly funded research publications a reality by 1 January 2020 that will have a deep impact on the distribution of scientific knowledge and on current science publishing models. In one sense this is a pinnacle development of the OA movement which itself is part of the broader movement of openness in science and education (Peters, 2013, 2014; Peters & Britez, 2008; Peters & Roberts, 2012).The fact that science, like economic development, is now technology-driven is a massive change with profound significance especially for science as a public endeavour. We can parse this idea further by reference to the US National Science Foundation that has been theorising ‘convergent technologies’ as a new techno-scientific synergy for well over a decade. The convergence is sometimes referred to as the ‘nano-bio-info-cogno’ paradigm that together have the power to define the next stage of science and an advanced knowledge society.5 These technologies are not restricted to new digital technologies but embrace a set of converging technologies, including (briefly): ‘Nano’, the branch of technology that deals with dimensions and tolerances of less than 100 nanometers, especially the manipulation of individual atoms and molecules; ‘Bio’, the exploitation of biological processes for industrial and other purposes, especially the genetic manipulation of microorganisms for the production of antibiotics, hormones, etc.; ‘Cogno’, the convergence of nano, bio and IT for brain science, sensing and mind control; ‘Info’, information technologies developing with new quantum computing. Sometimes referred to as ‘NBIC technologies’ (Nano, Bio, Information, Cognitive), this convergence is seen as a double-edged sword ‘empowering both our creative and our destructive natures’. The National Science Foundation (NSF) have many published reports exploring the convergence of the NBIC technologies including the chief application areas of (i) expanding human cognition and communication; (ii) improving human health and physical capabilities; (iii) enhancing group and societal outcomes; (iv) strengthening national security, and (v) unifying science and education. Nanotechnology, biotechnology, information technology and new technologies based in cognitive science (NBIC) signify an

136  Michael A. Peters and Tina Besley emerging harmony among the sciences, and a model of the ‘unity of nature at the nanoscale’ (e.g. Bainbridge, 2016; Bainbridge & Roco, 2006, 2016). We are told that recent advances in nanoscience and nanotechnology enable a rapid convergence of other sciences and technologies for the first time in human history with significant developments in biomedicine at the nanoscale (such as genetic engineering), nanoelectronics and cognitive science, which holds the greatest promise but is the field least mature. (Significantly the claim is made that sociology and political science have not participated significantly in the development of cognitive science.) The major claim is that ‘science based on the unified concepts on matter at the nanoscale provides a new foundation for knowledge creation, innovation, and technology integration’ (ibid.). This ‘convergence science’ must be understood also by reference to the larger realities of Industry 4.0 and ‘the fourth industrial revolution’ that are closely related with the Internet of Things (IoT), Cyber Physical System (CPS), information and communications technology (ICT), Enterprise Architecture (EA) and Enterprise Integration (EI). Industry 4.0 is often referred to in terms of the integration of complex physical machinery and devices with networked sensors and software and as such represents ‘a new level of value chain organization and management across the lifecycle of products’ (Henning, 2013). This rapid technological change is often conceived in terms of the power to disrupt economies and societies. Brynjolfsson and McFee (2014) in The Second Machine Age have commented that the computer revolution has huge potential for disrupting labour markets and reducing labour costs. They talk of the watershed in robotization and the corresponding increasing capacity and intelligence of digital technologies which has wider societal effects than solely altering the way science is practiced: digitization is going to bring with it some thorny challenges. … Rapid and accelerating digitization is likely to bring economic rather than environmental disruption, stemming from the fact that as computers get more powerful, companies have less need for some kinds of workers. Technological progress is going to leave behind some people, perhaps even a lot of people, as it races ahead (p. 11). The focus on the political economy of digitalization is important for understanding the transformed environment within which science is now practiced. There is a single planetary technical system that enables access to global markets in instantaneous real time creating truly globally scaled markets that dwarf the scale of the first industrial/colonial system and exponentially speeds up all transactions. The single planetary system is an integrated system that includes the scientific community through global science publishing by the big eight and the larger networks they help comprise with university consortia and ranking agencies. A fundamental difference is that this

Citizen science and post-normal science  137 single system reaching into every corner of the world no longer works on simple cause and effect and therefore is not a linear system, but rather emulates natural systems to become dynamic and transformative, demonstrating the properties of chaotic and complex systems that at the same time increase volatility, interconnectivity and unpredictability. The Chief Science Advisor during the last National government administration in New Zealand, Sir Peter Gluckman, gave an interesting speech at the Public Communication of Science and Technology Conference 2018, held in Dunedin (3–6 April), entitled ‘Knowledge brokerage in an age of rapid technological change’.6 He reflected on his role as a ‘broker’ and science communicator between the science community and the policy community, two very different cultures which, as he also points out, are based on different processes and open to different influences. He notes also how science alone, contrary to popular opinion, ‘will not resolve different world views’ yet such world views often act as the schema through which people interpret data and evidence. He acknowledges that new disruptive science-driven technologies are rapidly growing – ‘artificial intelligence, machine learning and big data, robotics, internet of things, autonomous vehicles, nanotechnology, gene editing, brain enhancement drugs, meiotic gene driven, bioelectronic implants, synthetic biology and geoengineering are some of the most obvious’. Together they increase the complexity of science and policy making and have the power to undermine democracy. This is a new world of uncertainty especially in a ‘post-trust’ and ‘post-truth’ society: as he notes, ‘The nature of the scientific method means that one can never absolutely prove anything to be completely safe. And no innovation is possible without some acceptance of uncertainty.’ As a practicing scientist—a NZ paediatrician with an interest in endocrinology—Gluckman explains the dramatic changes to science in the last 30 years as a result of the digital revolution: The result of computational development on one hand (including the emergence now of big data) and the molecular sciences on the other have changed what science is possible. An increasing amount of science, is now framed within systems thinking which moves us from certainty to probabilistic approaches. As a result of these changes we are also moving from what’s been called normal to post-normal science, where the science is complex and where there is a high values component that is often in dispute (p. 4). It is surprising that in the year of the NZ Royal Society Centenary (2018), he should use the term ‘post-normal science’ (PNS) and ‘post-trust’, with a clear set of references to ‘post-truth’ and Trump’s anti-science policies, and his unilateral withdrawal from the Paris environmental accord. (Even in a world of uncertainty, as a government spokesperson one has to be careful not to offend against supposed allies.) Gluckman’s argument is one for the enhanced role of science communication to mediate between the two

138  Michael A. Peters and Tina Besley specialised communities of science and policy. We were interested in his speech for another reason—for its contemporaneity and his use as the then Chief Scientist of PNS and ‘post-truth’. Gluckman (2018) cautions us: But citizen science in whatever form is not enough. We need to take lessons from the language and scholarship of post-normal science: the answer must lie in concepts like extended peer review, co-design and co-production. These are critical but complex and controversial concepts but they will be a large part of the future of science. The Fourth PNS conference ‘Post-normal science as a movement: between informed critical resistance, reform and the making of futures’ held in Barcelona, 15–17 November 2018, began with this quote from Gluckman (above) and provided the following briefing that is worth referring to in full: Science, as it stands today, faces a crisis of public and political trust, combined with an inner erosion of standards of quality and integrity. Scientific findings are increasingly recognised as neither as reliable nor reproducible as they used to be portrayed. Beliefs in and self-declarations of the disinterestedness of scientific endeavours, separated from vested interest, political agenda or social and cultural context are recognised as empirically and philosophically problematic. Scientific elites are, for better or for worse, challenged by an erosion of trust on a par with that experienced by political elites in modern societies. Scientific institutions charged with higher education face demands of high societal relevance and impact which they do not know how to meet and how to prepare for. This crisis on multiple fronts calls for a fundamental reform. Postnormal science (PNS) offers direction to such a reform, as a critical concept challenging mainstream practices of science, as an inspiration for new styles of research practice, and as an inspiration and support for new conventions of research quality assurance that better respond to the postnormal conditions of today’s societal challenges. This multifaceted nature of PNS is both descriptive and normative. It provides a framework for describing and diagnosing urgent decision problems—post-normal issues—characterized by incomplete, uncertain or contested knowledge and high decision stakes, and critical reflection on how these characteristics change the relationship between science and governance. At the same time, PNS inspires a movement of critical resistance and reform towards a new style of scientific inquiry and practice that is reflexive, inclusive (in the sense that it seeks upstream engagement of extended peer communities) and transparent in regards to scientific uncertainty, ignorance, values and framings, and moving into a direction of democratisation of expertise.7 It is useful to list the themes that were to be discussed at PNS 4 that were designed in part to address Gluckman’s concerns:

Citizen science and post-normal science  139 •

•

• • • •

PNS as a critical concept for informed resistance and reform (What strategies of resistance and what of reform or Reformation does PNS care about? What, when, where, why each of them? Resisting what, by/for/ against whom and why?) Ethics and matters of care in quantification, algorithms and big data (responsible quantification, use of quantitative evidence in policy making; post-normal perspectives on algorithms, big data, machine learning and AI) Tools and practices in knowledge quality assessment and extended peer communities (deliberation support tools for informed multi actor dialogues; which actors and how? Empowering marginalized actors) Post-normal literacy (building societal resilience to sloppy science, conspiracy theories, and post-truth phenomena; best practices for open science, quality assurance of extended facts) Puzzling value landscapes (responsibility, dignity, integrity and other values) PNS in the making of futures (anticipation, path dependency, defending humanity)

Clearly, the issue of trust has become an outstanding issue, one that is paramount in the era of ‘post-truth’ when Trump’s administration has encouraged a scepticism against science that some critics view as anti-science and a flagrant disregard for the concept of truth (Peters et al., 2018).8 These conferences’ framings are significant for the ways they inform us of the concerns of practicing scientists in an era where science is up against ‘alternative facts’ and open to gross political interference and interpretation. It is these concerns that motivate Nick Enfield (2017)9 writing in The Guardian to suggest: While we might debate the wisdom of trusting political insiders, the suspicion of specialists and experts has begun to contaminate a much bigger ecology of knowledge and practice in our society. The result is posttruth discourse. In our new normal, experts are dismissed, alternative facts are (sometimes flagrantly) offered, and public figures can offer opinions on pretty much anything. Enfield documents the pro-truth countermovement with over 600 cities participating in the global March for Science on Earth Day in April 2017 with thousands signing the pro-truth pledge to share, honour and encourage truth.10 The term ‘post-normal science’ requires some background. Funtowicz and Ravetz (2003) make the statement that in the policy world of risk and environment ‘a new type of science—“post-normal”—is emerging’. They go on to make the comparison with traditional problem-solving science by reference to ‘systems uncertainties and decision stakes’:

140  Michael A. Peters and Tina Besley Post-normal science is appropriate when either attribute is high; then the traditional methodologies are ineffective. In those circumstances, the quality assurance of scientific inputs to the policy process requires an ‘extended peer community’, consisting of all those with a stake in the dialogue on the issue. Post-normal science can provide a path to the democratization of science, and also a response to the current tendencies to post-modernity (p. 739). As Karpińska (2018) comments, everything is now post-normal and the definition that Funtowicz and Ravetz gave almost 30 years ago ‘is reaching the peak of its popularity’. Post-normal science as they proposed it was the scientific model on how to deal with policy-driven issues like global warming bringing together members of the science and policy communities and combining democratic consensus machinery with the pursuit of science: ‘Funtowicz and Ravetz try to overtake these conflicts by reformulating the aim of knowledge from the truth to the quality of the epistemic process. They suggest expanding the research community to extended peer communities.’ In exploring the origin of the concept, she cites Funtowicz and Ravetz’s early paper (1992): One way forward would be to realize that the technological system that has created the problems cannot be simply adapted for achieving their solution. Then there would need to be a radical transformation of the science-based technology that is deployed on such global problems; we have described this as post-normal science. (Funtowicz & Ravetz, 1992, p. 972) The situation for PNS has become more difficult with the rise of ‘post-truth politics’ as Rose (2018) indicates in his article ‘Avoiding a Post-truth World: Embracing Post-normal Conservation’. He suggests that conservation science has always been post-normal and he encourages scientists to develop co-productive relationships with decision makers to harness narratives to engage with people on a personal level. He analyses the rise of post-truth politics as follows: In the aftermath of unexpected election results in the UK and USA, and threats to pull out of international environmental agreements, the science community has struggled with a decision-making environment that seems to undervalue the importance of scientific evidence. It has been claimed that selective, or biased, use of evidence may be enhanced by the rise of nationalistic governments across the globe (Ross & Jones, 2016), who put forward arguments in favour of their own citizens, even in the face of the global science-based accords such as the Paris Climate Change Agreement (Tollefson et al., 2016). According to some, decisions about conservation and the environment can also be post-truth (Begon, 2017) as policy-makers selectively use, or ignore, scientific evidence to support political arguments (p. 518).

Citizen science and post-normal science  141 In part, these arguments analysing the increasing politicized environment of conservation science underlies the collection Sustainability Science: Key Issues edited by Ariane König and Jerome Ravetz as a textbook, as the blurb says, of ‘how one might actively design, engage in, and guide collaborative processes for transforming human-environment-technology interactions, whilst embracing complexity, contingency, uncertainties, and contradictions emerging from diverse values and world views.’11 In ‘Flowers of resistance: Citizen science, ecological democracy and the transgressive education paradigm’, an orienting chapter by Arjen E. J. Wals and myself, we outline the concept of ecological democracy and the contribution of citizen science to the ‘transgressive educational paradigm’ (Wals & Peters, 2018). The book is divided into three parts: ‘Embracing complexity and alternative futures: Conceptual tools and methods’; ‘What might transformations look like? Sectoral challenges and interdependence’; and, ‘Tracking, steering and judging transformation’. König in her introductory essay explains ‘Sustainability as a transformative social learning process’.12 In our chapter we noted the conceptual and historical link between citizen science and ecological democracy: From its development in the 1980s and 1990s Green Political Theory (GPT) or ecopolitics founded on the work of Dryzek (1987), Eckersley (1992), Plumwood (1993) and Dobson (1980), participatory democracy has been viewed as a central pillar and key value, often associated with descriptions of decentralization, grassroots political decision-making and citizen participation, ‘strong democracy’ (Barber, 1997) and increasingly with conceptions of deliberative democracy. The value of participatory or grassroots democracy also seemed to gel with a new ecological awareness, non-violence and the concern for social justice. Green politics favoured participatory and more recently deliberative democracy because it provided a model for open debate, direct citizen involvement and emphasized grassroots action over electoral politics. Permitted the use of data controlled by governments and large corporations, we might be entering a new era characterized by the cooperation and coordination of amateur and professional scientists and driven by ‘big data’. Enhanced computing and computation power along with big and linked data demonstrate a promising mix of local and global, humans and machines, humans and nature in the transgressive pedagogical paradigm that moves beyond the old industrial scientific model of applied science based on the expert specialist. This relatively new transformative approach can be traced back to a post-normal science perspective (Ravetz, 2004) based on a set of principles: 1. encouragement of citizens’ involvement in science: citizen science is a useful model for co-produced public good science that recognises that citizens need to have both ‘voice’ and agency in science matters, especially

142  Michael A. Peters and Tina Besley as it effects local environment, and increases the democratisation of science and reduces the cultural distance between the expert and the citizen furthering the aim of science communication of complex policy issues; 2. recognition and support for multiple ways of knowing and different types of knowledge: indigenous knowledge based on long term stewardship and cultural rights of environment, include multiple perspectives that involve spiritual values and ‘environmental being as a way of life’; ‘local knowledge’ based on long term experience also has a strong role to play in on-going environmental assessment; 3. improving sustainability requires social learning and deliberation between the multiple stakeholders/actors affected environmental failure (scientists being one of many); and development of ‘sensitive’ peer review systems that represent ‘other’ stakeholders; 4. requires a more activist kind of learning that not only uses standard methodologies to map and monitor the local environment and generate accurate data by scientifically accepted methods but also takes concerted action as a form of collective responsibility in line with local council and government objectives. The European Citizen Science Association (ECSA) have promoted high quality citizen science through sharing existing examples of good practice and developing practitioner guides to support the citizen science practitioner community to develop partnerships, share resources and experiences, and build capacity within the sector.13 ECSA also offered ten principles adopted and modified by the Australian CSA: 10 Principles of Citizen Science 1. Citizen science projects actively involve citizens in scientific endeavour that generates new knowledge or understanding. 2. Citizen science projects have a genuine science outcome. 3. Citizen science provides benefits to both science and society. 4. Citizen scientists may participate in various stages of the scientific process. 5. Citizen scientists receive feedback from the project. 6. Citizen science, as with all forms of scientific inquiry, has limitations and biases that should be considered and controlled for. 7. Where possible and suitable, project data and meta-data from citizen science projects are made publicly available and results are published in an open access format. 8. Citizen scientists are suitably acknowledged by projects. 9. Citizen science programs offer a range of benefits and outcomes which should be acknowledged and considered in project evaluation. 10. The leaders of citizen science projects take into consideration legal and ethical considerations of the project. (https://citizenscience.org. au/10-principles-of-citizen-science/)

Citizen science and post-normal science  143 This is a little too prescriptive, perhaps, and we ought not to institutionalise or ossify the movement so that it prevents organic change within the movement. Citizen science needs to acknowledge its philosophical origins in open science and pragmatic models based on the logic of community of inquiry after Dewey and Peirce. Watson and Floridi (2018) provide a useful analysis of Zooniverse, the world’s largest citizen science web portal showing ‘how information and communication technologies enhance the reliability, scalability, and connectivity of crowdsourced e-research, giving online citizen science projects powerful epistemic advantages over more traditional modes of scientific investigation’. In their introduction, they write (Watson & Floridi, 2018): Experts and amateurs have been collaborating on so-called ‘citizen science’ projects for more than a century (Silvertown, 2009). Traditionally, such projects relied upon volunteers to participate in data collection. In more recent years, the spread of information and communication technologies (ICTs) has allowed users to become increasingly involved in data analysis. Early online citizen science initiatives made use of participants’ spare processing power to create distributed computing networks to run simulations or perform other complex functions (Anderson, Cobb, Korpela, Lebofsky, & Werthimer, 2002). The latest wave of citizen science projects has replaced this passive software approach with interactive web platforms designed to maximise user engagement. Utilising fairly simple tools provided by well-designed websites, amateurs have helped model complex protein structures (Khatib et al., 2011a, 2011b), map the neural circuitry of the mammalian retina (Kim et al., 2014), and discover new astronomical objects (Cardamone et al., 2009; Lintott et al., 2009). As of December 2015, citizen science project aggregator SciStarter links to over a thousand active projects (SciStarter, 2015). Watson and Floridi (2018) talk of ‘crowdsourced e-research’ and seek the philosophical implications of this new brand. In their study of Zooniverse, they produce a Diagram of sociotechnical knowledge production in Zooniverse, noting ‘how technology permeates every step in the knowledge production chain.’ They conclude: We cannot be certain just what scientific developments the future holds in store, but we can be confident that many of our next great discoveries will be made thanks to some complex partnership of minds and machines. Whether or not such results are the product of crowdsourcing, thorough investigation of this strange and remarkable methodology sheds new light on the varied modes of human knowledge. Clearly the time has come to endorse a sociotechnical turn in the philosophy of science that combines insights from statistics and logic to analyse the latest developments in scientific research (p. 760).

144  Michael A. Peters and Tina Besley While more attention needs to be paid to the ‘sociotechnical turn’ it is important to note that there is a conception of citizen science that is based on a dual accountability relationship of science to democracy: (i) opening up science policy processes and promoting a responsiveness of science to the needs of citizens, while at the same time (ii) engaging citizens in communication about science and tutoring them in large-scale research projects through virtual education and collaborative participation in scientific research projects. There is a related philosophical literature that discusses both democracy as the use of social intelligence to solve problems of practical interest, and the epistemic powers of democratic institutions, that has a long history in pragmatism going back at least to Dewey. There is a great deal of variety in epistemic approaches to democracy but that they are all derived from the value of free public discourse that epistemologically guides political practice (Estlund, 2008). For example, in Peirce’s account of the logic of the ‘community of inquiry’, scientific inquiry is taken to be justified not because it is infallible but because it is self-correcting. For Peirce, the idea of truth is based on consensus reached in the long term by a community of inquirers. Peer production and crowdsourcing as modalities of collective intelligence are exemplified in the interactions between online participants who share and self-organize activities in decentralized ways that are often not dominated by the profit motive. They can be seen to embody Peirce’s ideals. Indeed, peer production has come about through the development of distributed and decentralized organizational forms that have not required financial incentives of markets or coercive obligations of bureaucracies and as such escape the distortions of the market, one of its major contributions in an age of sponsored corporate research. Peer production can be thought of as social innovation that has arisen as a result of internet-based networked systems and online platforms that broaden, deepen and extend the concept of ‘peer’ to include all ‘stakeholders’ in policy processes, including local citizens directly or indirectly affected by decisions. Increasingly, citizens will become active in science projects (some more than others) and also active in the science policy processes and its evaluation through the technology-mediated co-production of social goods (Peters & Heraud, 2015).

Notes 1 See Society for the Social Studies of Science and scholarly resources that constitute the field, http://www.4sonline.org/resources/journals 2 https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/Section%20301%20FINAL.PDF 3 Convergence Research at NSF, https://www.nsf.gov/od/oia/convergence/ index.jsp; The Convergence Revolution http://www.convergencerevolution. net/ 4 https://www.coalition-s.org/ 5 Peters (2018); The Challenges of Technological Unemployment and the Future of Digital Society, keynote at Cultivation of Core Competencies in a Changing Technological Society’, INEI 2018 Symposium, November 20-22 Beijing Norma University, The 11th International Network of Educational Institutes (INEI) Annual Symposium.

Citizen science and post-normal science  145 6 https://www.pmcsa.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/18-04-06-Knowledge-brokerage-in-an-age-of-rapid-technological-change.pdf 7 ‘This fourth PNS symposium [PNS1 in Bergen, NO, PNS2 in Ispra, IT (summarized in a recent special issue of Futures) and PNS3 in Tübingen, DE (video presentations available here)] provides a platform to discuss and explore the guidance that post-normal science can offer in finding a way out of the present crisis in and around science. 8 The third PNS conference was devoted to issues of trust in a post-truth world: ‘“Post-truth” and a crisis of trust? Perspectives from post-normal science and extended citizen participation. This third PNS Symposium intends to provide a space for discussing the current predicament of declining trust, increasing complexity and uncertainty in the science-society interfaces by deploying a variety of critical framings including, but not limited to, those inspired by post-normal science.’ It continues: ‘Discussions of recent political events – most notably the presidential election in the United States and the referendum in the United Kingdom to (Br)exit the European Union – frequently refer to ideas of “posttruth”, “post-evidence” or “post-factual” politics. In its ambiguity, the idea of a “post-truth” age manifests a crisis of trust in both democratic and scientific institutions. At the same time, it implies the untenable assumption that politics and policies were once, and should be again, based on a unique truth provided by science (comprising the whole spectrum of natural and social sciences, and humanities). Since the early 1990s, the post- normal science approach has been applied to issues in the science-society interfaces characterised by uncertainty and complexity, including a plurality of legitimate perspectives. These cases have been described in terms of uncertain facts, high stakes, disputed values and urgent decisions. In light of this, the conception of science as a privileged “act-provider” for governance seems increasingly unsatisfying and problematic’, https://www. uib.no/svt/109437/%E2%80%98post-truth%E2%80%99-and-crisis-trust 9 h t t p s : / / w w w. t h e g u a r d i a n . c o m / c o m m e n t i s f r e e / 2 0 1 7 / n o v / 1 7 / were-in-a-post-truth-world-with-eroding-trust-and-accountability-it-cant-end-well 10 https://www.protruthpledge.org/ 11 https://www.routledge.com/Sustainability-Science-Key-Issues-1st-Edition/ Konig-Ravetz/p/book/9781138659285 12 König provides a useful account of Sustainability Science at https://www.routledgetextbooks.com/textbooks/sustainability/sustainability_science.php 13 https://ecsa.citizen-science.net/taxonomy/term/205

References Anderson, D. P., Cobb, J., Korpela, E., Lebofsky, M., & Werthimer, D. (2002). SETI@home: An experiment in public-resource computing. Communications of the ACM, 45, 56–61. Bainbridge, W. S. (2016). Dimensions of research. In: W. S. Bainbridge & M. C. Roco (Eds.). Handbook of science and technology convergence (pp. 125–138). Berlin: Springer. Bainbridge, W. S. & Roco, M. C. (Eds.). (2006). Progress in convergence: Technologies for human wellbeing. New York: New York Academy of Sciences. Bainbridge, W. S., & Roco, M. C. (2016). Science and technology convergence: With emphasis for nanotechnology-inspired convergence. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 18, 211. Barber, B. (1997). Strong democracy participatory politics for a new age. Berkeley: University of California Press. Begon, M. (2017). Mike Begon: Winning public arguments as ecologists: Time for a new doctrine? Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 32, 394–396.

146  Michael A. Peters and Tina Besley Brynjolfsson, E., & McFee, A. (2014). The second machine age: Work, progress, and prosperity in a time of brilliant technologies. New York: W. W. Norton & Company. Cardamone, C., Schawinski, K., Sarzi, M., Bamford, S. P., Bennert, N., Urry, C. M., … VandenBerg, J. (2009). Galaxy Zoo green peas: Discovery of a class of compact extremely star-forming galaxies. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 399, 1191–1205. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15383.x Collins, H. M., & Evans, R. J. 2010. The third wave of science studies: studies of expertise and experience. In: D. Sergio, & P. Juhno (Eds.), Themes in transdisciplinary research (pp. 299–363). Belo Horizonte: IEAT. Dobson, A. (1980). Green politicial thought (4th edn., 2007), London & New York: Routledge. Dryzek, J. S. (1987). Rational ecology: environment and political economy. Oxford: Blackwell. Eckersley, R. (1992). Environmentalism and political theory: Toward an ecocentric approach. New York: State University of New York Press. Enfield, N. (2017). We're in a post-truth world with eroding trust and accountability. It can't end well. The Guardian, November 16. Estlund, D. (2008). Introduction: Epistemic approaches to democracy. Episteme: A Journal of Social Epistemology, 5, 1–4. doi:10.3366/E1742360008000191 Funtowicz, S. O., & Ravetz, J. R. (1992). The good, the true and the post-modern. Futures, 24, 963–976. doi:10.1016/ 0016-3287(92)90131-X. Funtowicz, S. O., & Ravetz, J. R. (2003). Post-normal science. In online encyclopaedia of ecological economics, edited by International Society for Ecological Economics Retrieved from http://isecoeco.org/pdf/pstnormsc.pdf Gluckfie.ld, P. (2018). Knowledge brokerage in an age of rapid technological change. Speech at Public Communication of Science and Technology Conference held in Dunedin, NZ, 3-6 April, 18-04-06-Knowledge-brokerage-in-an-age-of-rapidtechnological-change.pdf (pmcsa.org.nz). Halkay, M. (2015). Citizen science and policy: A European perspective. Retrieved from https://www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/Citizen_Science_Policy_ European_Perspective_Haklay.pdf Heidegger, M. (1977). The question concerning technology. In D. F. Krell (Ed.), Basic writings. New York: Harper & Row. Retrieved from https://www.nsf.gov/ crssprgm/nano/reports/MCR_16-0714_Convergence%20Science_19p.pdf Henning, K. (2013). Recommendations for implementing the Strategic Initiative Industrie 4.0. Washington, DC: National Academy of Science and Engineering. Karpińska, A. (2018). Post-normal science. The escape of science: From truth to quality? Social Epistemology, 32, 338–350. doi:10.1080/02691728.2018.1531157 Khatib, F., Cooper, S., Tyka, M. D., Xu, K., Makedon, I., Baker, D., Popovic, Z., … Foldit Players. (2011a). Algorithm discovery by protein folding game players. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 108(47), 18949–18953. Khatib, F., DiMaio, F., Foldit Contenders Group, Foldit Void Crushers Group, Cooper, S., Kazmierczyk, M., Gilski, M., … Baker, D. (2011b). Crystal structure of a monomeric retroviral protease solved by protein folding game players. Nature Structural and Molecular Biology, 18(10), 1175–1177. Kim, J. S., Greene, M. J., Zlateski, A., Lee, K., Richardson, M., Turaga, S. C., … Purcaro, M. (2014). Space-time wiring specificity supports direction selectivity in the retina. Nature, 509(7500), 331–336.

Citizen science and post-normal science  147 Kuhn, T. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press (1970, 2nd edition, with postscript). Lintott, C. J., Schawinski, K., Keel, W., van Arkel, H., Bennert, N., Edmondson, E., … Vandenberg, J. (2009). Galaxy Zoo: ‘Hanny’s Voorwerp’, a quasar light echo? Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 399, 129–140. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15299.x Mladenović, B. (2017). Kuhn’s legacy: Epistemology, metaphilosophy, and pragmatism. New York: Columbia University Press. Peters, M. A. (2013). Education, science and knowledge capitalism: Creativity and the promise of openness. New York: Peter Lang. Peters, M. A. (2014). Openness and the intellectual commons. Retrieved from https:// www.tandfonline.com/toc/rrer20/current (Vol. 1, Issue 1), https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/23265507.2014.984975?needAccesstrue Peters, M. A. (2018). Trade wars, technology transfer, and the future Chinese techno-state. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 1. doi:10.1080/00131857.2018.15 46109 Peters, M. A., & Britez, R. (Eds.). (2008). Open education and education for openness. Rotterdam & Taipei: Sense Publishers. Retrieved from https://www.sensepublishers.com/media/729-open-education-and-education-for-openness.pdf Peters, M. A., & Heraud, R. (2015). Toward a political theory of social innovation: Collective intelligence and the co-creation of social goods. Journal of Self Governance and Management Economics, 3, 7–23. Peters, M. A., & Roberts, P. (2012). Virtues of openness: Education, science, and scholarship in the digital age. Boulder: Paradigm Publishers. Peters, M. A., & Peter, R., Rider, S., Hyvönen, M., Besley, T. (Eds.). (2018). Posttruth, fake news: Viral modernity & higher education. Singapore: Springer Nature. Plumwood, V. (1993). Feminism and the mastery of nature. London: Routledge. Ravetz, J. (2004). The post-normal science of precaution. Futures, 36, 347–357. Ross, A., & Jones, R. (2016). Connections and tensions between nationalist and sustainability discourses in the Scottish legislative process. Journal of Law and Society, 43, 228–256. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6478.2016.00750.x Rose, D. C. (2018). Avoiding a post-truth world: Embracing post-normal conservation. Conservation & Society, 16, 518–524. Silvertown, J. (2009). A new dawn for citizen science. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 24, 467–471. The European Commission (2014). Green Paper on Citizen Science, Citizen Science for Europe: Towards a better society of empowered citizens and enhanced research. Retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/news/ green-paper-citizen-science-europe-towards-society-empowered-citizens-and-enhanced-research Tollefson, J., Morello, L., & Reardon, S. (2016). Donald Trump’s US election win stuns scientists. Nature doi:10.1038/nature.2016.20952 Wals, A. E. J., & Peters, M. A. (2018). Flowers of resistance: Citizen science, ecological democracy and the transgressive education paradigm. In Konnig, A., & Ravetz, J. (Eds.), Sustainability science. London, Routledge. Watson, D., & Floridi, L. (2018). Crowdsourced science: sociotechnical epistemology in the e-research paradigm. Synthese, 195, 741. Retrieved from doi:10.1007/ s11229-016-1238-2

9 Open science, philosophy and peer review Michael A. Peters

Open science is a term that is being used in the literature to designate a form of science based on open-source models or that utilizes principles of open access, open archiving and open publishing to promote scientific communication. Open science increasingly also refers to open governance and more democratized engagement and control of science by scientists and other users and stakeholders. Sometimes other terms are used to refer to the same or similar conceptions of science, such as wiki science or Science 2.0, which focus on ‘technologies of openness’ that promote not only more effective forms of scientific communication but also increasingly the deep sharing of large databases (linked data) and cloud computing. Openness is also an essential aspect of the ethics of science. Scientists, by virtue of their professional status and membership of scientific communities, are bound by expectations to openly share their work and to make public their methods and procedures as much as the data or results. Perhaps most importantly, scientists should be open to criticism and participate in the review of scientific work. David Resnik (1998, p. 58), in The ethics of science, emphasizes this aspect when he writes: ‘Science’s peer review depends on openness. Openness prevents science from becoming dogmatic, uncritical and biased’. The virtues of open science in so far as it draws on commons-based peer production is increasingly seen as a mode or system of production structured by large-scale collaboration, driven by motives other than profit. In this regard, Commons-based peer production is a socio-economic system of production that is emerging in the digitally networked environment. Facilitated by the technical infrastructure of the Internet, the hallmark of this socio-technical system is collaboration among large groups of individuals, sometimes in the order of tens or even hundreds of thousands, who cooperate effectively to provide information, knowledge or cultural goods without relying on either market pricing or managerial hierarchies to coordinate their common enterprise. While there are many practical reasons to try to understand a novel system of production that has produced some of the finest software, the fastest supercomputer and

Open science, philosophy and peer review  149 some of the best web-based directories and news sites, here we focus on the ethical, rather than the functional dimension. What does it mean in ethical terms that many individuals can find themselves cooperating productively with strangers and acquaintances on a scope never before seen? (Benkler & Nissenbaum, 2006, p. 394) Yet the system of peer review, while the core practice of science, is also open to abuse, and there are many scholars questioning its purpose: ‘Is it a filter, a distribution system, or a quality-control process?’ (Wagner, 2008). Peer review evolved from a set of practices in the eighteenth century, especially in medicine. It was not associated with the first issues of the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, one of the first journals established in 1665, although peer review has a history in early Arabic scientific studies of medicine, where physicians were required to take duplicate patient notes. It was really only in the twentieth century that peer review, as the process of subjecting scholarly work to the scrutiny of one’s peers, became the institutional cornerstone of the scientific system and its ethical basis, although the process has come in for increasing criticism. Expert and anonymous peer review has been open to allegations of bias and suppression and criticized for its slowness, which has led some to advocate dynamic and open peer review and open peer commentary.1 Horace Judson (1994, p. 92) argues that in conjunction with the transition from exponential growth of the sciences to a steady state, and the appearance and development of electronic publishing and electronic collaboration, we are witnessing the structural transformation of science based on ‘declining standards and the growing, built-in tendency toward corruption of the peer-review and refereeing processes’. He also acknowledges that the peer-review and refereeing systems that have evolved are ‘social constructs of recent date’. Open peer review indicates that the nature of electronic media of scientific communication may also offer some extension to the peer-review system. The first journals employing these more open systems began to appear in the 2000s. While peer review is taken as the principal mechanism that enshrines the value of community self-evaluation (‘criticism’ in the Kantian sense) and offers the means for ‘quality improvement’ (in today’s language) that constitutes the essential openness of scientific communities, the ideal and process are not immune to change, criticism and revision. In some ways, the development of the peer-review system echoes the history of science and the movement from the ‘small science’ era of Boyle’s ‘invisible college’ of the seventeenth century, through the professionalization of science in the eighteenth century, its disciplinary formations in the nineteenth century and the scientific nationalism of the twentieth century, concluding with the ‘big science’ of the late twentieth century (Wagner, 2007). Today, we face another major historical periodization or transition with the rise of global and open science (Peters, 2006) that involves the possible end of science superpowers (Hollingsworth, Muller, & Hollingsworth, 2008) and the beginning of a more articulated open system based on open-source models of intellectual property and large-scale international collaboration.

150  Michael A. Peters Increasingly, international scientific organizations stress open science as an efficient means of addressing scientific problems of global significance that spill across borders. Thus, Paul A. David, writing on ‘The economic logic of “open science”’, indicates: ‘Open science’ institutions provide an alternative to the intellectual property approach to dealing with difficult problems in the allocation of resources for the production and distribution of information. As a mode of generating reliable knowledge, ‘open science’ depends upon a specific nonmarket reward system to solve a number of resource allocation problems that have their origins in the particular characteristics of information as an economic good … [While ‘the collegiate reputational reward system’ creates conflicts over cooperation] open science is properly regarded as uniquely well suited to the goal of maximizing the rate of growth of the stock of reliable knowledge. (David, 2003, Summary) Five major forces are structuring the emergent science system in the twenty-first century, all pointing towards a new openness for science built upon the complexity and dynamism of open systems communications and processes and technologies that enable deep sharing: networks, emergence, circulation, stickiness (place) and distribution (virtual) (Wagner, 2007). The emergence of Science 2.0 or open science has been noted by M. Mitchell Waldrop, writing for Scientific American, where he makes the following points: • Science 2.0 generally refers to new practices of scientists who post raw experimental results, nascent theories, claims of discovery and draft papers on the Web for others to see and comment on. • Proponents say these ‘open access’ practices make scientific progress more collaborative and therefore more productive. • Critics say scientists who put preliminary findings online risk having others copy or exploit the work to gain credit or even patents. • Despite pros and cons, Science 2.0 sites are beginning to proliferate; one notable example is the OpenWetWare project started by biological engineers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. (Waldrop, 2008; http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=science-2-point0-great-new-tool-or-great-risk) As the new Web 2.0 technologies develop, science can use and modify these tools directly; for example, biological research has developed with OpenWetWare, which is a wiki where researchers share expertise, information and ideas in biological science and engineering. Science 2.0 is based on the expectation that these new technologies will change how scientists communicate their work and the way in which research is done. Web 2.0, in relation to Open Access publishing, promotes live publishing, removes price barriers

Open science, philosophy and peer review  151 to communication, improves collaboration between authors, researchers, readers and publishers, and promotes a paradigm change in approach and openness (Nikam & Rajendra Babu, 2009).2 The Organizing Committee of the International Symposium on Science 2.0 and Expansion of Science (S2ES 2010), in its recent call for papers, prefaced its remarks in the following way: The term Science 2.0 has been used with different but related meanings. It is usually related to new technologies-enabled scientific activities, specifically Web 2.0 [Shneiderman, 2008], but it has also been related to the expansion of science by means of new concepts and theories (Second Order Cybernetics [Umpleby, 1991, 2006, 2009], and the Systems Approach), or new mode of producing knowledge [Gibbons et al., 1994]. (Retrieved from http://www.iiis2012.org/wmsci/website/default. asp?vc=37, italics in the original) In 2009, I presented a paper entitled ‘On the philosophy of open science’ at the inaugural Science in Society conference at the University of Cambridge, in which I maintained that open science rests on seven propositions (Peters, 2009).3 I stated them baldly without justification or argument and I considered them, if you will, ‘observations’ or working hypotheses to be confirmed (or falsified). Each of these propositions has a complex and contested history in philosophy and science, and the aim of the Cambridge presentation was to scope the philosophy of open science rather than to defend the seven propositions. (1) Openness to ‘experience’: this might be given a Baconian, inductive and empiricist reading with an accent on the pragmatics of the experiment (Peltonen, 1996). (2) Openness to criticism: an extension and naturalization of the Kantian account of Reason given in the first critique which provided the tools for rational self-critique. (3) Openness to interpretation: historically connected to self-expression, freedom of expression, rights to free speech and the other academic freedoms on which the university is built. (4) Openness to the Other: an ethical stance that in the present technopolitical era can be construed in terms of institutionalized peer production, free sharing of knowledge and collaboration to create the intellectual commons. (5) Open science communications technologies: this historically contingent feature, itself an episode in the history of modern science, refers to the development of open-source and open-access models of science based on the logic of distributed knowledge systems and an ethic of sharing, peer review, cooperation and collaboration. (6) Openness = freedom: this specifically links to items 3 and 5 above, and relates to use, reuse and modification of data and information, as the basis for creativity (the Creative Commons argument) and innovation.

152  Michael A. Peters (7) Open science governance: I would like to give this feature a radical Republican interpretation (after Polyani’s [1962] ‘the republic of science’) based on peer review extended to all levels of the professoriate and also to users, including the public. These philosophical principles are not new. They developed over time to form the composite core of a responsible and public science in the service of humanity. It is the age of open science. The Royal Society’s (2012) recent report Science as an open enterprise4 and late embrace of openness focuses on how openness defines the practice of science, provides the drivers for change, emphasizes new ways of doing science based on computational and communications technologies and encourages a greater communication with citizens allowing better scrutiny of evidence that underpins scientific work but also reclaiming something of the public purpose of science from the hands of experts. Increasingly open science defines the future of science in the networked era and the nature of peer review.

Notes 1 Open peer review (OPR) began trial in 1996 when a number of journals, including the Journal of Interactive Media in Education, began experimenting with OPR. This was followed by PLoS Medicine, published by the Public Library of Science and Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics. Nature launched its own experiment in 2006 with mixed success. Philica, an online journal launched in 2006, publishes all articles immediately, which are then reviewed after publication by reviewers on a voluntary basis. Biology Direct is another journal that experiments with OPR as an alternative to traditional blind peer review. Open peer commentary is another innovation in the review process that promotes expert commentaries on published articles. 2 See the following science blogs for a discussion of the advantages and current difficulties facing Science 2.0: http://www.spreadingscience.com/our-approach/whatis-science-20/ and http://openwetware.org/wiki/Science_2.0/Brainstorming 3 See http://science-society.com/ 4 See http://royalsociety.org/policy/projects/science-public-enterprise/report/

References Benkler, Y., & Nissenbaum, H. (2006). Commons-based peer production and virtue. Journal of Political Philosophy, 14, 394–419. David, P. A. (2003). The economic logic of ‘open science’ and the balance between private property rights and the public domain in scientific data and information: A primer. SIEPR Discussion Paper No. 02–30. Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P., & Trow, M. (1994). The new production of knowledge: The dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. London: Sage. Hollingsworth, J. R., Muller, K. H., & Hollingsworth, E. J. (2008). End of science superpowers? Nature, 454, 412–413. Retrieved from http://www.nature.com/ nature/peerreview/debate/nature04990.html Judson, H. (1994). Structural transformations of the sciences and the end of peer review. JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association, 272(2), 92–94. doi: 10.1001/jama.272.2.92.PMID 8015139

Open science, philosophy and peer review  153 Nikam, K., & Rajendra Babu, H. (2009). Moving from Script to Science 2.0 for scholarly communication. Webology 6(1). Retrieved from http://www.webology. ir/2009/v6n1/a68.html Peltonen, M. (1996). Introduction. In M. Peltonen (ed.), The Cambridge companion to Bacon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Peters, M.A. (2006). The rise of global science and the emerging political economy of international research collaborations. The European University: Between Governance, Discipline and Network. European Journal of Education, 41, 225–244. Peters, M. A. (2009). On the philosophy of open science. International Journal of Science in Society, 1, 171–198. Polyani, M. (1962). The republic of science: its political and economic theory. Minerva, 1, 54–74. Retrieved from http://www.missouriwestern.edu/orgs/ polanyi/mp-repsc.htm Resnik, D. B. (1998). The ethics of science. London: Routledge. Wagner, C. S. (2007). The new invisible college: Science for development. PowerPoint presentation. Retrieved September 3, 2009, from http://dev.scimaps.org/static/ docs/090617-meeting/ppt/2009-wagner-nsf-jsmfinvisible-college.pdf. Wagner, C. S. (2008). The new invisible college: Science for development, with a foreword by Francis Fukuyama. Washington, DC: Brookings Institute. Waldrop, M. M. (2008). Science 2.0: Is open access science the future? Scientific American, 298 (April 27), 68–73. Retrieved from http://www.scientificamerican. com/article.cfm?id=science-2-point-0

10 Is peer review in academic publishing still working? Liz Jackson, Michael A. Peters, Leon Benade, Nesta Devine, Sonja Arndt, Daniella Forster, Andrew Gibbons, Elizabeth Grierson, Petar Jandrić, George Lăzăroiu, Kirsten Locke, Ramona Mihăilă, Georgina Stewart, Marek Tesar, Peter Roberts and Jānis (John) Ozoliņš Introduction Peer review occupies a central position in academic publishing yet is seldom acknowledged publicly as a normal part of academic work. In the age of digital reason, it has also become increasingly important for less formal, non-academic ‘co-creation and co-production of knowledge, of digital goods in general, and of social democratic processes’ (Peters & Jandrić, 2017). Perhaps unsurprisingly, peer review has become one of the most mysterious and contentious academic practices, causing anguish for many academics—both reviewers and those whose work is reviewed—and sometimes more distress than is necessary. Social and academic media feature a steady parade of articles, blogs, cartoons and memes, telling apocryphal tales of the horrors of peer review. This paper, produced by the Editors Collective, examines the past and future of peer review of academic publishing. The first sections consider how it has been defined and practised in changing academic contexts, and its educational significance in the development of scholarship. The paper then explores major historical and contemporary issues around identity, diversity, anonymity, and the review process, and the related power of editors versus reviewers in academic publishing. Finally, the paper discusses the case of new scholars as reviewers engaging in neoliberal labour, before concluding with some brief recommendations based on our analysis.

Conceptualising peer review: past and future Descriptions and analyses of peer review can be found in two distinct bodies of research: traditional academic research, and insights into logic of peer production developed outside academic settings. Looking at academic research, Fitzpatrick notes: Very little investigation of the historical development of peer review has been done, and the few explorations that do attempt to present some sense of the system’s history largely cite the same handful of brief texts.

Is peer review in academic publishing still working?  155 Moreover, nearly all of the texts exploring the history of peer review focus on the natural and social sciences, and almost none mention peer review in scholarly book publishing. (2011, p. 20) Non-academic studies are also far from definitive, as they tend to focus on various forms of ‘crowd wisdom’ and neglect deeper epistemic issues (Jandrić, 2017). In spite of shortcomings in both traditions, it is at the intersections of academic and non-academic settings that we need to build a relevant history of peer review. Most authors start the discussion about peer review from the first scientific journals such as Henry Oldenburg’s Philosophical Transactions, which began publishing in 1776. As the Editors Collective (Peters, Besley, Jandrić, & Bajić, 2016a) notes, however, It could be argued that the concept of peer review is considerably older than previously thought and that it has its origins in the idea and process of trial by a jury of one’s peers. If this connection is historically sound then the notion dates back to fifth Century BCE Ancient Greece. … In the modern context, the practice apparently evolved from the Germanic tribes and Vikings where the custom was for good men to judge alleged crimes and criminals. In particular, the Vikings used the notion that free men in the court could play a central role. The mediaeval custom was then developed during the reign of Henry II in the twelfth century as a basis for local government that depended on jurors’ firsthand knowledge, the forerunner of today’s ‘expert knowledge,’ and original investigation beyond the realm of hearsay and rumour. Magna Carta contains the provision and guarantee that no free man may suffer punishment without ‘the lawful judgement of his peers.’ Later, the system was reformed with the passing of the Bill for Better Regulation of Juries in 1730. Peer review clearly predates the production of scholarly journals. It was at the heart of eighteenth-century research practices, such as those of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, who had a system similar to that of Philosophical Transactions in 1731. Fitzpatrick (2011) also notes that while peer review has its origins in state censorship, ‘it was intended to augment the authority of a journal’s editor rather than assure the quality of a journal’s products.’ Formalised peer review, she claims, did not become a part of scholarly publishing until the mid-twentieth century, when medical journals used outside reviewers to vet manuscripts. However, Biagioli shows that ‘if we take a longue durée perspective, the history of peer review marks a series of changes in the meaning of both “peer” and “review”—changes bordering on role reversals’ (2002, p. 32). Contemporary mainstream understanding of peer review stabilised only after strong proliferation of scientific output after World War II (Chapelle, 2014).

156  Liz Jackson et al At the beginning of the 21st century, traditional science and peer review have embarked on a new set of interconnected transformations. Commodification of science and research has transformed traditional academic publishers into global corporations, and constant mergers have caused significant agglomeration bordering oligopoly—in 2015, five for-profit publishers (Elsevier, Sage, Springer, Taylor & Francis and Wiley-Blackwell) owned more than half of the world’s databases of academic material (Barok et al., 2015). Digital transformations have also impacted the mechanics of peer review. Paper mail has given way to e-mail; now e-mail is being increasingly pushed out of business by online and cloud-based services. Peer review can be understood today as ‘the principle through which science regulates itself through a series of rational judgments and decisions. In this incarnation, peer review is deployed as a powerful discursive tool for the legitimation of science and expertise’ (Biagioli, 2002, p. 35). In spite of huge increase in workload, peer review is by and large understood as public service although it serves a private market. While reviewers do not get paid for their highly specialised work, corporate publishers reap huge profit from selling (access to) articles. In the words of Robert Darnton: ‘We faculty do the research, write the papers, referee papers by other researchers, serve on editorial boards, all of it for free … and then we buy back the results of our labour at outrageous prices’ (Barok et al., 2015).

The educational value of peer review While some regard peer review as an essentially judgmental exercise in humiliation (Comer & Schwartz, 2014), peer review is more like a form of pedagogy. As a form of pedagogy, peer reviewing is both educational and instructive for both the reviewer and the author. Both are contributing to the process of shaping an article that opens up the field to further conversation and thought while also playing the crucial roles of assessing quality of data and claims. This thinking process could be called a propaedeutic moment, from Greek paideuein, meaning ‘to teach’ plus ‘pro-’ meaning ‘before’. In this definition peer review activates a form of teaching before something, a continuum towards something, a process of thinking: a processual unfolding towards the final shape of an article for publication. Questioning is a crucial aspect of the review process, and questioning enhances thinking for all those involved—peer reviewer(s), author(s) and editor(s). As Heidegger shows: ‘Questioning builds a way. … The way is one of thinking’ (1999b, p. 311). So through peer review as a propaedeutic process, a questioning way of thinking becomes apparent, as a scholarly community ‘gathers’ around a given field of inquiry. If one thinks about an academic article as being akin to a work of art then Heidegger’s thesis on art offers insight: ‘the work erects a world, which in turn opens a space for man and things’ (1999a, p. 141). The gathering of scholars discloses a world as the article comes into being, offering space for other readers and writers in other times and locales to gather towards further shelterings (Grierson, 2008, p. 61, 2015, p. 553).

Is peer review in academic publishing still working?  157 To consider peer review as pedagogical does, however, raise the question of anonymity. What value does anonymity add? It seems illogical to suggest that the Heideggerian ‘gathering’ could be diminished if the reviewer’s identity is known to the author or vice versa. One of the concerns of the anonymous peer reviewing process is that a reviewer can lose sight of the ‘care’ and ‘trust’ aspects of the role, thereby overlooking the duty to act in the best interests of an author and of the scholarly field. Likewise, an author may be affronted by a reviewer’s comments and may even vent frustrations to the editor casting the whole process as negative. In the normative organisational model the life of an academic becomes functionalised as collegiality is reduced, too easily and too often, to instrumentalised ends. This new form of academic labour is exercised implicitly, and often, at the expense of an ethics of caring for others and for the academic labour itself, as peer reviewing is driven increasingly by performance measurements. To be a competent peer reviewer obviously demands expert knowledge about the discipline in which the research is located. To see what is good in a submitted manuscript, to remember how much time and effort the authors have spent writing it, to tactfully diagnose and describe its major flaws, and skilfully suggest how these might be addressed: these skill sets are equally important, perhaps even more important, than expert status in disciplinary knowledge (Stewart, 2016). An expert peer reviewer couples their expert knowledge with the wisdom of humility, and a desire to serve based on deeply ethical commitment to one’s field of research, which extends to its community. To find the wisdom of humility in peer reviewing as pedagogical work requires an ethos of care and trust, which places peer review in its rightful place in the core knowledge-building educational business of academic research. On the other hand, functioning as a peer reviewer for academic journals improves writing skills and proficiency via exposure to other research papers, and cultivates connections with fellow specialists and scientific mentors. Reviewing provides a significant learning practice and a perspective of unpublished scholarship, assists in enhancing interaction and assessment, and offers constructive feedback that an academic is highly regarded and coactive in their sphere and furthers inner strength. These are noteworthy points to be returned to, in considering who is recruited and prepared to conduct peer reviews, and in what scholarly context.

Difference, anonymity and review Reviewing brings together a number of competing responsibilities for the reviewer. At the same time the reviewer is part of the ongoing process of delivering professional education to academics, he or she is also defending the status and academic prestige of the journal. So, the position is both about getting people in and keeping people out. Keeping people out is part of the long history of learned societies. Haraway (1997) discusses the relationship between science and masculinity,

158  Liz Jackson et al a masculinity dependent upon a form of male chastity which was to be achieved only by the exclusion of women. Race and class also construct part of the exclusivity of science. More generally, inbreeding homophily, a raised compatibility between individuals with analogous attributes, is a sociological, population-level feature of human societies. Homophily can be found in interplays between editors, peer reviewers and contributors, but it can be detrimental to women and other minority scholars, whose academic endeavours may be disregarded, as a result of unconscious negative bias. Double-anonymous review might be seen as a mechanism for shortcutting or bypassing this attitude towards those who don’t fit in to the ‘Learned Society’s’ conception of itself. Women and minorities may experience having to pass a higher bar to publication than men, and obscuring the name is a way of obscuring such factors (Pontille & Torny, 2014). However, for anonymity to be preserved the writer should adopt the tone and style of the learned society, that is, middle class and masculinised. Using any form of ecriture feminine (Cixous, 1981) is likely to be penalised, even if there is no other indication of gender. Although it would be nice to think that this attitude is a thing in the past, reviewers can be intolerant of any writing that seems to transgress the Royal Society line: writing that is playful, personal, narrative, emotive or non-linear. Double-anonymous reviewing is also becoming increasingly vulnerable to the ease with which the material being reviewed can be cross-referenced using search engines. This may suggest that single-anonymous reviewing is a preferable option, where the reviewers know the author, but the reviewers remain anonymous. Another alternative review model is two-stage publication and review, the first stage being a manuscript accepted as a discussion paper, subject to both open review and comment from the relevant academic community, while the second is subsequent publication of the article revised in light of the first stage process of review (Koop & Pöschl, 2006). Another possibility is review by known reviewers who do not know the identity of the authors. Elsevier conducted an experiment among reviewers of a number of journals in its stable, asking reviewers whether they would be willing to identify themselves, and be identified in published articles (Mehmani, 2016). Interestingly, some reviewers have taken up this idea so enthusiastically, that they now self-publish their review reports on their ORCID profiles. Relatedly, a BioMed Central (BMC) investigation compared the difference in quality between open peer review and anonymous review, finding a 5% improvement in the quality of open peer review reports over anonymous reviews (Winston, 2015). As alluded to in the last section, among the advantages of reviewers being identified (either to the authors only or to the readers of the published article) is to prevent ‘author bashing’ by reviewers who write scathing, often hurtful, comments from behind the safety of the double-anonymous review process. Open review could also prevent property theft: that is, the reviewers stealing ideas from the article they review; or worse still, rejecting the article, yet pinching the ideas—an issue highlighted by Pontille and Torny

Is peer review in academic publishing still working?  159 (2014). Furthermore, published reviews have the benefit of enhancing an early researcher’s publication profile, albeit in a relatively insignificant way. Yet published reviews also run a number of risks. First, open reviews run the risk of being pallid and consensual. Undertaking a book review can be a double-edged sword if, for example, the reviewer has painstakingly read the text and remains unconvinced by the book’s argument, but wishes to present a review of equanimity that does honour to the efforts of the author. The Elsevier experiment (Mehmani, 2016) did not necessarily find this, ­however—33% of the editors in the trial suggested that open review ­provided more detailed and constructive reviews to authors. Other risks to non-anonymous reviewing have come with the rise of social media. In a particular case of the journal Hypatia, the work of peer reviewers on an article by Tuvel (2017) was publicly undermined by a group of scholars and associate editors of the journal in an open letter (Winnubst, 2017). The article drew criticism for the way it described and compared the identity phenomena of trans-genderism and trans-racialism, and allegedly failed to engage with relevant work and discourse in relation to vulnerable, intersecting communities (Shotwell et al., 2017). Many scholars weighed into the debate using social media accounts, and exaggerated responses escalated, often alongside secondary and inaccurate reports of Tuvel’s original argument. The associate editors’ collective condemnation of the publication of Tuvel’s paper and their claim it ought to be retracted and an apology issued arguably failed the Committee of Publication Ethics’ Code of Ethics (Oliver, 2017; Singal, 2017). Eventually many members of the editorial board resigned in an effort to save the reputation of the journal (Weinberg, 2017). This academic tangle, largely underpinned by divided conceptions of philosophy, raised questions about the body of knowledge an author owes due deference particularly regarding citations for historically marginalised groups and the treatment of newer academics (Petkas, 2017). This example highlights the important role played by review process in the machinations of publication. The gender proportion of reviewers should be comparable to that of published contributors of the same age. Yet as previous work (Gerstein & Friedman, 2016; Layard, 2016; Machan, 2016; Popescu, 2016, 2017; Terry, 2016; Weede, 2016) indicates, women of all ages have fewer chances to participate in peer review. This may be caused by contributors and editors designating fewer women to review, or by women turning down requests more regularly than men. When potential reviewers pass up a request to review a paper, numerous journals solicit them to suggest alternative referees. An effective approach to assist in opposing gender unfairness in peer review might be the following: if authors are asked to recommend scholars, they should intentionally propose female fellows for the assignment, chiefly early-career individuals or low-ranking faculty members. The BMC trial also considered the case of author-selected reviewers, finding that article acceptance was the more likely reviewer recommendation (Winston, 2015). This comes possibly as no surprise, and could indicate

160  Liz Jackson et al authors selecting reviewers likely to be sympathetic to their submission. Arguably, the practices places some pressure on reviewers to be more sympathetic. This impediment seems to be the polar opposite of the situation engendered by editorial policies that permit one or another of two anonymous reviewers veto power. From this perspective, the editor or editorin-chief becomes no more than a clerical traffic police officer, waving some submissions through, unimpeded, diverting some to undertake necessary maintenance work before continuing, and bringing yet others to a dead stop. Given such complexities, the double-anonymous system continues to be the preferred system (Pontille & Torny, 2014). The next section focuses more deeply on the relationship between editor and reviewer.

Between editor and reviewer Academic publishing might usefully be described as going through a time of proliferation—a feature of the contemporary perceived ‘knowledge economy’ that has particular demands on the functions of the academic in liaison with a range of actors in the academic publishing sphere. The changing relationship between editors and reviewers is a feature of this proliferation. In other words, this proliferation and its many influences have significant implications for contemporary relationships between editor and reviewer. For instance, we might see reviewers of journals in short supply, and hence editors of journals placed in a position where reviewing becomes a desperate need, in order to maintain the productivity of the journal. At the same time, where editors are also reviewers, they may become increasingly aware of the value of reciprocity at such times of short supply of reviewers. And of course, the respective authority of an editor or a journal adds complexity to this ­relationship—for instance where an editor’s position in an institution or society gives them leverage when inviting colleagues or students to support a journal by engaging in the review process. In addition, publishing companies create incentives and conditions to support editors in recruitment of reviewers for what has traditionally been regarded as a presumed professional function in the life of the scholar. These instances, and the relationships that are evident in their enacting, are of interest inasmuch as they are power relationships between editors and reviewers. Various conceptualisations of power are relevant to an analysis of the relationships in the peer review process, including (but not limited to) the changing relationships between reviewer and editor. Conceptualised through their historical constructs, power relations in editor/reviewer relationships lead us back to Foucault’s (1980) work on power, and its workings in institutions. The traditional model of a juridical power construct claims that power belongs to someone, as it can be possessed and exercised by a class, people or an institution, and is productive in nature. Foucault’s development of a power/knowledge analysis within his broader genealogical work is of interest here because of the ways in which the publishing relationship between editor and reviewer is a construction of self through

Is peer review in academic publishing still working?  161 various complex and dynamic power relations that produce a particular self knowledge (Foucault, 2003)—a knowledge that is institutionally bounded and governed but that, importantly to Foucault’s thinking, is accepted by both editor and reviewer. The publishing companies, who exercise an institutional power over the relationship, engage in the production of relationships through a range of administrative and managerial functions. In the first instance of power, the power in the peer review process appears to be held by the reviewer. As noted, reviewers are hard to find. The stronger the reputation of an academic, the more difficult it is to get them engaged in peer review, particularly within the current abundance of journals. Hence ‘good’ reviewers (or reviewers with good standing) are hard to find. If we consider the review process in terms of the selection of the reviewer, potential reviewers exercise their power not only in relation to making decisions about the paper being reviewed, but in relation to the ways they may or may not agree or decline the invitation to review a paper, and more recently by offering (or disregarding the request to offer) alternative reviewer names. Conversely, the more highly ranked the journal, the easier it is to persuade a reviewer to conduct a review. The potential reviewer thus places the editor into a position of dependency, for the timely processing of publication, perhaps for the expertise available to conduct the review—since many micro fields of education can be particularly specialised—and for the time and energy spent by the editor in seeking, scoping and inviting further potential reviewers. Reviewing for an academic journal has limited value for academics seeking promotion, and reviewing activities receive limited recognition in terms of professional support or allocated time and resources. Reviewing a paper is then unsurprisingly one of those activities that can become sidelined, completed as an afterthought or performed as an ‘academic favour’. The second instance to explore here is that of the editor’s apparent advantage. As noted above, editors can rely on their contacts, students and academic friendships to produce reviewers who are in some way obliged, rather than operating a seemingly impersonal system of aligning a paper to a reviewer with relevant expertise. The task of determining the quality of a review also lies within the editor’s power. The idea of a ‘good’ or ‘effective’ review opens up the possible power relations in terms of the scope of an editor to determine what counts as good and/or effective reviewing, and whose opinion determines the fate of a submission. The editor can choose to disregard elements of the review that have been thoughtfully and constructively shared. For the third instance, in supporting editors, publishing houses employ various strategies to attract reviewers who traditionally were not present in this process: access to free articles, vouchers, payments or places on editorial boards. Publishing companies also develop devices to support the editor in the nature of the approach to the reviewer. The example above, of asking a reviewer to name one or more alternate reviewers if they are unable to review, creates more than just an opportunity for the reviewer to exercise

162  Liz Jackson et al their will: the very system operates in a way that demands the reviewer to submit alternatives. At this point it is also important to recognise the role of publishing systems that deal with the management of the review process as well as, at times, elements of the production process, creating further uncertainty for the editor, on account of unknown administrative and production timeframes and processes. Further complications in the relationships and power structures are caused by the subjectivity of reviewer decisions, highlighted in the ‘best practice’ type guidelines often offered by publishing houses to new reviewers. Further, while the lists of reviewers may be prized, perhaps even guarded, and often accompany the ‘constant corporate mergers’, the process also risks what Comer and Schwartz (2014) see as ‘morally unacceptable’ reviews and vituperative feedback, that ‘erode an author’s dignity by humiliating the author’ (p. 141), again highlighting the dangerous ethical cusp on which the process is balanced. Reviewer/editor relationships are highly complex and highly productive. Many positive relationships clearly develop between editors and reviewers, following the common theme of ‘responsible academic citizenship’. At the same time, interactions between editors, reviewers and authors can become fraught with confrontations and tensions, all in the name of guarding and shaping the discipline through the act of academic peer review.

Early career scholars and the labour of reviewing Considering the distinctive case of early career scholars, the processes, relationships and labour of peer review may also represent rites of passage that indicate when a scholar has begun to be taken seriously as an expert in her discipline. Whilst the role is a voluntary addition to the intensified academic workload, from a Darwinian survivalist perspective, it enhances the researcher’s public profile and tenured future while it provides a necessary service to the community. This labour of peer review is also a complex and subtle academic skill and potentially educative endeavour, as mentioned previously, both on the part of the reviewer and the author. It is time-consuming work with both benefits and risks. It is worth placing the academic labour of peer review under further scrutiny in this context. While peer review is a marker of the science of academia that parallels the emergence of the modern university, there is no doubt that the conditions under which this form of academic labour is performed have altered. Peer review can no longer be confined to a geographical space absorbed into the temporal conditions of labour bound by the slowness of ‘snail mail’ and the hard copy manuscript. As with every aspect of academic life (encompassing writing, teaching, research and ‘service’), technology and the changing nature of universities has involved an intensification of labour, in which a discrete working day shifts to one that is ‘borderless’, fluid and constant. Described by Adkins and Jokinen (2008) as the ‘fourth shift’, the conventional working day has been replaced by a stretched and flexible

Is peer review in academic publishing still working?  163 distribution of labour over 24 h. Many workers are expected to work the standard ‘day’, but are now also expected to work outside of these times to ensure productivity and relevance across geography and timeframes. Under such conditions, the intellectual labour of peer review for all academics, regardless of career stage and generation placement, needs to happen on laptops in airports, at night after busy days of meetings and teaching, and in the ‘cracks’ of the academic life lived in the context of visible outputs and measurable funding and research performance. Therein lies the paradox of the intensification of academic labour set in a context of increasing focus on research and publishing: peer review articles remain the gold standard of academic publishing and therefore contribute to the constant and incessant increase in the publication of scholarly articles (Adkins & Dever, 2015). More and more reviewers are needed as a corollary of this acceleration of peer review publishing, meaning academics are being asked to review more articles in ever-diminishing timeframes and at a much-heightened pace, all in the context of a working life that is time-poor and constricted. As a further and final dimension that highlights the contradictions of outputs-driven academic labour, peer review is largely invisible and unrewarded—while positioned within a setting that awards all things visible and primarily the peer-review article. Such a situation makes conceivable ‘predatory authors’, who submit the same paper to several journals simultaneously, collect comments, and thus have their papers improved, and then aim for higher impact journals (Friedman, Friedman, & Leverton, 2016; Lucas, 2016). As demand for increased productivity from academics wishing to gain and secure employment may be accompanied by less mentorship, because the mentors are similarly under pressure to produce measurable research outputs, this may result in a lack of transparency in research processes and publishing rituals. Jackson and Stewart (2017, p. 105) note that nurturing junior scholars is deemed essential, but unless mentors have the time to do so, there may be a lack of transparency or explicit guidance on how to review an article or book, how to reply to reviewers’ feedback, how to publish a high-quality peer-reviewed article or write a book proposal, how to apply for funding, promotion and so on. This lack of ‘know how’ is likely to adversely affect humanities disciplines such as philosophy in which single authored work is standard. In the sciences, in which multiple authored research is the norm, there are other academics with varying levels of experience and expertise a junior scholar can speak to and gain insight from as communal and collaborative efforts (ideally) lead to best practice. However, in discipline areas that generally see authors working alone, an early career researcher may be working it out by themselves, unless they have maintained a supportive relationship with their PhD Supervisor or established other mentoring relationships from which they can glean advice and access insight into the inner workings of the academic machine. For the independent scholar seeking a foothold in the academy, this is even more pronounced as they may also lack access to the support services and workshops run by research offices, scholars’ centres, etc. Scholarship in isolation may result in a lack of best practice

164  Liz Jackson et al or supportive reviewing process (from both sides—as author or reviewer) if the people involved are lacking in experience or the opportunity to learn from the experience of others. As such, special issues such as EPAT’s ‘The editor interview project of the EPAT Editorial Development Group (EDG)’ (Jackson & Stewart, 2017) are rare and important resources.

Conclusion The future of peer review is hard to predict, since it resides within the dynamic social, political-economic domain of publishing and information sharing. The age of digital reason has brought about a new logic of co-creation and co-production of knowledge and social goods, along with various novel non-academic models of peer review. These include virtual communities, ‘smart mobs’ (Rheingold, 1995, 2002) and various collaborative websites such as Wikipedia (Giles, 2005; Jandrić, 2010), which are worth further examination for their possible role in scholarship, knowledge production, and academic publishing. New technological advances also bring about new challenges. For instance, the Video Journal of Education and Pedagogy is unable to conduct anonymous peer review because video articles, as a rule of thumb, cannot be anonymised (Peters et al., 2016b). By and large, the new models and challenges of peer review have failed to make a significant impact in the cloistered world of mainstream academic publishing (Giles, 2005; Jandrić, 2010; Peters & Jandrić, 2017). In this dynamic field, however, some of the many possibilities discussed herein may dramatically alter the research landscape of the future. As discussed above, contemporary academic publishing contains a large mix of diverse approaches to peer review. This is hardly a surprise, as ‘the specific practices used to implement peer review—though they might seem hegemonic to the contemporary scholar slaving in his or her disciplinary silo—have, as noted, been in constant evolution since the early modern period’ (Peters et al., 2016a, p. 1417). Thus, while the agglomeration of large academic publishers might have been expected to bring about some unification of the peer review processes, the mushrooming ecology of new independent journals and publishers gives rise to new understandings of peer review that counterbalance corporate trends. Advances in independent and corporate sectors are often inspired by principles and models developed outside of academia. We are only at the very beginning of the epoch of digital reason, and the outcome of these trends is hard to predict. Implications of this analysis might also be considered in relation to the training of new scholars and the monitoring of peer review processes. We have noted that while peer review can be educational for both authors and reviewers, this is not always the case, and negative experiences can be counterproductive. Training new scholars in handling and interpreting peer-review feedback they receive, and engaging in peer reviewing productively, are important in this context, as is finding ways to help new scholars understand risks related to their labour exploitation.

Is peer review in academic publishing still working?  165 In regard to inequities in the peer-review process, academic outlets should consider gathering information at each phase of peer review to assist in determining the obstacles to publication that minority academics, such as women, confront. Author identity facts such as gender could be included in information on the numbers of manuscripts submitted to the journal, sent for review, sent again after revision, and appealed against, effectively or not, by rejected contributors. Observation of key-stage assessment information for lead contributors on approved and turned-down manuscripts may clarify gender and other forms of favouritism in publication (e.g. an unwillingness to appeal might be more prevalent among women and other minoritised groups). Evidence that such aspects are instrumental in biased results would facilitate their neutralisation (Overbaugh, 2017). Finally, it is valuable for scholars to be responsive to the dynamic world of academic publishing, including continually thinking through their interactions and changing relationships with each other and with publishing companies, as they shape the way knowledge is produced and disseminated collaboratively and academic lives are experienced. In this article, we have intended to provide a foundation for future thinking on such vital issues.

Open review of first draft Peter Roberts I have been asked to provide an open review of this manuscript, a process I support on ethical as well as academic grounds. While I have always defended the importance of peer review (see, for example, Roberts, 1999), I have long believed that any advantages associated with traditional double-blind reviewing are outweighed by the potential benefits of greater openness in the assessment of scholarly work. Subtle, complex dynamics of power, politics and personality are at play in any situation involving judgments of academic quality, whether the identities of the author(s), reviewers, or both are known or not. As the article points out, however, ‘[o]ne of the concerns of the anonymous peer reviewing process is that a reviewer can lose sight of the “care” and “trust” aspects of the role, thereby overlooking the duty to act in the best interests of an author and of the scholarly field’. Anonymity for reviewers can provide a screen behind which nastiness, ignorance and prejudice may hide. An open process, where authors and reviewers are revealed to each other, can allow scholars to communicate in a more collegial manner, with feedback that is constructive, balanced and fair, without losing any of the rigour that peer review is expected to uphold. The authors show that the antecedents to contemporary systems of peer review date back to the ancient Greeks. They raise some searching questions relating to gender and the evaluation of scholarly work. They point to some of the practical difficulties in securing good reviewers, and they address aspects of the wider political economy of academic publishing. At the beginning of the second section of the article, the authors make the claim that peer

166  Liz Jackson et al review, rather than being ‘an essentially judgmental exercise in humiliation’, is better conceived as ‘a form of pedagogy’. There is considerable scope for further worthwhile scholarship on this theme. In what ways, for whom, and under what conditions is the process pedagogical? How does peer review compare with other forms of pedagogy? Can it be miseducative or anti-educational? A promising direction for continuing inquiry is signalled near the end of the article with some insightful observations on the importance of, and constraints upon, mentoring in publishing and peer review. Intellectual mentoring, often conducted informally and with minimal institutional recognition, is frequently overlooked in discussions of teaching. The process of guiding others, directly or indirectly, as they acquire an understanding of the risks, rewards and responsibilities associated with submitting and reviewing scholarly work warrants ongoing philosophical reflection, and I would encourage the authors to build on the ideas advanced here in their subsequent collective writing endeavours. More could also be said about the policy contexts that shape and structure contemporary scholarly practices. The introduction of performance-based research funding schemes, for example, has had a significant bearing on how and why academics undertake research, where and how often they seek to publish their findings, and, ultimately, how they see themselves (Roberts, 2006, 2013). Peer review, as the authors are aware, does not escape unchanged from the imposition of such schemes. There is only so much room in one article to investigate the different dimensions of a problem, but again, there is an opportunity here for philosophers of education to play an important role in analysing the ontological, epistemological, ethical, and educative consequences of new regimes of performance measurement. Focusing specifically and in more detail on the implications of performance-based research funding for practices of peer review would make a distinctive contribution to the existing critical literature in this area. I commend the authors for their initiative in exploring fresh possibilities for collaboration in academic writing, and for their willingness to question the norms that govern scholarly and educational life.

Open review of first draft Ja¯nis (John) Ozolin¸ š This article introduces a discussion of what is generally an unsung but vital part of academic work. It attracts no workload, but without it, academic research would be much the poorer. I refer to peer review, which is one of the central means whereby the quality of academic articles is judged. Other means will be through conference presentations, seminars and collaborative discussion of one’s work with one’s peers, all of which fail to appear in any metrics used to assess academic work because they are not sufficiently quantifiable. Though these broader mechanisms, which to some extent could be classed as peer review, are not discussed in this article, questions in relation to

Is peer review in academic publishing still working?  167 the purpose of peer review, its weaknesses and, to a lesser extent, its strengths are. The importance of peer review lies in the observation that it is almost the sole means used in judging whether an article merits publication in a learned journal. In a metric-obsessed higher education system where academics fear for their careers and reputations, let alone the prospects of promotion, peer review takes on special significance. This is because to have a paper published in a top-tier journal can take up to four years, and so there is a considerable anxiety generated by the prospective outcomes of peer reviews. There is in this paper a number of places where this anxiety spills out into the discussion. This is to be expected, since an academic’s sense of worth is very much tied up with the work that he or she has produced. Some of the issues raised in the discussion highlight this connection. Vituperative and disparaging reviews, gender bias and theft of intellectual property are just some of issues raised. Crucially, though it cannot cover every issue, the paper stimulates reflection on the purposes of peer review, its value and how best it might be undertaken. In what follows, some comments are made on the various sections of the paper. These can be seen in two ways: (i) as a critical analysis of the quality of the paper, with some suggestions for changes—one of the traditional roles of a reviewer—and (ii) an active engagement with the discussion. In the first section, the idea that peer review has its origins in some form of peer administration of justice seems to be only distantly connected to peer review in the context of the publication of academic journal articles. There could be a point to be made that peer review is about the judgment of one’s peers about one’s work, but this, hopefully, is not about transgressions and hence punishment. Perhaps the point here is about peer review having a moral obligation to be conducted with fairness, where this is a matter of just treatment of the author’s work. This should be brought out more clearly. The following section raises the educational aspect of the peer review process and proposes that there are positive ways in which it can be seen. Such a positive outlook in which the reviewers can be seen as engaged in a process of helping to improve and develop the ideas of a paper is to be welcomed, but it is also quite possible that they will do a great deal to destroy the paper through negative and disparaging comments. This possibility is raised in other parts of the paper. Despite this, it is far better to focus on the positive aspects of the review process. There is in this section a noteworthy appeal to the collegial endeavour of the peer review process and a recognition of the place that the virtue of humility has in it. It helps to remind us as academics of our responsibility to each other, to our disciplines and to truth. Some of the anxieties about the way in which peer review can function to diminish an academic’s sense of worth are expressed in the section headed ‘Difference, Anonymity and Review’. The central premise is that peer review can be used to exclude as well as include people. There is certainly evidence of this, and the first paragraph speculates that women face tougher scrutiny in the peer review process than men. The argument, however, is faulty. For example, the following statements are made: ‘If women are presumed less

168  Liz Jackson et al gifted … then their manuscripts may be more meticulously examined’ and ‘If reviewers use more stringent criteria for female-authored manuscripts then they go through more scrupulous evaluation.’ The respective conclusions can only follow if the first two parts of the two hypotheticals are true. The first proposition is very clearly false and the second dubious at best. If there is gender bias against women, then the reasons need to be sought elsewhere. Additional reasons are proposed in the following paragraphs. For instance, that women are discriminated against through gender homophily and it is proposed that steps to be taken to limit this. Double blind review, however, it is contended here, may not obviate the problem of bias against women writers since the language used by the writer may not fit a particular paradigm and reviewers may be biased against certain female styles of writing. There is some truth in the idea that there are certain styles of writing for particular journals that someone submitting to that journal would be wise in following, but this will be true for both male and female writers. Whether it is the case that there is a feminine style of writing is highly contentious. The late Elizabeth Anscombe (1919–2001), probably one of a handful of truly great twentieth century philosophers, gave no comfort to those held that there was a feminist way of doing philosophy. This section would have been better framed by addressing the more general concerns of reviewing bias first, then highlighting the problems women in particular face. For instance, for all academics it would be wise in the process of planning a submission to a particular journal that an investigation be undertaken of the writing styles of articles published in that journal. It is also sensible to take a look at the list of reviewers for the journal, since a concentration of certain kinds of reviewers, such as heavily analytic and white, curmudgeonly males will mean that certain kinds of articles will be considered more favourably than others. Gender homophily is one type of homophily, but not the only kind, and authors should be aware of all of them. Cosy and not so cosy relationships are addressed in what follows in the discussion of the relationships between reviewer and editor, which draws on Foucault’s conception of power relations. These are variously exercised between reviewer and editor, editor and publisher, and reviewer and publisher. The question of soliciting good reviewers is complex, as the quality of the review is important in maintaining the quality of a journal. The standing of the reviewer in a particular field is also important, since this is inevitably connected to the quality of the review. Journals will often publish the lists of those who act as reviewers as a statement of quality of the publication. The second-to-last paragraph about commodification is much too short and what is said previously does not seem to warrant the assertion that power relations embody and perform the ‘commodification of science and research’. It is also unclear why the process of peer review risks morally unacceptable reviews and vituperative feedback. That there are such occurrences may not be due to the system of peer review as such, but may be due to the moral failings of the reviewer.

Is peer review in academic publishing still working?  169 The section on the early career researcher and the way in which work stretches to fill up most of an academic’s working life certainly strikes a chord, especially as this reviewer was using some of his time in the airport to complete reviewing this article. There is something increasingly inhuman about the expectations that modern higher educational institutions have of academics. This section addresses some key issues that confront time-poor academics. In particular, the problems that early career academics face in publishing in high-quality journals and, more importantly, maintaining an output that enables them to keep their jobs. Mentoring by established academics is one way forward, but they too are under the same pressure to keep producing first-rate publications in highly ranked journals. The solution may be for academics to take back control of their institutions. The concluding remarks select only one form of discrimination, gender, as problematic in peer review, but it is not the only one. While it is helpful to point this out, issues of bias and discrimination affect all academics, whatever gender they are. For example, discrimination against work which does not conform to the usual norms of what constitutes academic writing, but which expresses new ideas, would not be published. Most prestigious journals are keen to maintain their high ranking, and editors would be hard pressed to accept something which lies outside the recognised forms of not only academic writing style but also research methodology. As a result, innovation and new ideas will be found in more experimental, less prestigious places. Such places, however, are no place for aspiring academics to publish their work if they want to thrive in the modern university. There are a few typographical errors: Page 1 para 2 ‘academic’ is misspelled and so is ‘practised’ (‘s’ not ‘c’). Page 1 line 5 up Spelling of Henry Oldenburg’s surname. Not spelt with an ‘h’ at the end. Page 10 para 2 line 2 ‘peer review’ (‘r’ missing).

Second open review following revision Ja¯nis (John) Ozolin¸ š It is evident that the authors have responded to the critical points made by my review. The section, ‘Difference, anonymity and review’, which I had criticized for poor argument, has been significantly revised in line with the comments made. Significant portions have been deleted. Certainly, the faulty argument has been corrected by being removed, but perhaps some part of a more general point along with it. That there is homophily is undoubtedly true, and it would not be beyond the realms of possibility that some of it is gender homophily, amongst other kinds. Those of race and class come out a little more clearly than previously. The section has been streamlined and the points about various kinds of bias brought out in the sorry story about the Hypatia article that was submitted to open review. It is stronger for the changes. The following section, dealing with the relationships between editors and reviewers, has also been modified in the light of comments made in the

170  Liz Jackson et al review. The changes, it seems to me, have improved the overall flow of the argument, and the claim about the relationship between power relations and commodification has been omitted. The conclusion has also been modified to take into account the suggestions made in my review. The article has been improved through the changes made in the light of the suggestions made by the reviewers. I look forward to seeing it published. 9th March 2018. For Biographical notes on reviewers see. http://editorscollective.org.nz/.

Editor’s Note The Open Review of Educational Research is a blind peer review journal. I have made an exception in the case because it is an article that questions peer review and has experimented with the process of open review that involves publishing the contents of the review as part of the article. I want to raise potential conflict of interests to allay any fears that matters have been properly and professionally dealt with. It happens that I am also one of the authors of this collective paper although not the lead author. It is important to make these aspects public. Peer review certainly is not fool-proof but it is one of the best means for preserving objectivity and containing bias, for protecting the author against undue ideological influence, and for making sure that good-quality papers are published irrespective of their source. In this case the open peer review process mentions both the reviewers and makes public their assessment of the article.

References Adkins, L., & Dever, M. (2015). Academic labour-on-the-move. Australian Feminist Studies, 84(30), 105–108. doi:10.1080/08164649.2015.1046303 Adkins, L., & Jokinen, E. (2008). Gender, living and labour in the fourth shift. Nordic Journal of Feminist and Gender Research, 16(3), 138–149. doi:10.1080/08038740802300947 Barok, D.,et al. Custodians.online (2015). In solidarity with Library Genesis and SciHub. Retrieved from http://custodians.online/ Biagioli, M. (2002). From book censorship to academic peer review. Emergences: Journal for the Study of Media & Composite Cultures, 12(1), 11–45. Chapelle, F. H. (2014). The history and practice of peer review. Groundwater, 52(1), 1. Cixous, H. (1981). The laugh of the medusa. In E. Marks & I. de Courtivron (Eds.), New French feminisms (pp. 875–893). New York, NY: Schocken. Comer, D. R., & Schwartz, M. (2014). The problem of humiliation in peer review. Ethics & Education, 9(2), 141–156. Fitzpatrick, K. (2011). Planned obsolescence: Publishing, technology, and the future of the academy. New York, NY: NYU Press. Foucault, M. (1980). Power/knowledge: Selected interviews and other writings (1972– 1977). Brighton: Harvester Press. Foucault, M. (2003). Psychiatric Power: Lectures at the Collège de France 1973-1974. In G. Burchell (Ed.). New York, NY: Picador.

Is peer review in academic publishing still working?  171 Friedman, H. H., Friedman, L. W., & Leverton, C. (2016). Increase diversity to boost creativity and enhance problem solving. Psychosociological Issues in Human Resource Management, 4, 7–33. Gerstein, M., & Friedman, H. H. (2016). Rethinking higher education: Focusing on skills and competencies. Psychosociological Issues in Human Resource Management, 4, 104–121. doi:10.22381/PIHRM4220165 Giles, J. (2005). Internet encyclopaedias go head to head. Nature, 438. Retrieved from https://www.nature.com/articles/438900a Grierson, E. M. (2008). Heeding Heidegger’s way: Questions of the work of art. In V. Karalis (Ed.), Heidegger and the aesthetics of living (pp. 45–64). Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Grierson, E. M. (2015). Activating aesthetics: Working with Heidegger and bourdieu for engaged pedagogy. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 47(6), 546–562. Haraway, D. J. (1997). Modest _witness@sSecond_millennium.FemaleMan(c)_meets_ OncoMouse TM: Feminism and technoscience. London: Routledge. Heidegger, M. (1999a). The origin of the work of art. In D. Krell (Ed.), Basic writings: Martin Heidegger (pp. 139–212). London: Routledge. Heidegger, M. (1999b). The question concerning technology. In D. Krell (Ed.), Basic writings: Martin Heidegger (pp. 343–363). London: Routledge. Jackson, L., & Stewart, G. (Eds.). (2017). Lifting the publishing curtain: The editor interview project of the EPAT Editorial Development Group (EDG). Educational Philosophy and Theory, 49(2), 105–111. doi:10.1080/00131857.2015.1069037 Jandrić, P. (2010). Wikipedia and education: Anarchist perspectives and virtual practices. Journal for Critical Education Policy Studies, 8(2), 48–73. Jandrić, P. (2017). Learning in the age of the digital media. Rotterdam: Sense. Koop, T., & Pöschl, U. (2006). Systems: An open, two-stage peer-review journal. Nature. Retrieved from http://www.nature.com/nature/peerreview/debate/ nature04988.html?foxtrotcallback=true Layard, R. (2016). Why we should spend more on mental health. American Journal of Medical Research, 3, 188–206. doi:10.22381/AJMR3120167 Lucas, R. E. B. (2016). Integral migration in developing economies: An overview of recent evidence. Geopolitics, History, and International Relations, 8, 159–191. Machan, T. R. (2016). The morality of gregarious egoism. Contemporary Readings in Law and Social Justice, 8, 7–29. Mehmani, B. (2016). Is open peer review the way forward? Retrieved from https://www.elsevier.com/reviewers-update/story/innovation-in-publishing/ is-open-peer-review-the-way-forward Oliver, K. (2017, May 8). If this is feminism it’s been hijacked by the thought police. The Philosophical Salon. Retrieved from http://thephilosophicalsalon.com/ if-this-is-feminism-its-been-hijacked-by-the-thought-police/ Overbaugh, J. (2017). Gender bias: Track revisions and appeals. Nature, 543, 40. doi:10.1038/543040a Peters, M. A., Besley, T., Jandrić, P., & Bajić, M. (2016a). Editorial interview. Video Journal of Education and Pedagogy, 1(2). Retrieved from http://videoeducationjournal.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s40990-016-0006-z Peters, M. A., & Jandrić, P. (2017). The digital university: A dialogue and manifesto. New York, NY: Peter Lang. Peters, M. A., Jandrić, P., Irwin, R., Locke, K., Devine, N., Heraud, R., … Roberts, P. (2016b). Toward a philosophy of academic publishing. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 48(14), 1401–1425.

172  Liz Jackson et al Petkas, A. (2017, July 10). Why name a journal after Hypatia? Eidolon. Retrieved from https://eidolon.pub/why-name-a-journal-after-hypatia-a90b51d56f7c Pontille, D., & Torny, D. (2014). The blind shall see! The question of anonymity in journal peer review. Ada: A Journal of Gender, New Media, and Technology, (4). Popescu, G. H. (2016). Gender, work, and wages: Patterns of female participation in the labor market. Journal of Self-Governance and Management Economics, 4, 128–134. doi:10.22381/JSME4120165 Popescu, G. H. (2017). The economics of e-learning production. Economics, Management, and Financial Markets, 12, 68–74. doi:10.22381/EMFM12120174 Rheingold, H. (1995). The virtual community: Homesteading on the electronic frontier. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Rheingold, H. (2002). Smart mobs: The next social revolution. New York, NY: Basic Books. Roberts, P. (1999). Scholarly publishing, peer review and the internet. First Monday: The Peer-Reviewed Journal on the Internet, 4(4). Retrieved from http://ojphi. org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/661/ 576 Roberts, P. (2006). Performativity, measurement and research: A critique of performance-based research funding in New Zealand. In J. Ozga, T. Popkewitz, & T. Seddon (Eds.), World yearbook of education 2006: Education research and policy (pp. 185–199). London: Routledge. Roberts, P. (2013). Academic dystopia: Knowledge, performativity and tertiary education. Review of Education, Pedagogy, and Cultural Studies, 35(1), 27–43.Shotwell, A., et al. (2017). Open letter to Hypatia. Gender Trender. Retrieved from https:// gendertrender.wordpress.com/ Singal, J. (2017, May 2). This is what a modern-day witch hunt looks like. New York Magazine. Retrieved from http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/05/ transracialism-article-controversy.html Stewart, G. (2016). Reviewing and ethics in the online academy (guest editorial). Educational Philosophy and Theory, 48(5), 437–442. Terry, A. (2016). Reconceptualizing gender: A historical perspective from structure to process and intersectionality. Journal of Research in Gender Studies, 6, 69–82. doi:10.22381/JRGS6220164 Tuvel, R. (2017). In defence of transracialism. Hypatia, 2(32), 263–278. Weede, E. (2016). Geopolitics, institutions, and economics: On the rise and decline of civilizations. Geopolitics, History, and International Relations, 8, 177–220. doi:10.22381/GHIR8120168 Weinberg, J. (2017, July 24). Hypatia’s Associate Editors Resign. Daily Nous. Retrieved from http://dailynous.com/2017/07/24/hypatias-associate-editors-resign/ Winnubst, S. (2017, May 8). Why Tuvel’s article so troubled its critics. The Chronicle Review of The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from http://www.chronicle.com/article/Why-Tuvel-s-Article-So/240029/ Winston, J. (2015). Open peer review could result in better quality of peer review. Retrieved from https://www.biomedcentral.com/about/press-centre/ science-press-releases/30-09-2015

Part 3

Projects

11 After postmodernism in educational theory? A collective writing experiment and thought survey Michael A. Peters, Marek Tesar and Liz Jackson Framing the postmodern invitation Declarations of the death knell of postmodernism are now quite commonplace. Indeed, various publications such as those that we utilise below suggest that, if anything, postmodernism is at an end and has been dead and buried for some time. In its place, an age dominated by playfulness, hybridity, relativism and the fragmentary self has given way to something else, as yet undefined. Brian McHale (2015) describes the lifecycle of postmodernism in terms of the ‘big bang’ in 1966 with Derrida’s seminal paper ‘Structure, Sign and Play in the Discourse of the Human Sciences’ at the Johns Hopkins conference ‘The Languages of Criticism and the Sciences of Man’ symposium; identifying its peak years as 1973–1989; followed by an uncertainty and reorientation in the 1990s; and the aftermath and beyond after 2001, which we are currently experiencing. Beginning in the late 1980s and extending into the 1990s a variety of texts proclaimed the end of postmodernism—Sociology after postmodernism (Owen, 1997), Thinking Again: Education after postmodernism (Blake, Smeyers, Smith, & Standish, 1998), After postmodernism: Education, politics and identity (Smith & Wexler, 1995), and Encounters: philosophy of history after postmodernism (Domańska, 1998). These assessments continued well into the 2000s—Philosophy after postmodernism (Crowther, 2003), Feminism after postmodernism (Zalewski, 2000), Painting after postmodernism (Rose, 2016), Literature after postmodernism: reconstructive fantasies (Huber, 2014), Value, art, politics: criticism, meaning and interpretation after postmodernism (Harris, 2007). All these texts, while different, and utilising diverse lenses, have clearly addressed the complexities of ontologies of postmodernism and its performances over the years. However, given the theoretical and philosophical movements, including the ideology and recent turns in politics such as the post-truth and fake news era (Peters, 2017), it seems that PoMo is no more. It seems that it has been succeeded by a new sensibility and configuration. We are not sure what it is exactly, but we know that one era has ended and another has begun. Should this be surprising? Perhaps not, as all intellectual fashions change. What some argue is that it is part of intellectuality under late capitalism, as

176  Michael A. Peters, Marek Tesar and Liz Jackson even Western Marxism is subject to its whims. We know a little about the circulation of ideas and the phenomenon now referred to as ‘going viral’ in relation to social media mostly now measured in ‘hits’ rather than use or citation. Indeed, various possibilities have been put forward after postmodernism: post-postmodernism, new materialism, posthumanism, critical realism, digimodernism, metamodernism, performatism, post-digitalism, trans-postmodernism, post-millennialism, Marxism after postmodernism and transnationality as the contemporary cultural logic of neoliberal global capitalism. There is no consensus, except an agreement that an innocent return to Modernism, humanism, ‘objectivity’ is no longer a possibility. If the 1990s were a decade when scholars in a range of disciplines asked the question of what comes after postmodernism, the 2000s were a decade that investigated a range of substitutes and possibilities. For the 50th anniversary of Educational Philosophy and Theory (EPAT), we have decided to conduct a philosophical survey, addressing philosophers of education from all around the globe with the same statement to solicit a comment, argument or position. In this experiment, we invited readers and contributors of EPAT to respond to the question of what comes after postmodernism and how this will affect educational philosophy and theory. This experiment, both with academic genre and with new modes of philosophical survey or pulse-taking, provided an opportunity for community-led deliberation on what postmodernism is, was and has done; what it is and was not and has not done; and the nature of unfolding theory in the future from diverse ethical and ontological orientations.

The ruse and folly of the question The question of what comes after postmodernism is deliberately obtuse. It is designed in part as a provocation, especially to those easily offended by the label—for whom it means ‘relativism’, anti-science’, an attack on truth and all Western values. It is also designed as an invitation to respond creatively with an alternative, not necessarily a system or worldview, but possibly some idea that is not Western, that does not originate in Europe during the Enlightenment. The editors have remained agnostic on issues of ideology and we decided to publish all submissions with only light editing, with the idea not just of inclusiveness but also of protecting a diversity of viewpoints. The question of what comes after postmodernism is, of course, a ruse and a folly. So many of those who have been responsible for promoting a kind of anti-modernist, anti-foundationalist and anti-representational philosophy have also addressed themselves to the notion of temporality, of history and of teleology that distinguishes a linear and causal succession where, at least, in the history of Western avant gardes and philosophy, wedded to an unexamined notion of ‘progress’, one paradigm replaces another—modernism/ postmodernism, impressionism/postimpressionism, preRaphelitism/postRaphelitism. The avant gardes from the 1860s to the 1950s were dominated by radical and challenging ideas associated with technological progress and

After postmodernism in educational theory?  177 the dominance of Western conceptions. Abstract Expressionism, neo-Dadism and Pop art that took a variety of forms including Conceptual art, Minimalism, Video art, Performance art and Installation art were reactions against the reigning modernist art practices questioning in an ironic and playful way concepts of originality and authenticity in art, the hierarchy of high and low culture, the master narratives and the idea that there is inherently one true meaning of a work of art. A movement that began in art and literature found it shared common sources in philosophy and the rest of the humanities. Yet to characterise the movement simply as a successor paradigm, as many contributing scholars have argued, is limiting especially when talking about a set of art or intellectual practices. It might be better to talk of the movement as a style or attitude.

Methodology and orientation This special issue is an exercise in collective writing and we have envisaged it as a ‘philosophy of a global thought survey’. We invited contributors to provide a short piece of writing and argument (about 500–600 words, and no more than 5 references). Our aim was to be as inclusive as possible. The process of collective writing in the past years has become an important exercise in ethics and multiplicity of engagements with diverse topics and people (see for instance: Peters et al., 2016; Jandrić et al., 2017; Stewart et al., 2017). Below are a number of statements by various authors to provide an orientation to the topic and help to frame the exercise: An aesthetic of cognitive mapping—a pedagogical political culture which seeks to endow the individual subject with some new heightened sense of its place in the global system—will necessarily have to respect this now enormously complex representational dialectic and invent radically new forms in order to do it justice. This is not then, clearly, a call for a return to some older kind of machinery, some older and more transparent national space, or some more traditional and reassuring perspectival or mimetic enclave: the new political art (if it is possible at all) will have to hold to the truth of postmodernism, that is to say, to its fundamental object—the world space of multinational capital—at the same time at which it achieves a breakthrough to some as yet unimaginable new mode of representing this last, in which we may again begin to grasp our positioning as individual and collective subjects and regain a capacity to act and struggle which is at present neutralised by our spatial as well as our social confusion. The political form of postmodernism, if there ever is any, will have as its vocation the invention and projection of a global cognitive mapping, on a social as well as a spatial scale (Jameson, 1991). As we know, postmodernism, as a literary and cultural movement, came to an end some time ago not only in the West but also in China,

178  Michael A. Peters, Marek Tesar and Liz Jackson although it has permeated in a fragmentary way nearly all aspects of contemporary culture and thought. Today, we readily think about the duality of something without falling back on the traditional idea of ‘centre’ or ‘totality.’ In the field of critical theory, there is no longer any dominant theoretical school or literary current that plays a role like the one played by postmodernism and poststructuralism in the latter part of the twentieth century (Ning, 2013, p. 296). It is not that postmodernism’s impact is diminished or disappearing. Not at all; we can’t unlearn a great idea. But rather, postmodernism is itself being replaced as the dominant discourse and is now taking its place on the artistic and intellectual palette alongside all the other great ideas and movements. In the same way as we are all a little Victorian at times, a little modernist, a little Romantic, so we are all, and will forever be, children of postmodernism. (This in itself is, of course, a postmodern idea) (Doxc, 2011). It seems then, that a new dominant cultural logic is emerging; the world—or in any case, the literary cosmos—is rearranging itself. This process is still in flux and must be approached strictly in the present tense. To understand the situation, we have to pose a number of questions. The first, and most dramatic, is ‘Is postmodernism dead?’; quickly followed by ‘If so, when did it die?’. Critics—such as Christian Moraru, Josh Toth, Neil Brooks, Robin van den Akker and Timotheus Vermeulen—repeatedly point to the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, the new millennium, the 9/11 attacks, the so-called ‘War on Terror’ and the wars in the Middle East, the financial crisis and the ensuing global revolutions. Taken together, these events signify the failure and unevenness of global capitalism as an enterprise, leading to an ensuing disillusionment with the project of neo-liberal postmodernity and the recent political splintering into extreme Left and extreme Right. The cumulative effect of these events—and the accompanying hyper-anxiety brought about by twentyfour hour news—has made the Western world feel like a more precarious and volatile place, in which we can no longer be nonchalant about our safety or our future (Gibbons, 2017). As to whether postmodern discourse is still dominant these days, I’d say it’s much less so. Since 9/11, we’ve witnessed the unfolding of a new and rather alarming grand narrative, at just the point when grand narratives were complacently said to be finished. One grand narrative—the Cold War—was indeed over, but, for reasons connected with the West’s victory in that struggle, it had no sooner ended than another got off the ground. Postmodernism, which had judged history to be now post-

After postmodernism in educational theory?  179 metaphysical, post-ideological, even post-historical, was thus caught offguard. And I don’t believe it has ever really recovered (Eagleton, 2016). Postmodern philosophy emphasises the elusiveness of meaning and knowledge. This is often expressed in postmodern art as a concern with representation and an ironic self-awareness. … The only place where the postmodern is extant is in children’s cartoons like Shrek and The Incredibles, as a sop to parents obliged to sit through them with their toddlers. This is the level to which postmodernism has sunk; a source of marginal gags in pop culture aimed at the under-eights (Kirby, 2016). In considering the names that might possibly be used to designate the new era following ‘postmodernism,’ one finds that the prefix ‘trans’ stands out in a special way. The last third of the twentieth century developed under the sign of ‘post,’ which signalled the demise of such concepts of modernity as ‘truth’ and ‘objectivity,’ ‘soul’ and ‘subjectivity,’ ‘utopia’ and ‘ideality,’ ‘primary origin’ and ‘originality,’ ‘sincerity’ and ‘sentimentality.’ All of these concepts are now being reborn in the form of ‘trans-subjectivity,’ ‘trans-idealism,’ ‘trans-utopianism,’ ‘transoriginality,’ ‘trans-lyricism,’ ‘trans-sentimentality’ etc. (Epstein, 1998) Postmodernism as a literary movement in the United States is now in its final phase of decadence…. American culture moves into an era of postliterature' … As postmodernism fades into the past, there is no evidence that any meaningful literary movement will follow it. … American culture generally is becoming increasingly postliterate … and in the end of postmodernism we may also be witnessing the end of literature as a mode of culture. (De Villo, 1987, p. 41) ‘The Ends of Postmodernism?’ The question mark acts to recoil upon a set of discourses and cultural phenomena that, at least in the popular imaginary, proclaims in apocalyptic tones ‘the end’: the end of modernism, the end of metaphysics, the end of humanism, the end of Man, the death of God, the end of value. It resonates with its modernist Hegelian sibling discourses, both rightist and leftist, that still carry some theoretical weight: the end of ideology; the end of history, the end of the welfare state, the end of communism or capitalism. And, at the same time, it shares the same kind of popular expectation of something that follows ‘the end’: whether it be ‘the new’, ‘the beginning’, or ‘a return’, historically speaking. In one sense these eschatological narratives of endings (and beginnings), …. are endemic to Western culture and help define both its cultural specificity and its sources of renewal. ‘Post-

180  Michael A. Peters, Marek Tesar and Liz Jackson modernism’, like a host of other similar terms christened with the same prefix, such as ‘Post-Impressionism’ and ‘Post-Expressionism’, employs a reactive rhetorical device or strategy, betraying what I call a ‘naming anxiety’. Reading the signs of exhaustion—an end or completion—the users of this device, following many precedents, lacked the confidence to name ‘the new’ and fell back upon the strategy of naming what it is not. This process of negative definition is, intellectually, both less risky and less ambitious. Charles Jencks (1996, pp. 14, 15) has recorded seventy such related uses, including ‘post-industrial’, ‘postminimalism’, ‘postMarxism’ and ‘post-liberal era’, and charted a genealogy of ‘postmodernism’ in terms of its pre-history (1870–1950), its positive definition (1950–1980), and its final phase (after 1981) characterised by attacks upon it and its anthologisation (Peters, 2008).

The writing experiment This special issue is an experiment and performance of inclusiveness of ideas and of scholars, of ethnicities, ideologies and countries, and of gaining the widest representation of philosophical views in the question posed. The format and genre had simple rules mostly governed by conciseness and the restriction of words: governed to be about the same length as a full abstract. The format, however, we felt was substantial enough for scholars to register their view and to point to their preferred alternative. There was still space for original statements, thoughts, ideas and presentations. The question itself—posed to the global community of philosophers of education—attracted over 170 responses from 26 countries. While the leading affiliations were unsurprisingly dominated by Western countries, such as USA, UK, Australia, New Zealand and Canada, the range of ethnicities, viewpoints and philosophical lenses was diverse among those based in Western countries, while a significant number of authors also came from South East Asia, former Eastern Europe and other countries around the world. The question presented to scholars around the world was deliberately incendiary and naive: we wanted to allow contributors to give vent to their feelings and clearly state their attitude. ‘What comes after postmodernism in educational theory?’ is an attempt to capture the intellectual fashion cycle that governs the hallowed halls of the university, in part a result of the commodity status of ideas and their embodiment in texts that are sold and often become used in university courses. Against this view of commodity cycle there are also some now standard philosophical positions that have become canonised (as postmodernism itself has) to function as reference points in intellectual history. Yet, the canonisation of texts and their anthologising do not represent the final step in the historical reception of ideas often because of the intersection of ideas, their revival and mutation, give new life and new directions. We suspect that this will be the case for the

After postmodernism in educational theory?  181 modernity-postmodernity, modernism-postmodernism debates that have engendered other philosophical developments. The genre of the short piece still allows the statement of an argument, or, at least, its outline; alternatively it also allows the expression of feeling— disgust, amusement, irony—and even a nuanced understanding, together with a brief indication of sources and references. This is in marked distinction to the now industrial, standardised 6,000-word academic paper that has become the major vehicle for the expression of thought or findings and dominates contemporary journal publishing—a genre and standard which, even a short glimpse at the archives for this journal will reveal, is not fixed, permanent, necessary or natural, but more precisely understood as part of the fashion of higher education global productivity measurement of today. Indeed, the brief paper has its cousin in the aphoristic genre often associated with the wisdom tradition (hadiths, proverbs, epigraphs, sutra) that dates from Heraclitus in the West. It also has connections to questions of form in poetry like the Haiku or Tanku in Japan, or sayings, idioms and puns in folklore. Many of the papers make use of various aspects of the compression of thought to rely on gnomic utterances. Many of our contributors take advantage of the form and the relation between form, style and thought to express the complexity of their views. This genre experiment also foreshadows a larger whole. Like an abstract it forecasts the structure of a larger piece and the direction of argument. To a large extent we favoured the short piece for the reason that it gave greater opportunity for us to accept the largest possible number of responses. And we were overwhelmed when we discovered that more than 170 scholars submitted their work. Our attitude was to try to accommodate everyone through sharing their words; to perform only light editing; to accept all work irrespective of the sentiments expressed (and, of course, whether we agreed or not was immaterial). The effect has been to give a kind of survey quality of thought, analysis and reaction—a philosophical rain-gauge to register the climate change of opinion. In this case, we sorted all short papers into nine rough categories that reflect some of the major commonalities.

The philosophy of fluid containers These categories are convenient containers only. They are not watertight containers. Many of them are overlapping, and allow us to think with ideas. Categories and papers within them are not organised in any kind of specific order other than the logic of the editors’ understanding of fluid containers, that spill-over to the next one. Postmodern thinking container Papers in this section reflected on postmodernism in relation to practices and thinking, and a large subset of these worked to identify, analyse and describe in some detail the sorts of qualities marking postmodern thought

182  Michael A. Peters, Marek Tesar and Liz Jackson and what comes after. Papers explored binaries associated with the modern or pre-postmodern era—of objectivity/subjectivity, universalism/particularism, holistic/systemic and so on. They characterised what has been learned since the postmodern era and after its theoretical reign, in terms of breaking through these divides and distinctions. Building common consensus brick by brick, returning to the world while carrying a critical theoretical spirit, filling empty traditions with earth and life, engaging and reinvigorating a postmodernism that is not dead but rather undead, appropriated and misappropriated—these were some of the thought experiments invoked by writers concerned with what comes next. Living in paradoxical times where there must be reality, truth and life, while cognizant of the politics of knowledge in the post-truth era, was considered in papers from the views of the philosopher, the educator and the politician. Many papers also encouraged playfulness, minor philosophies and small experiments, to think through the present as possible and develop optimism against herding forces of relativism in the world today. Postmodern politics container Politics was foregrounded in many papers and implicitly invoked in others, which referenced the challenge of developing empowering truth and knowledge in a post-truth era in politics. The overvaluation of numbers, data, resources and science over human life, hope, love and existence was noted as another characteristic of the current political era, where postmodernism has been engaged in particular ways at the neglect of others, to reframe the roles and practices of institutions, including schools. Identity politics, of whiteness, westernity, victimhood and more, are analysed as they interweave particular currents of the postmodern era and beyond. The need for greater holism that serves people more equitably and justly, entailed a move away from deconstructivist tendencies of the era by some writers, while others noted the politics of naming eras, constructing eras and the like. Such papers serve to underscore the diversity and plethora of politics, of truth, identities, peoples, resources, theories and more, evidencing power relationships at play in scholarship and contemporary social and political life. Postmodern cross-disciplines container Thought, politics, identities, education and theory as shaped by postmodernity and since, were common themes throughout papers, while a smaller subset of papers elaborated and unfolded on such themes through exploring disciplinary orientations within and beyond educational philosophy and theory. These papers showed how postmodernism and its so-called demise has intersected with such essential concepts as intelligence, communication, practice, art and moral value, as seen in various fields, including psychology, media studies, science, arts and physical education. At the same time, many papers argued for making connections across fields to complexify knowledge gained from

After postmodernism in educational theory?  183 any one reductive view. Balancing out abstractness with intuition and childlike vision was also called for by some authors. How globalism has impacted fields, and the importance of maintaining criteria for research and claims in an interdisciplinary context were also explored as key results and responses of the postmodern era and beyond. Such an exploration across disciplines invokes new questions in turn, for educational theory, politics, education and more. Non-Western postmodernism container There were a large number of papers that interpreted the question in relation to Eastern ideas, philosophy or systems such as a return to modernity (with fresh non-Western eyes), indigenous philosophies, African philosophies, post-colonialism, Confucianism, Daoism and Taoism. Many of these papers emphasised sympathy with postmodernism, and some, the difficulty of translation or the emergence and rediscovery of classical Eastern doctrines that take a new confluent form as a result of Western contact. In particular, this container heralds both an end to the hegemony of Western forms and philosophy and a new moral and aesthetic sensitivity that accompanies the economic decline of the West and the rise of the Rest, especially China. It is a pity that we had only one response from India and Africa, although also encouraging to get such positive responses from scholars in China, Taiwan, Korea and Japan. Not all of these scholars chose to write from an Eastern perspective. A good number of the contributors from the US were from countries outside the US but working in US-based institutions. Postmodern critique container The brief essays collected together under this heading speak to both the critique of postmodernism and its replacement, with most taking a benign view but arguing for an ethical dialogism as a successor. The few falling into the first category raise the spectre of reason and realism, picturing postmodernism as a reaction against humanism, ‘pure reason’ and objectivity. For these thinkers postmodernism is self-defeating in its assumed relativism. Of those contributors falling into the ‘replacement’ set, a good number emphasise a version of dialogue as a means of rescuing theory from the relativism of postmodernism. Postmodernism deconstructed subject-centred reason, but had nowhere to go. Dialogue and specifically Habermasian intersubjective communication action is advocated as one dialogical solution. Another proposes Bakhtin’s philosophical dialogism, and yet another practical reason in dialogue after Kant. A number of submissions suggest we can go back to modernity, to metaphysics, or to a metamodernism or transmodernism (after its engagement with postmodernism). Some suggest we go back to Plato and a kind of shared wisdom. What is disturbing to most is that postmodernism is associated with scepticism, subjectivism and indeterminism. These authors are worried there are no certain criteria for determining value and that its effect is deleterious for public and private memory.

184  Michael A. Peters, Marek Tesar and Liz Jackson Postmodern legacies container Many authors concerned with the question of what comes after, in this section and elsewhere, devote themselves to posing an alternative: comparativism, ecologism, openness, inter or trans relationalisms. Some outline that we must live with the acceptance of greater pluralism. One contributor maintains that there is a necessary creative dynamic that links postmodernity to modernity: they exist together. One author questions whether ‘post’ means the same as ‘after’ and then questions whether postmodernism is anything more than a form of critique. It is not a theory, she concludes, and perhaps it hasn’t yet arrived. Others suggest postmodernism exists as a kind of paradox. Again there are calls to go back to Kant, to realism, to humanism, to certainty. Others emphasise the not-yet, the moment before emergence of truly global imperatives associated with ecology. Some retreat from disclosing alternatives to examine the term of the question and what it implies. Postmodern education container The papers around education emerge from thinking beyond postmodernism as the capitalisation of the self. The growth of intellectual, human and social capital and the increasing importance of all forms of capitalisation of the self, coupled with the accent on a Lyotardian logic of performativity and epistemologies of performance, provide the role for government in developing learning infrastructure, incentives and promoting access to knowledge in education. Postmodern critique is in the affinities with Structuralism, as the critique of humanist, liberal, philosophy and the decentring of the rational, autonomous, self-transparent, subject of humanist thought. This leads to a general theoretical understanding of language and culture in terms of linguistic and symbolic systems. Adding to the critique enters the space where the postmodern comes not only in tension with structuralism, but also with the contemporary thinking around education—whether it is pedagogy, curriculum or leadership. Postmodern new ontologies container Papers in this container focused on re-thinking boundaries of episteme and ontologies of postmodernism. The differences to structuralism, the notion of new historicism, the reintroduction of history as genealogy, and the challenge to scientism and essentialism in the human sciences, anti-foundationalism in epistemology and ethics, and a new emphasis upon perspectivism, were not in the forefront of these concerns. Instead, the ideas of challenging the ontology and foregrounding the question ‘what is philosophy?’ The politics of different—or new—ontologies offer a deepening of democracy through a political critique of both enlightenment and postmodern values. Moving past the traditional ontologies offers an emphasis on philosophies of difference and the encounter with the Other and the new emergence of

After postmodernism in educational theory?  185 ‘the multitude’—the coming of world democracy in philosophy. While we do not suggest that this container is fixed, it certainly offers possibilities that are beyond traditional positionings of ontology. Postmodern theory container There are a number of notions that emerge in and embrace papers in this section. Some of them relate to thinking about philosophy of the subject and overall notions. One could argue that the point is to argue that papers in this container performed what is referred to as ‘always historicizing’ and working with a genealogy of methods. Similarly, some papers in this section argue to materialise, that is to follow the linguistic turn and philosophical modernism that gave birth to the literary culture, where texts and speech became the cultural ‘materials’ for fashioning the self, individual and identity. Narrative is thus a textual analogue for the self, and allows the materialising of self-consciousness. The papers in this section have however argued for the importance of theory and reflection, thinking, being and other relations with theory within Po-Mo. Theory in this mix does not give an answer to the question, but it complicates the positioning, progression and trajectory towards ‘what next’.

Concluding comments: thought survey as democratisation While philosophy in Greek means ‘love of wisdom’, postmodernism as a field has perhaps no boundaries or clear end lines, and is often contested in terms of what counts as postmodernism and what does not. This writing experiment allows a thought survey to function as a carrier of multiplicities and projects focused on postmodernism. The diversity of contributors speak to one of the benefits of doing this kind of ‘thought survey’: and the democratisations of scholarship and their opportunities to express scholarly arguments. The process of collective writing is the opposite of silencing scholarship and arguments. The global philosophical arguments represented in this thought survey are both encouraging and concerning. Encouraging, with respect to getting so many diverse and excellent scholars on board, from so many countries, institutions and ethnicities; and at the same time concerning that it took us so long to get here. This writing and thought experiment reveals, first and most basically, that there are a number of orientations towards and conceptualisations of postmodernism in the diverse and interdisciplinary field that is roughly described as philosophy of education or educational theory today around the world. Perhaps some sort of implicit postmodern spirit has framed this endeavour, as this experiment has highlighted in relation that such diversity cannot be essentialised or simplistically categorised and systematised, if we consider such modernist defining features of scholarship and theory such as those of geography, demography, identity and ideology. The survey has thus portrayed difference and diversity, showing that no two scholars are just alike,

186  Michael A. Peters, Marek Tesar and Liz Jackson despite the common sense, modernist view still upheld in much discourse on higher education and research, that some rough consensus is the primary function of academic practices—that scholars overwhelmingly favour one view of things, at least within one field. That is certainly not what this experiment has revealed, although a more traditionally cultivated edited collection on postmodernism would surely suggest something more linear, coherent, artificially systematic. On the other hand, if anything unifies these responses, it is a clear sense of commitment to discourse on the topic of postmodernism. This commitment surpasses any evident conviction on the part of the authors to the traditional contemporary genre of academic writing, as few authors tried to submit more than 500 words, a seemingly impossibly small number of words to convey arguments among many scholars accustomed to the 6,000-word essay. Responses to our question were also often characterised by strong language and conviction. This may be partly a way to make each word count in a short space. Yet, a sense of political or civic duty, to righting moral wrongs related to truth and post-truth, to empowerment of thought, of students, or humanity, infuses many essays, revealing also a kind of pulse-taking of the time we are living in today, marked by feelings of uncertainty in relation to global politics, epistemology and professional vocation. These responses overwhelm, taken as a whole, reflecting a dedicated and very much alive academic field of educational philosophy and theory. It is a force that is not impossible to uncover if we dare to engage in experimentation and look beyond the fashions of academic publishing of today. We finally must thank the authors for their contributions, which offer a broader and deeper exploration of the state of the field while collectively driving in many fruitful directions for further experimentation within and beyond academic writing.

References Blake, N., Smeyers, P., Smith, R., & Standish, P. (1998). Thinking again: Education after postmodernism. Westport, CA: Bergin & Garvey. Crowther, P. (2003). Philosophy after postmodernism: Civilized values and the scope of knowledge. London: Routledge. De Villo, S. (1987). The decline of American postmodernism. SubStance, 16(3), 29–43. doi:10.2307/3685195 Domańska, E. (1998). Encounters: Philosophy of history after postmodernism. Charlottesville, VA: University Press of Virginia. Doxc, E. (2011). Postmodernism is dead. Prospect. Retrieved from https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/magazine/postmodernism-is-dead-va-exhibition-age-of-authenticism. Eagleton, T. (2016). What’s next after postmodernism? Retrieved from Postmodernism Epstein, M. (1998). The place of postmodernism in postmodernity. Retrieved from http://emerymartin.net/FE503/Week10/Epstein-The%20Place%20of%20 Postmodernism%20in%20Postmodernity.pdf Gibbons, A. (2017). Postmodernism is dead. What comes next? Retrieved from https://www.the-tls.co.uk/articles/public/postmodernism-dead-comes-next/

After postmodernism in educational theory?  187 Harris, J. P. (2007). Value, art, politics: Criticism, meaning and interpretation after postmodernism. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press. Huber, I. (2014). Literature after postmodernism: Reconstructive fantasies. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Jameson, F. (1991). Postmodernism, or, the cultural logic of late capitalism. Retrieved from https://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/us/jameson.htm. Jandrić, P., Devine, N., Jackson, L., Peters, M. A., Lazaroiu, G., Mihaila, R., … Benade, L. (2017). Collective writing: An inquiry into praxis. Knowledge Cultures, 5 (1), 85–109. doi: 10.22381/KC5120177 Jencks, C. (1996). What is Post-modernism? London and New York: University of Michigan, Academy Editions. Kirby, A. (2016). The death of postmodernism and beyond. Philosophy Now. Retrieved from https://philosophynow.org/issues/58/The_Death_of_Postmodernism_And_Beyond McHale, B. (2015). The Cambridge introduction to postmodernism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ning, W. (2013). A reflection on postmodernist fiction in China: Avant-garde narrative experimentation. Narrative, 21(3), 296–308. Owen, D. (1997). Sociology after postmodernism. Thousands Oaks, CA: Sage. Peters, M. A. (2008). Apocalyptic thinking now: The ends of postmodernism. Review of Contemporary Philosophy. Retrieved from the-ends-of-postmodernism. Peters, M. A. (2017). Post-truth and fake news. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 49(6), 567. Peters, M. A., Jandrić, P., Irwin, R., Locke, K., Devine, N., Heraud, R., … Benade, L. (2016). Towards a philosophy of academic publishing. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 48 (14), 1401–1425. doi: 10.1080/00131857.2016.1240987 Rose, B. (2016). Painting after postmodernism. Belgium: Lannoo. Smith, R. A., & Wexler, P. (1995). After postmodernism: Education, politics and identity. Bristol: The Falmer Press. Stewart, G., Arndt, S., Beslet, T., Devine, N., Forster, D., Gibbons, A., … Tesar, M. (2017). Antipodean theory for educational research. Open Review of Educational Research, 4 (1), 61–74. doi: 10.1080/23265507.2017.1337555 Zalewski, M. (2000). Feminism after postmodernism. London: Routledge.

12 Between the blabbering noise of individuals or the silent dialogue of many A collective response to ‵Postdigital Science and Education′ (Jandrić et al. 2018) Sonja Arndt, Gordon Asher, Jeremy Knox, Derek R. Ford, Sarah Hayes, George Lăzăroiu, Liz Jackson, Julia Mañero Contreras, Rachel Buchanan, Laura D’Olimpio, Mark Smith, Juha Suoranta, Olli Pyyhtinen, Thomas Ryberg, Jacob Davidsen, Anne Steketee, Ramona Mihăilă, Georgina Stewart, Mark Dawson, Christine Sinclair and Michael A. Peters Introduction (Sonja) Navigating ‘between the continuous nature of biological existence and the discrete (“on/off”) nature of digital technology’ (Jandrić et al. 2018a: 893), the postdigital ruptures conceptions of certainty and knowledge in education. By unsettling conventional and long-established constructions of ourselves in our human engagement with, by, even as, technology, the postdigital shakes educational orientations and ideals at their very (humanist, knowable) roots. This paper tackles the postdigital educational realm in a collection of responses to an editorial titled ‵Postdigital Science and Education′ published by Petar Jandrić, Jeremy Knox, Tina Besley, Thomas Ryberg, Juha Suoranta and Sarah Hayes in Educational Philosophy and Theory as a mission statement for the journal Postdigital Science and Education (Jandrić et al. 2018a). The authors of the editorial raise questions in relation to the realities evoked in the postdigital temporal and educational milieu, sparking the responses and reactions below. This collection of responses emphasizes the significance of the topic, for example asking whether talking about the postdigital means that the digital revolution is over now. Or, alternatively, whether it means that we remain embedded in its depths to such an extent that it has already immersed us in some kind of new normal (and if so, what is that normal?). Has technology and all that we call ‘digital’ become so entrenched, in our banal everydayness, that we no longer even notice it? Are we experiencing this new normal in ways which were never imagined, which lead us constantly into the new, the feared, the dangerous—or conversely into a realm of delight, discovery, adventure or freedom?

Between blabbering noise of individuals  189 As a confluence of views on the postdigital, this collective piece is a provocation. It provokes ongoing dialogue amongst ourselves and other authors, thinkers, workers, students, children and citizens in the digital realm. It plays out not only in the Western world, but provokes a blurring of binaries dependent on classification systems such as Western and non-Western, poverty indicators, educational benchmarks, class, race and ethnicity that too frequently result in educational segregations and marginalizations. This paper plays out the idea of dialogue as an encounter, not only with the words of the writers, those uttered in the sections that follow, but rather, each piece in this collective paper draws also on past views by which the authors have been affected, each author’s present experiences, and their hopes, dreams, aspirations, their hidden or not so hidden worries about the future. The complex nature of dialogue means that it can act as both a bridge and a fissure, and this task should not be taken lightly. Whilst the authors of this paper are connected in that their responses all depart from the editorial by Jandrić and his colleagues, they are nevertheless also individual. What the authors share reveals both agreements and tensions, philosophical orientations, and personal and institutional views, arising from each of their diverse origins. They explicate the complexity of both postdigital futures and collective and individual academic subjectivities (Peters et al. 2019). Finally, this paper is intended as an ongoing provocation: towards and for developing postdigital dialogues, pedagogies and futures, and the collective potential of our own and future authors’ contributions. Postdigital science What Does/Might the ‘Post’ in the Postdigital Suggest: Education, Eco-social Justice and the Critical Postdigital? (Gordon) The prefix post(-) triggers us to recognise that there is something to talk about in the term that follows (Sinclair and Hayes 2018: 12) The postdigital is hard to define; messy; unpredictable; digital and analog; technological and non-technological; biological and informational. The postdigital is both a rupture in our existing theories and their continuation (Jandrić et al. 2018a: 895) A technology always has a history, and it has a politics. A technology likely has a pedagogical bent as well (Morris and Stommel 2018a: xii) The prefix ‘post’ has (at least) three, potentially related, meanings (Sinclair and Hayes 2018), namely, after, with and against. It seems that, for many, such as editors/writers with the new journal Postdigital Science and Education, their understanding and application of the term ‘postdigital’ incorporates aspects of all three, whilst often foregrounding a critical conception and approach.1 As the purpose of constructing abstract concepts and theories is to enable us to better understand, engage with and transform the world, I’d like to move through these three meanings to propose—for those of us whose purpose centres on questioning and transforming increasingly

190  Sonja Arndt et al pervasive neoliberal realities and imaginaries in education and wider society—talking about the ‘critical postdigital’. Doing so emphasizes the intention to inform our practices and attendant relations (our praxis) as for radical democracy and eco-social justice. The Three Meanings of Post In the first meaning, ‘post’ can indicate a temporal, sequentially chronological dimension. The ‘postdigital age’ (Jandrić 2017) thus follows on from and supersedes the era or epoch of ‘the digital revolution’ (Negroponte 1998). Here, ‘postdigital’ symbolizes changed realities or contexts which require a conceptual reconfiguration. Building on this first meaning, the second and third meanings can be viewed as aspects of critique, as critically reflective responses to the digital. Thereby, the second meaning viewed as drawing on and evolving the insights of the digital, as following on from and building on, as in a ‘continuation’, albeit a reinterpretation or development of. And the third meaning viewed as, at least partially, in opposition to or in contradiction/tension with. Be that as a ‘rupture’ with or departure from the digital, thereby questioning its premises or assumptions as no longer, or perhaps ever, fully accurate or applicable. Thus, responding to, challenging and potentially transforming its premises and dominant underlying paradigm. For many involved in contemporary dialogues on the topic (e.g. Jandrić et al. 2018b), it appears that aspects of all three meanings are present. With the postdigital being conceived of as possessing a temporal aspect and as ‘both a rupture in our existing theories and their continuation’ (Jandrić et al. 2018a: 895)—speaking to the third meaning, as tempered by the second. That is, as after and with (building on) but also against and beyond—a ‘holding-to-account’ of the digital’ (Jandrić et al. 2018a: 895). The Critical Paradigm and the Critical Postdigital For some, this aspect of the third meaning of ‘post’, as signifying an oppositional critique—a focus on what Jandrić et al. describe as ‘the critical dimensions of the ‘post’ prefix’ (Jandrić et al. 2018a: 895)—is framed and oriented by a commitment to a wider, political project, situated within a critical paradigm (Jandrić 2017; Asher 2018). One focused on working towards genuine equality and radical democracy in all spheres of society, as central aspects of eco-social justice (Amsler 2015; Giroux 2017). It is these radically political conceptions of the postdigital that I believe we could term the ‘critical postdigital’, to provide greater clarity and emphasis as to a critical framing and orientation. The ‘critical’ qualifier serves to identify a specific cluster of meanings for the postdigital, explicitly foregrounding this critical framing and orientation (avoiding confusion amongst an increasing range of differing, contradictory and contested interpretations (Taffel 2016; Sinclair and Hayes 2018), and through doing so, locating a positionality for postdigital work/engagement as contributing to that urgent, wider, political project for

Between blabbering noise of individuals  191 radical democracy and eco-social justice. As such, drawing on and contributing to a constellation of ‘critical’ conceptions and theories, practices and relations, and related radical imaginaries—that speak to necessary resistances and alternatives to the hegemony of neoliberalism’s state/corporate nexus and thus responses to our contemporary conjuncture of integrated crises (Haiven 2014; Chomsky 2017), including that of the university (Bacevic 2017; Hall 2018; Asher 2015). Specifically, in such an educational context, critical communities, struggles, theories, practices and relations associated with critical pedagogies and popular education (Giroux 2011; Cowden and Singh 2013; Crowther et al. 2005; Horton and Freire 1990); hybrid and critical digital pedagogy (Morris and Stommel 2018a, 2018b); critical academic literacies (Asher 2017); and critical university studies (Williams 2012; Cantwell and Kauppinen 2014; Morrish 2018).2 Not least, to address the inevitable dangers of co-option and recuperation by mainstream hegemonic discourse and practice, under contemporary neoliberalism’s inherent and increasingly authoritarian trajectories; postdigitization within bio-informational capitalism (Peters 2012: 105). The postdigital as subject to and forms of, thus both being shaped by and shaping, wider societal marketisation, commercialisation, financialization and commodification—‘it [the postdigital] has already become commercialized’ (Andersen et al. 2014). As Morris and Stommel (2018a, b) and Hall (2018) contend, this is clearly already the case for much of the new media and technology of education. The critical postdigital provides a critique of both the digital and mainstream (capitalist) conceptions of the postdigital; ‘as moving beyond, predominantly positivistic, digitally mediated capitalist social relations’ (Peters 2015). As such, it contributes to ongoing educational and societal struggles and social movements working for eco-social justice and the development of genuinely democratic and emancipatory alternatives. Thus, the ‘postdigital’ provides one useful conceptual lens for describing and understanding our contexts and likely trajectories. And the qualifier of ‘critical’ provides an explicit orientation that speaks to resistances and alternatives to the intensifying neoliberalization of both education and wider society. Drawing on Holloway (2016), the critical postdigital can be framed and oriented as with(in), against and beyond the digital and the capitalist postdigital. And thus, as one aspect of a wider, radical, political project, conceived of as in, against and beyond capitalism/neoliberalism—and with respect to Higher Education; in, against and beyond the increasingly neoliberal university (Jandrić 2017; Hall and Winn 2017; Asher 2015; Canaan 2012; Cowden and Singh 2013). And as for the radically different ways of living and relating, being and becoming, learning and thinking, doing research and education, that are necessary in an increasingly (post)digitally mediated world. Postdigital: the indirect, unseen and absent digital (Jeremy) Central to the emerging theorizations of the postdigital is the curious notion that digital technology, on the one hand, has reached a point of such abundance as to become omnipresent, whilst on the other, precisely due to this banality, is disappearing, both into the materiality of our environment and

192  Sonja Arndt et al the everyday unconscious of our lives. To claim we are straightforwardly in an era of ‘ubiquitous’ technology does not quite seem to capture this sense that ‘the digital revolution is over’ (Negroponte 1998), whilst at the same time seeming to be ‘the master narrative of our world’ (Fuller and Jandrić 2018: 26). Further, how can we seriously engage with this notion of the postdigital, where many parts of the world, and many aspects of our social lives, do not seem very digital in the first place? The problem here is overreliance on a rather simplistic model of direct access to digital gadgets as a measure of influence. To understand the postdigital condition, we need to shift the way we view our relationships with technology, away from the engrained idea of individuals or societies making use of specific ‘tools’, and towards a more nuanced view of the character of our connections within broad sociotechnical systems. The precise and powerful contention of the postdigital is that one does not need to be on one’s smartphone to be shaped by the digital. This might be identified through the immeasurable array of algorithmic agents that proliferate in the global financial system (O’Neil 2017), thus indirectly effecting economic prosperity here, and deprivation there, quite regardless of mobile network penetration, or our digital literacy levels. Further, one might avoid digital technologies as much as possible in one’s professional role, only to be appraised through organizational data mining and analytics. One does not need to ever have had a Facebook account to find oneself inundated with articles about new media privacy and surveillance in the Sunday papers (e.g. Adams 2018). The key point here is that, in order to develop a critical understanding of the postdigital, we often need to pay more attention to the influence of the indirect, unseen, and absent digital, and to understand our present, and direct interactions with technical paraphernalia, where we have them, as part of broader systems of relations, of which we are a part, but which do not necessarily fall into mutually exclusive user or used relationships. This encourages thinking, not about simple notions of empowerment, perhaps through ‘personalized’ media streams or access to ‘free’ educational content, but rather about the extent of agency within systems that have digital and non-digital actors (through which our entertainment or education might be better understood as merely the by-products of a much more elaborate data computation enterprise). Future education needs to do more, not just to help produce tomorrow’s users, coders and data scientists, but also to encourage an understanding of our relationships with technology as reaching far beyond our screens. One of the important things signalled by the postdigital condition is that we can longer simply choose to be involved with digital technology. The question now is to what extent we are already entangled. The blabbering noise of individuals or the silent dialogue of many? (Derek) In her contribution to our first postdigital dialogue (Jandrić et al. 2018b: 6), Sarah Hayes focused on the valences of dialogue, which, she says, can take

Between blabbering noise of individuals  193 two forms: first, ‘the form of open, insightful and exciting interchanges’, and second, a form ‘constrained if language is loaded with economically based assumptions and individualized agendas which restrict how we might collectively imagine alternative futures’. The latter form dominates educational research and practice, and thus with our new postdigital project, we must question the value (exchange or use) we accord to dialogue. In order to overcome dialogue degraded by exchange value, in other words, we have to overcome our own individual agendas. This is where our first postdigital dialogue failed. In her short book, Whale Song, Margret Grebowicz (2017) confirms Hayes’ call. Grebowicz identifies a paradox with environmental activism that we can generalize to our general postdigital condition. ‘As humans make their “voices” heard in the institutions available to them for what today passes for self-expression’, she writes, ‘the world becomes literally—visually—noisier and noisier’ (Grebowicz 2017: 75). To hear the whale song requires, among other things, silence, quiet. With so much noise, it is difficult to hear, to truly listen. Exchange-value is, after all, solely about quantity rather than quality, and multiple individual agendas contribute more noise than collective ones. Academic exchange in the postdigital era thus faces key hurdles. Of course, much has already been written about the publish-or-perish regime. What I am interested is the fact that our contributions are valued individually. We think of ideas as belonging to individuals (here I am responding to Hayes), or, at best, groups of individuals (which is different from collectives). When reading our first postdigital dialogue, I do not sense any real collectivity (Ford 2017). Instead, we have individual agendas that cohere at times and diverge at others. At this point, I want to make one slight correction to Hayes’ conception of dialogue. She explicitly writes that the first form is ‘open’, which implies that the second form is closed. Indeed, in many ways, the second form is closed: it’s locked in the individual form, closed within the circuits of exchange, and subjected to the rule of exchange-value. Yet capitalism itself is an incredibly open system that not only accommodates, but thrives off complexity and openness (Ford 2016, 2019). Postdigital dialogue need not take closure as a value, but it must include an evaluation of the times and extent of which it should be open. We may have to think about the open and closed in a dialectical fashion. This has the effect of reuniting the form of dialogue with its content, which we also have to issue value judgments over: what should it be about, what and who should it be for? If we do not do this, we’ll continue circling the drain of postdigital educational dialogue, contributing only individualized noise pollution and ironically inhibiting our ability to listen and form the collectives we need to conceive and materialize a different future. Postdigital reflexivity (Sarah) Around five years ago, I was struck by the surge of new stationery appearing on the market, surprised by the renewed popularity of planners and journals (Sheppard 2018). At the same time, whilst teaching my Sociology students, I noted with interest the array of devices and notebooks they brought to classes

194  Sonja Arndt et al and supervision meetings. These individuals raised in a digital age, bore little resemblance (I thought) to the mythical ‘digital native’ (Kirschner and De Bruyckere 2017). They appeared to have adopted a hybrid approach using both digital and non-digital tools that (they told me) helped personal organization. Yet, learning involves more than these organizational aspects, that new businesses have now seized upon for increased capital (Sheppard 2018). A need for humans to make meaning beyond digital mechanisms alone has opened these avenues, revealing the social, economic and cultural trends that closely intermingle with the digital, since humans adopted the Internet. Developing the concept of ‘postdigital’ and understandings of the human ‘postdigital condition’ (Jandrić et al. 2018a) is both a shared endeavour and an individualistic inquiry. Yet, like any terminology, the ‘postdigital’ could also be considered jargon—just another expression put forward by a community that is difficult for others to understand. Already the rationale for the use of ‘postdigital’ has been examined (Jandrić et al. 2018a) and the ‘work’ of the prefix ‘post’ in ‘postdigital’ has been considered (Sinclair and Hayes 2018). At risk of adding to potential accusations of jargon … I now propose that ‘postdigital reflexivity’ might also be explored, as a developing practice. By this I mean an ongoing, critically reflexive interrogation by each of us, into the notion of ‘postdigital’ as a proposition we are adopting and adapting. Particularly, if I use it to further meaning, for example, concerning the journal habits of my students … The origins of a theory and the social circumstances of its creation are important because the ‘genesis of an idea is deeply social’ too (Mills 1940: 319). Even ‘jargon’ can itself be described as jargon and the notion of a ‘buzzword’ is itself not above scrutiny. To be critically reflexive is to honestly acknowledge our own human ‘role of positionality and subjectivity’ (Dean 2017: 1) in how we adopt and apply words, such as ‘postdigital’. We may seek new connections through the ‘postdigital’ in the belief that the ‘digital’ has wrought forms of separation, but without reflexivity, the ‘postdigital’ may divide too. Whenever a word or phrase becomes objectified, it is distanced from humans, unless we continually point to its subjectivity, origins and political interests. The same principle applies to technology. Elsewhere, I have argued for a close scrutiny of higher education policy discourse, such as ‘technology enhanced learning’ and ‘student engagement’, for these reasons (Hayes 2019). So, for the sake of provocation: what makes the notion of ‘postdigital’ any different? When we ‘do reflexivity’ (Dean 2017) subjective spaces that reconnect humans are opened. The ‘imperfections’ of the ‘postdigital’ have already been acknowledged, but this may not be enough, if we do not practice (and interrogate) approaches towards ‘postdigital reflexivity’. Paradigmatic patterns of knowledge production in the postdigital humanities (George) The urgency to operate technical products and clarify the limitations dictated by technical tools shapes the manner in which knowledge and meaning

Between blabbering noise of individuals  195 are generated. Any rigorous methodological approaches to the postdigital humanities would paradigmatically back the creation of meaning above and beyond that of operational postdigital products. The postdigital humanities is characterizable through synergy, partnership, cross-fertilization, and disagreement with similar disciplines. To comprehend the postdigital humanities, the underlying character of postdigital culture and society should be apprehended. Humanist incongruity in relation to computing indicates positions in wider society, and is triggered by the same ontological anxiety. Even though computers are concrete physical objects, they perform at a degree of elaboration that misperceives normal connections and encourages dialogue. Computers are tools that are incorporated in human society in elaborate but not unquestionably pivotally important ways. A purposeful rise in technical capability, associated with resourcefulness in employing postdigital tools and methods and creating postdigital goods (Mirică (Dumitrescu) 2018) is frequently correlated with a decline in significant requirement of computational technologies. Knowledgeable postdigital humanists acquire implicit proficiency about how first-rate postdigital products are created, comprising standard procedures in software engineering and programming, technical demands necessitated for academic outputs, initial inspection of user groups, and the character of operational and ineffectual preconditions. The postdigital humanities community is impacted by disparities in the worldwide scientific cooperation surpassing computing culture or the postdigital devices it employs. The postdigital humanities provides a test site indispensable in examining the consequences of computing for humanistic construals of the world (Smithies 2017). The postdigital humanities represents the utilization of computational criteria, processes and devices to humanities contents: it should provide theoretical interventions and postdigital approaches for a historical stage when the algorithmic has become both prevailing and post-screenic. The postdigital humanities is unprecedentedly disposed between technology and culture, analysing judiciously how the tempos of the computational are performed and actualized. The postdigital humanities should advance to eulogize the established values of the humanities and should intensify its integral comprehension of computer technology and its related routines. Without an incisive analytical introspection, postdigital humanities is unsuccessful in its standardizing capacity to influence the broader humanities, in addition to its useful contributions. The postdigital humanities may be instrumental in a rigorous analysis of culture and society (Mitea 2018) that links to the dynamic fashions in which culture is churned out, consumed, assessed and distributed in intricate computational societies. Text has an archetypal role in postdigital humanities work. Knowledge portrayal and encoding as a series of routines are a considerably relevant component of postdigital humanities. Postdigital humanities can be decisive to a scrupulous reflexive community that can employ its computational grasp in public society, politics and scholarly knowledge production for the common good. The consistence and the semiotics of postdigitized works constitute the basis of postdigital humanities

196  Sonja Arndt et al that should participate in significant design undertakings (Peters and Besley 2018) to set up alternatives to the present computer systems. Postdigital humanists should improve their capacities of evaluation in relation to sites of power, encompassing the mental representation of postdigital technologies, platforms and infrastructures (Berry and Fagerjord 2017). Postdigital education Changing the World with Fingerprints: the Postdigital, Bio-informational Capitalism and Education (Liz) ‘Postdigital science and education’ (Jandrić et al. 2018a) takes readers beyond the concept of the digital, reminding of the significance of biology to twenty-first-century knowledge practices. As Peters (2012) notes, bio-informational capitalism invokes the physical (digital) and biological (non-digital), as technology challenges are economic and political (Jandrić et al. 2018a: 894). Articles like this, which aim to develop the concept of postdigital, are urgently required today. This last week, I operated for several (work) days without my own computer, laptop or mobile phone. Before this event, I prided myself on being able to live, and enjoy, life, without these devices. Ten years ago, the idea that any of them were required was just emerging in (post)modern societies. Yet in these last few days I experienced a feeling of deficiency. Not being able to access distributed data and information and engage with others from anywhere, anytime, made me feel vulnerable, lacking, guilty, anxious and confused. A sense of urgency accompanied these feelings, that this situation needed to be rectified as soon as possible, lest it hurt my productivity. I found myself apologizing and explaining to colleagues. To be without fingertip access to others is now akin to being in another country without roaming or great Wi-Fi. It is a problem, a risk. That a professor (or student) is incomplete without regular and ‘natural’ online access has been touted in the digital age as a good thing. There is convenience and customer service. But it has a cost to bodies which used to have independence and autonomy, historical values of academia (Berg and Seeber 2016). That the postdigital is more than digital, and biological, also comes to mind when observing the nefarious uses of big data. Today I can book a holiday, order pizza or do any number of tasks on my phone through fingerprint identification. Yet my phone also records and shares with others how often I tap, open, use, hold, unlock and set aside my phone and use apps. Websites and apps which track usage code this data, to recognize if I am an anxious or leisurely user; if I am suggestible or not, in relation to news sources, fake news or social networks. Companies claim this data is being used to improve experiences. However, it has also been used in recent years for partisan political purposes. Our fingerprints are the new ‘carbon footprints’, as public relations firms mine human data to change the course of elections, and thus global political, economic and ecological realities.

Between blabbering noise of individuals  197 I applaud Jandrić et al. (2018) for building up new concepts such as ‘postdigital’. Such work is needed to politicize the digital and the biological, and illuminate the material realities of an unfolding world of data and information. It is also a call for developing new understanding of what it means to be researchers, educators and youth in a world both online and offline, which is messy and often depoliticized. As fingerprints change the world, the move to the postdigital is timely. Postdigital education: a common good (Julia) Our contemporary conjuncture is complex and pregnant with algorithms (Peters and Besley 2018). There is a tendency to view the digital as an essential concept that interacts with our ways of developing as human beings. Living in a world where the digital sphere and its borders are blurred, it seems important to look back and make a deep reflection about our current condition, which is—whether we want it or not—a curious combination of the digital and the non-digital. For the lack of a better term, Jandrić et al. (2018a) (and other authors) call it postdigital. The postdigital is not static, it is a highly dynamic process which evolves and grows every single time that we think of interactions between digital technologies and our ‘original’ nature. Conceived in US military laboratories, claims Tim O’Reilly (in Osuna Acedo et al. 2017), the Internet has nevertheless enabled wide participation, new democratic opportunities, community development, and informal learning. In the postdigital age, ‘it is clear that contemporary networked learning is becoming increasingly more diverse’ (Jandrić et al. 2018a: 895). It also takes place everywhere, so in the postdigital era we seem to be entering the era of ubiquitous learning where people teach and learn simultaneously in so-called ‘affinity spaces’ which, to an extent, resemble popular culture (Jenkins 2008). The view to students as active subjects in teaching and learning processes is one of the main principles of Freire’s pedagogy. According to Freire (2005), we all are educators and pupils at the same time; this relationship expands to the digital context and beyond (McLaren and Jandrić 2014; Jandrić and Boras 2015). That is why the postdigital is ‘considered as an extension of Paulo Freire’s pedagogical model’ (Jandrić et al. 2018b: 7). Education is much more than transfer or generation of knowledge and skills (Giroux in Peters et al. 2018: 204); more importantly, it is also a preparation for participation in a common social project (Delors 1996). Educational policies and educators have a huge responsibility for generating participative cultures and critical pedagogies aimed at learning and building a democratic society based on dialogue and participation (Kaplún 1998). Today’s postdigital spaces, online and offline, are being regulated by technical design and politics. By and large, education and knowledge development are commercialized and instrumentalized (Bauman 2008; Delors 1996; Deng et al. 2019; Wakefield et al. 2018). A ‘critique of digital reason’ is a

198  Sonja Arndt et al term, adopted by an increasing number of today’s critical theorists, that takes into account the control systems and political economy behind the postdigital reality (Peters and Besley 2018). We now face a significant challenge of claiming the postdigital sphere as a common good which belongs to everyone and where everyone is represented—including non-human actors such as animals and artificial intelligences (Jandrić 2018). Freire’s (2005) message that education must aim at transforming the world, and the work of his successors claiming that common education needs to work in favour of social justice (Escaño 2013), now needs to be updated in and for the postdigital reality. Schooling and the postdigital (Rachel) When considering schooling and the postdigital, a tension is evident. On the one hand, students, teachers and schools can be understood as being postdigital. On the other hand, however, education policy and curricula indicate a continued push to further embed digital technologies in schools. Policy rhetoric betrays a fear that students are not being adequately prepared for participation in a global digital economy and are not being given enough exposure to digital tools. This section contrasts the postdigital with policy rhetoric that suggests that school systems are not yet digital enough—let alone postdigital. Given the increasing uses of digital technologies for surveillance and accountability within education systems, it could be argued that the policy rhetoric operates as a screen obscuring the degree to which digital technologies are reshaping education systems. The dominant policy discourse regarding educational technologies sees the addition of educational technologies in classrooms to make learning more efficient for students and easier for Australian teachers (Department of Education and Training 2018) and as a way of preparing students to work in the global knowledge economy (Buchanan 2011). With the assumption that technological skills are essential for economic participation, digital technologies are now a policy requirement in the provision of schooling in Australia (ACARA n.d.) and other nations globally. For example, the latest review into education in Australia advocates more use of digital technology for improving the school system. The need for continuous improvement is justified on the basis that Australian jobs and industries will be reshaped by revolutionary technologies, such as artificial intelligence and automation. These technologies will decrease the need for lower-skill, routine work, and increase the importance of problem solving, collaboration and interpersonal skills. […] We need a world-leading school education to equip Australian students to take advantage of these opportunities. (Department of Education and Training 2018: 3–4) Whilst policy documents read as though schools need to increase the usage of digital technologies, many children (in highly technological nations and

Between blabbering noise of individuals  199 wealthy contexts) can already be considered postdigital. Young children incorporate digital technologies into their play, and this is now part of the way that they learn about the world (Edwards 2013). Older children and adolescents not only have high rates of ownership of digital technologies such as tablets, iPods and mobile phones, but they use social media as part of their identity formation via ‘public displays of connection’ (Boyd and Ellison 2008) and the creation of a profile on social network sites to ‘type oneself into being’ (Sundén 2003: 3). The traditional narratives of identity and agency available to young people ‘are being complemented by new possibilities that are the direct outcome of their participation’ (Mallan 2009: 53) in a postdigital world. Not only is there evidence to indicate that students are postdigital, in contrast to policy rhetoric that suggests that school systems need to make more use of technology, examination of the school systems’ use of digital data collection suggests that these systems can already be considered postdigital as well. Consider the following: teachers’ work has been datafied via professional standards accreditation processes that make them countable, measurable and able to be ranked (and not just through data generated about their students, but against the data that they themselves must produce about their professional development) (Clarke and Moore 2013). Learning analytics platforms are increasingly being used in schools. These are designed to ‘mine data about learners as they go about educational tasks and activities in real time and to provide automated predictions of future progress that can be used as the basis for intervention and pre-emption’ (Lupton and Williamson 2017: 785). Students are being continuously monitored in a multitude of ways, including their progression from preschool to further and higher education, their physical activity, use of digital devices, social media, and their physical location can be recorded in perpetuity as well as tracked in real time. These varied uses of technology mean that students have become more enmeshed in an ‘ever-intensifying network of visibility, surveillance and normalization’, where the ‘embodied expert judgement’ of their teachers is displaced by disembodied algorithmic and adaptive decision-making technology (Lupton and Williamson 2017: 786–787). The risk in such education systems is that such processes shut down educational possibility and that students’ prior actions determine the future learning made available to them. Policy rhetoric that suggests that more technology is needed to ensure the development of successful systems of schooling serves to obscure the degree to which education is already postdigital, and the ways in which technology is currently exercising control over students and teachers. A postdigital exploration of education allows for a nuanced exploration of the effects of such uses of technology, rather than a continued myopic focus on embedding digital technologies in schools which ‘make us overlook that contemporary student practices with technology are complex entanglements between physical and digital technologies, spaces, activities, and time’ (Jandrić et al. 2018: 896).

200  Sonja Arndt et al The critical and ethical postdigital (Laura) In terms of its educational possibilities, the postdigital offers more than we can currently possibly imagine precisely because the prefix ‘post’ paves the way forward into the future and is ongoing (Jandrić et al. 2018a). The educational environment has not kept up with current technologies and is at risk of falling even further behind as technological changes continue to occur at a rapid rate (D’Olimpio 2018). With the technological infused into the world, our bodies and permeating the way we connect and communicate, Web 2.0 is always interactive and never static. Users are also content curators and creators, whose traditional skills of literacy and numeracy must be flexible enough to effectively make use of the technology at our disposal and be ever prepared for the new and innovative. A useful approach for educators is to remember that although digital natives have grown up with this technology and it is second nature to them, this does not necessarily mean that young people know how to use such technology critically or ethically, with care and compassion for both themselves and others with whom they interact. The ethical questions seem to come later, too late, after the moral dilemmas have arisen, and yet it is vital that we initially critique and query how we wish our lifestyles and our world to be transformed by the digital and by technological innovations. Placing human considerations and the ethical at the centre of the discussion is something that may be taught in a classroom setting, whereby a ‘safe’ exploration of important ideas may be enabled via genuine dialogue. As the postdigital ‘tends to focus on the experiential rather than the conceptual’ (Andersen et al. 2014), it is imperative we ask the question about what kinds of experiences we want, rather than passively going along for the ride and then afterwards complaining about motion sickness. As the postdigital space ‘already has become commercialized’ (Andersen et al. 2014), we need to consider the consumer power and impact the masses may have in asserting what we want and what we value: whether that is hedonism or compassionate global citizenship; whether it is economic gains at the expenses of others or policies that support climate change mitigation. These options (and endless more) need not be binary oppositions, but the few in positions of power will only listen if the masses learn how to communicate such priorities in a way that will be noticed. Hence, why education is vital in the postdigital age. In a postdigital space, literacy is multiple and must go beyond language in order to include culture and context (Cope and Kalantzis 2000: 5) and, now, code. As such, literacy is ‘embedded in multiple socially and culturally constructed practices’ rather than as a ‘uniform set of mental abilities or processes’ (Gee 2009: 196). In order to engage well with multiliteracies, one must adopt a critical and moral disposition flexible enough to take into account the variety of contexts and perspectives presented by a range of media (D’Olimpio 2018: 76). When considering the impact of globalisation on curriculum and pedagogy, educationalists face two main concerns. Firstly,

Between blabbering noise of individuals  201 how to teach learners to be global consumers or citizens. This includes a focus on global values, social justice, sustainable development and environmental education (Edwards and Usher 2008: 53). Secondly, the impact of informational technologies and the emergence of global education as a result of such technology. Herein lies the hope of a democratic accessibility to information, yet we must not forget the interaction between the global, the local and the regional. As digital ‘voices’ multiply, postdigital educational spaces are no longer closed and fixed and this is echoed in the way we now speak of meaning-making, rather than ‘meaning’, as participants interact in order to jointly construct and co-construct meaning. The optimism ‘about the potential of global technologies to create information democracy and low-cost access to a whole range of knowledges’ (Edwards and Usher 2008: 160, quoted in Edwards and Usher 2008: 65) will only be realised if a central space is established for education that includes the exploration of ethical questions pertaining to the postdigital. Postdigital smartphone addiction and nomophobia: we need to talk about Jumbo (Mark S) They did extraordinary tricks, showed you things you hadn’t seen, were fun. But came, through some gradual dire alchemy, to make decisions for you. Eventually, they were making your most crucial life-decisions. (Gibson 2010: 53) Mouthed by the central character (Milgrim) in Zero History (Gibson 2010), William Gibson’s reflection on addiction in an iPhone-obsessed world speaks to postdigital education. I speak as a creative practitioner who teaches and researches in the field of digital arts. Working with students, I have witnessed the emergence of a mindset within the studio classroom that does not question use of smartphones; does not critique algorithms that direct ‘independent’ research and idea generation. Stroking one’s touchscreen has become ‘an integral part of our lives’, indicative of growing dependency, ‘if not addiction’ (Hartanto and Yang 2016: 329). Like many who work in education (including the students themselves) my regard for digital technology is conflicted. For myself, the daily grind of sifting through the detritus of my email inbox is balanced by my unending appreciation of its creative facilitation of my research, writing and film-making. Peter McLaren describes this duality as a simultaneous loathing and addiction to technology (in Jandrić 2017: 190). It is this notion of the postdigital ‘addict’ that I would highlight, alluded to by Negroponte: ‘being digital will be noticed only by its absence, not its presence’ (Negroponte 1998). Written a decade prior to the release of the first iPhone, Nicholas Negroponte’s interdisciplinary approach to research and thinking resonates with the need for meaningful debate about our use of mobile digital technologies within educational contexts. Nomophobia (the fear of being

202  Sonja Arndt et al without smartphone connectivity) is rife, with students regularly describing their usage as an addiction and research that indicates a dip in cognitive reasoning when students are temporarily disconnected from their smartphone (Hartanto and Yang 2016; Mendoza et al. 2018; King et al. 2014; Yildirim and Correia 2015). The ubiquity of the smartphone and its potential to affect students’ cognitive behaviour has emerged as what I identify as the virtual elephant-in-the-room. Our postdigital ‘Jumbo’. For many educationalists, be they an academic researcher, a school principal, or a teacher establishing the parameters of students’ daily technophilia, phenomena that may be associated with addiction to smartphone fuelled postdigital existence has reached a hiatus that requires a dialogical solution. As a lecturer in the creative arts I have witnessed nomophobic responses to smartphone deprivation, ranging from nervous tics, to anger. Such a range of physical and emotional manifestations of nomophobia correspond to research findings that identified common areas of anxiety, such as ‘not being able to communicate’. It is this feeling of disconnectedness with their immediate environment that, above all else, lends a sense of addiction to many students’ use of the smartphone, and calls for the ‘elephant-in-the-room’ to be named and subjected to open, democratic and critical dialogue. We need to engage with smartphone usage. In postdigital societies, touchscreen technologies enable participation and knowledge transfer. Do smartphones also disenable a high percentage of students? In a postdigital misle that blankets us with those half-truths and lies that garner our attention, are we capable of highlighting the need for critical dialogue about smartphone usage and its addictive properties? As critical educationalists, if we insist on supporting students’ location of this virtual Jumbo in our classroom or studio, then we must also ask ourselves: are we capable of assuming the mantle of the addiction counsellor? Postdigital praxis in a sociology class (Juha and Olli) One way to avoid the danger of ‘postdigital’ becoming another academic buzzword, an empty signifier, is to connect it to a human endeavour, i.e. educational praxis. In our pragmatic view, the concept must be embedded into and have a counterpart in a certain practice for it to be meaningful and sensible. Following Ludwig Wittgenstein’s suggestion that ‘the meaning of a word is its use in the language’ (Wittgenstein 1958 paragraph 43), in this short text we briefly describe our experimental academic teaching practice. The more we have taught in the university, the more we think our teaching as a postdigital practice mixing ‘metaspace’ and ‘cyberspace’. In the fall semester 2018, we mentored together a BA-level sociology course on the sociological imagination in the spirit of C. Wright Mills’ classical work The Sociological Imagination (1959). Instead of using our university’s password-protected Moodle learning environment, we launched a (Finnish language) Wikiversity course page

Between blabbering noise of individuals  203 as our digital platform (https://fi.wikiversity.org/wiki/Wikiopisto:Etusivu). The multilingual Wikiversity is a free, open-access, and easy to use learning environment for all operated and administered by Wikimedia Commons Foundation (see Suoranta 2010; Suoranta and Vadén 2012; Suoranta and Renfors 2019). In the planning stage, we defined our role as mentors or facilitators who would not lecture (too much) but organize and in a way ‘curate’ the learning and group work of students. Keeping in mind the general theme, we designed the contents of the course in a manner that would best give the students and us alike opportunities to cultivate our sociological imagination. In the first class we introduced our Wikiversity course platform containing the weekly schedule, reading materials as PDF files, and Internet links. The students formed groups for weekly assignments, and each group created a subpage to the Wikiversity page for them to share their report their discussions and share their ideas with the rest of the class. After the introductory session, we had the following themes once a week: the promise of social science, intellectual craftsmanship, paradigms (or chronotopes) of social science, the study of personal experiences, sound and the visual (in social media) as sociological data and study objects, and, finally, the intersections of literature and the sociological imagination. We gave the groups flexible and openended assignments, and asked them to ponder the themes from the point of view of the sociological imagination. And they did! Often their insights were spectacular. The course was very much a flipped classroom in that the students had their autonomic group meetings during the week. In the group meetings, they fluently used both the digital resources of the Internet (e.g. Instagram pictures, YouTube videos) and the university library (e.g. scientific papers, academic thesis and books), discussed the themes with each other and prepared for the next week’s class. Every group wrote (copied and pasted) their thoughts, insights, links and questions on their individual Wikiversity page before the classes. In the class, we shared our insights and began to act simultaneously as teachers and students in a Freirean spirit (Freire 2005: 72). Inside and outside the classroom, we became a group of people who shared a concern and were passionate about a topic, and who along the way deepened each other’s knowledge about the possible and perhaps impossible interpretations of sociological imagination. Based on our teaching experiment, we emphasize the postdigital as a form of ‘community of praxis’ in which praxis refers to reflection (group and classroom discussions) and action (organizing groups work and writing wiki comments), and suggest that in educational—or perhaps in any other— social settings the ‘postdigital’ refers to (a) the multiple use of both digital and traditional information as an ordinary practice, (b) the mixing of digital and face-to-face interaction inside and outside the classroom, (c) the fruitful solution of the teacher-student contradiction, and (d) the expansion of learning via open digital platform such as Wikiversity.

204  Sonja Arndt et al Postdigital practices in students’ work (Thomas and Jacob) In the editorial for Postdigital Science and Education (Jandrić et al. 2018a), it is initially stated that ‘We are increasingly no longer in a world where digital technology and media is separate, virtual, ‘other’ to a ‘natural’ human and social life’ (893) and that ‘student practices with technology are complex entanglements between physical and digital technologies, spaces, activities, and time’ (896). This is thoughtfully explored in the inaugural issue by Fawns (2018) who equally argues for the inseparability of the digital and the ‘natural’ and social life. In this brief commentary, we share an empirical example illustrating the intertwined nature of the digital and non-digital to add some flesh and blood to this general idea. The example stems from our field work within the past 5 years, where we have explored students’ use of digital technologies as part of their problem-oriented project work in Aalborg University (Ryberg et al. 2018). In particular, we have observed students from the programme Architecture and Design (A&D) and have had the opportunity to video-record substantive amounts of video-data of their everyday work in their studios located on the same floor. In the course of the observations, we learned that students—apart from sharing physical spaces— equally shared ideas and designs through a Google+ group and via Pinterest (the former initiated by the teacher coordinating the semester). The students can thus explore design ideas of the other groups by walking around visiting the other groups physically as well as online and get inspired by others’ work. In one of the groups, the design ideas they collected on Pinterest were printed and physically hung on wires in their studio. As their project progressed, the printed design ideas were replaced and re-organized, but remained there as a ‘suspension bridge’ connecting the physical and digital aspects of their work. In our field work, we have come across numerous examples of such transpositions between the physical and digital. This illustrates that when we, as researchers, look closer at students’ actual practices with (and without) digital technologies, we may encounter many such bricolages or patchworks where the digital and physical materials and resources are intimately woven together in creative manners. It shows glimpses of how the students are not working in separate or distinguishable realms or realities, but how the digital and physical are continuously mixed and braided together forming knots that cannot be easily disassembled into discrete parts. In this manner, the students are engaged not in digital or material practices; rather their practices are in many ways postdigital understood as complex socio-material entanglements of the ‘digital’ and ‘physical’ rendering the very distinctions between the two problematic.

Postdigital identities Unsiloing Identity: the Need for a Postdigital Identity Theory (Anne) I sat with a group of psychologists, one educator in a sea of therapy-speak. The case being staffed involved an adolescent student with limited language

Between blabbering noise of individuals  205 skills. One therapist reported that the student exhibited certain areas of deficit, yet also noted that he spent an inordinate amount of time on his phone, supposedly playing games. As the case was discussed, clinicians around the table asked questions. Was a particular test used for assessment? Was a particular score within normal range? Was a particular diagnosis considered? I listened to all of this, wondering if I had missed something. Finally, I could contain myself no longer as I asked, ‘What was he playing on his phone?’ It seemed to me that this student was showing motivation, connectivity and some sort of possible mastery—all of this at a time when these three inner competencies seemed to be called into question. If postdigital education and experiences reveal anything, they show that we are changing the world with technology. But technology is also changing us. The obvious changes are social, political, educational and more (Jandrić 2017). This leaves me wondering about psychology, though, and theories of identity. It might be possible that we need postdigital theories of psychological development to account for how students today might be different, psychologically, from previous generations. Or—perhaps—how we all are different in this postdigital age. A reconsideration of psychological identity theory through the lens of postdigital realities is not to be confused with digital identity theory. There are plenty of digital identity theories that parse how students form their online identities. Digital identities, broadly, can be conceived of as both process and product (Poletti and Rak 2014), malleable and fluid, constructed according to social need (Ahlquist 2015), yet concrete enough to be stolen (Sullivan 2018). Identity theories are too numerous to include here, but current theorists who speak to college student identity are Jones and Abes (2013), Torres et al. (2009) and even Zhao et al. (2008), to name a few. Although there does not seem to be one fluid theory that accounts for postdigital realities, precedent-setting scientific findings lean toward the development of such theories: experience marks the brain, making profound alterations (Carrion et al. 2007; Falcone 2013); the brain changes from digital exposures, especially in adolescents (Crone and Konijn 2018); and epigenetic research tells of the interplay of biology and environment (Toyokawa et al. 2012). These three strands weave a whisper that perhaps there are developments in the brain that transform identity. At the very least, this seems like something to consider. Jandrić et al. (2018a: 895) called for a ‘critical understanding of the very real influence of these technologies as they increasingly pervade social life’. I wonder if part of that critical understanding is the development of our understanding of postdigital self. Junco (2014) described online identity at three levels: true identity (a profile that reflects demographic information), pseudonymity (created demographics, like a handle), and anonymity (no or obscured demographics). This type of analysis, though, splits people into digital selves and demographic selves. These siloed identities continue to walk separately, albeit arm in arm. Fawns (2018: 4), in describing education, describes ‘all teaching as incorporating digital and material activity’, in recognition that the boundaries between humanity’s activities cannot be

206  Sonja Arndt et al so formally drawn. As binaries begin to fade in postmodern, anti-oppressive philosophies (Kumashiro 2015), these digital/material, virtual/actual separations dissolve into continuum. Fawns (2018) reflects, ‘Thus, in discussing postdigital ideas of education, I am looking less for a linguistic shift and more for a shift in educational culture.’ Precisely, the type of idea I am considering for identity theory. Not an additive ‘digital identity’ but a shift in psychological thinking that embraces and interrogates postdigital psychology—how are we changed, at our very essence, in this time, and how are children who are born into this postdigital time looking at and experiencing their worlds? Feenberg (2019: 1) notes, ‘The postdigital no longer opposes the virtual or cyber world to the world of face-to-face experience.’ Perhaps this integrative stance is one which psychological theorists and researchers can also consider. Postdigital discussions lend themselves to topics of humanity, theology, and the social sciences (Fuller and Jandrić 2018). However, if we do not reframe psychology in light of postdigital realities, we risk talking around students instead of stepping into their new paradigms, their social virtual realities, their third spaces of engagement. Instead of cobbled hybrid psychosocial identity theories, we might need reconceptualised postdigital psychosocial identity theories to provide the way into the new world of an adolescent living in a postdigital reality. Postdigitally networked self-representations of girlhoods, virtual social identities and online textual routines (Ramona) Cultural interpretations of gendered selfhood are influenced by the literary and media frameworks in which they are created and employed. In postdigital economy, girlhood may be fluid. Girlhoods, as hyper-apparent, impenetrable and regulated grounds upon which expressions of bloom and gender combine, take up a burden of cultural gear as their authors travel through the super-imposed areas of online and offline realms. Such acts of self-narration are induced, facilitated and regulated by the postdigital networks of production and utilization in which they navigate. A variety of automedial images take place in dialogue with and connection to one another, traversing media platforms and using a multitude of automedial strategies. Juvenile femininity is located in networks of textual manufacturing and consumption (RocaSales and Lopez-Garcia 2017) that are cut across by expressions of gender, girlhood and the commercialization of self-presentations. Commoditized and objectified, well-preserved feminine self-brands advertise girlishness. The display of factualness is questionable and the identity being formulated in self-referential contexts necessitates additional inspection. Autobiographical acts are established socially, within groups that can comprehend the identities exhibited through mentioning shared or designated meanings and values concerning personality and self-narration. Girls’ nonfictional media have target markets and niches that affect how they disperse and are received, defining the types of girlhood subjectivities that are portrayed. Such texts are articles of trade that are incorporated in arrangements of production

Between blabbering noise of individuals  207 and consumption, making discernible the exigencies and frictions that typify the arcade for girls’ self-representation. Girls’ autobiographical content is literary and media pieces that perform cultural work (Mihăilă and Mateescu 2017), and that involve approaches of self-narration in which they decide on exemplification, mediation and narrative architecture. Life description is a scheme that disregarded individuals employ to integrate themselves into culture (Maguire 2018). The current postdigital setting offers appealing opportunities for girls to produce substantial autobiographical fiction. Subjectivity and distinctiveness spread and operate in promising modes of performing postdigitally. The emergence of postdigital user-generated media has altered the array of available representations (Jouët 2018), making possible fashionable kinds of autobiographical subjects. Girl-authored media develops from the perimeters of a reality-insatiable media environment in which teenagers have taken advantage of a series of media tools with the intention of producing, displaying, and advertising their self-representations. Automedial routine may be instrumental in redesigning the media setting where apparent reality materializes as a relevant entertainment product. An automedial self may encompass a choice of interwoven postdigital contents that may disseminate autonomously, but that also team up to establish a personal brand. Such routines of self-mediation and networked nonfictional commitment may clarify how postdigital spaces are defining ongoing ideas of self. The contexts and crossing points in which postdigital texts prevail are evolving swiftly, changing the way such pieces are accessed and made known. Subcultures, and the contents that spread within them, resort to more far-reaching cultural trends of meaning and power and thus determine the types of subjectivities that are brought about for the girls who are experiencing this (Maguire 2018). Postdigital Māori science and education (Georgina) Digital technologies are central to our lives and efforts to re-seed and revitalize our indigenous languages and cultures in the twenty-first century. This world has become postdigital—a word pointing to the embeddedness of digital technologies at all levels, from personal to global (Jandrić et al. 2018a). Māori have been early adopters of new technologies. How does the embeddedness of digital technologies both help and hinder Māori aspirations for te reo and tikanga (Māori language and culture) within research, the academy and education? Firstly, digital tools for Māori language learning and information on Māori topics are rapidly growing and diversifying, including apps (Hika Group 2018), online dictionaries (e.g. Wordstream 2018) and repositories (e.g. New Zealand Digital Library 2018), school resources and support groups. These developments are supported by the legal status of Māori as an official national language (New Zealand Legislation 1987). Whilst in theory these digital tools are available to everyone, access depends on having things like

208  Sonja Arndt et al a computer and internet connection. The Māori population is concentrated at the impoverished end of the socio-economic scale, which means many Māori people are prevented by cost barriers from benefitting from the postdigital age: digital embeddedness cannot overcome economic inequity. A Māori-centric perspective is (or should be) more aware of the ‘underdog’ view and therefore (arguably) more inclined towards critical thinking about the effects of postdigitality. Other development characteristics of the postdigital age are taking place in knowledge regimes such as publishing. Until recently, it was nearly impossible to publish books or journal articles written in Māori. Publishing norms insisted all Māori words had to be italicised as ‘foreign’. These rules have been overturned by Kaupapa Māori attitudes and assertion of Māori political rights in the symbolic public domain and media. Facebook enables new forms of old practices such as whanaungatanga (maintenance of kin-group relationships). Critical sociolinguistics considers normalization of endangered languages like Māori as valid language rights (May 2012). Māori language publishing is currently in flux in the digital publishing environment, catalysed by the digital tools described above, with bilingual and Māori-only books appearing in the last few years (McFarland and Matthews 2017; Olsen-Reeder et al. 2017). Postdigital science also signifies methodological innovation in research and postdigital Māori science suggests new methods and ideas in Māori research. Science influences all research and residues of scientism (Sorell 1991) persist in qualitative research, especially in fields like psychology of education. Therefore, postdigital science also means the exposing and ejecting of these ideologies, which links it to critical theory in research and research methodologies, and aligns with Kaupapa Māori research principles. For Māori, the idea of ‘postdigital’ as a return to the ‘pre-digital’ has a literal connection to oral language forms and traditions. Novel forms of research such as expert dialogues, critical conversations (Hoskins and Jones 2017), narrative research (Stewart et al. 2015) and video research (Stewart and Dale 2018) are useful postdigital methodologies for Māori-centric research. We can expect to see a burgeoning of Kaupapa Māori video research in the next few years. In each case, these interdisciplinary methods have theoretically to cross the boundary from data collection to analysis, which involves the quality of being ‘theory-generating’ (Bogner and Menz 2009). In this way, Māori research interests cover the postdigital terrain, from knowledge recovery to knowledge production.

Conclusion Let us not forget—the digital (Mark D) At a conference in 1988, in a brief and largely improvised talk given as an introduction to a paper by the psychoanalyst René Major, the philosopher Jacques Derrida remarked that the impact of psychoanalysis on

Between blabbering noise of individuals  209 the philosophical discourse of the 1960s and 1970s resembled, in some way at least, a traumatic experience. For Derrida, this was a period when psychoanalysis ‘had pushed philosophy far away from the centre, obliging philosophical discourse to reckon with a logic of the unconscious, at the risk of allowing its most basic certainties to be dislodged, at the risk of suffering the expropriation of its ground, its axioms, its norms and its language’ (Derrida 1990: 4). Psychoanalysis, then, was a traumatic event which had disorientated philosophical discourse; something which shook the supposedly secure reason upon which most of it was based, and which appeared to expropriate philosophy from itself. What was interesting for Derrida, however, was the way that such discourse reacted, in that it seemed to imagine that the traumatic interruption of psychoanalysis had never happened: ‘people are starting to behave as though it was nothing at all, as though nothing had happened, as though taking into account the event of psychoanalysis, a logic of the unconscious, of “unconscious concepts”, even, were no longer de rigueur’ (Derrida 1990; 4). Reading the editorial for Postdigital Science and Education (Jandrić et al. 2018a), I was reminded of Derrida’s suggestion and wondered if there has been something similar happening in the reaction to the digital. In, for example, Negroponte’s claim that it might be all too easy to take the digital for granted, as that which is ‘noticed only by its absence’ (Negroponte 1998). But I also wonder if that response is itself a little too simple, and that what could also be happening is a certain double movement, mechanism or schema, whereby the very forces which are trying to forget or overcome the impact of the digital—in order to return to some form of stable or solid territory, or authoritative position of knowledge, foresight, power or control—are summoning the digital in order to eliminate, repress or ignore it (in a similar way that an exorcist might summon the very thing that they claim to eradicate). This would, of course, mean that all those reconstructed positions of authority and stability are put into question by the very term which they have supposedly conjured away, but which, in fact, no one can really claim to fully understand. The nuanced and varied comments in this collaborative article are, for me at least, a retort to what could be an almost mechanical response to, and repression of, the digital. What they signal instead is that we are not done with the digital, and indeed, that what the term postdigital might mean, if it means anything, is not so much a period in which the digital has become commonplace, but rather the recognition of a responsibility to affirm its profound complexity. In this sense, the postdigital reminds us of the complex effects and affects which are at work as a result of the shift in our experience of technology; it acts as a call to continually attempt to think the impact of the digital, and to note that it is perhaps at the very moment of its forgetting or absence—in the infiltration of algorithmic control mechanisms into our daily lives, for example—that the force of that impact is at its strongest.

210  Sonja Arndt et al

Open review 1: dialogic responses, dynamics and provocations (Christine) This interplay among the voices simultaneously keeps them separate and holds them together, that is, constitutes them as a social body. (Evans 2008: 75) Our collective paper brings to mind Evans’ (2008) construct of the ‘multivoiced body’, which encompasses the global public and the microcosms within it. Through dialogic interaction, the multivoiced body has the potential to resist the rise of universalizing doctrines—claiming the one right way—which Evans calls ‘oracles’. It is useful to explore here how the collective is constituted through authors’ individual responses to the original editorial by Jandrić et al. (2018a), as well as the dialogic dynamics across their separate contributions, and their provocations to further dialogue. Whilst the paper contains a sense that ‘something needs to be done’, there is no recourse to oracles. My own response inevitably adds to the dynamics, perhaps especially in relation to the contention that the first postdigital dialogue has failed. I maintain that it has not finished yet, so we cannot say that. Indeed, a dialogue may never conclude; here dialogue differs from dialectic (Wegerif 2017), which is not to deny that it can be progressive. Most of the interlocutors here, including some of the original authors, are responding to the editorial in Educational Philosophy and Theory.3 Some have a follow-up role and are responding to the paper in progress, for example by editing and sequencing it, or by introducing, concluding or reviewing. All of the follow-up interlocutors, including myself, express the hope that the dialogue will continue. How, then, might we be spared from ‘circling the drain’ with the dialogue’s blabbering? The paper itself contains some suggestions: both theoretical and practical. Despite the original editorial’s attempt to pin down the postdigital, one response has been that the word needs to be qualified in some way; suggestions include a preceding adjective and a subsequent noun. Indeed, critical postdigital reflexivity may well be a shared aspiration, combining a broad theoretical orientation with the acknowledgement that we will be doing something in the postdigital context that will affect how we think and talk about it. The sequencing of the paper admirably moves from understanding the construct, identifying hopes and warnings, and culminating in fascinating accounts of situations where the postdigital is in evidence. However, qualifying the postdigital has some further complexity. Its point of reference—the digital—may be unseen or absent. The conclusion warns that the digital may even be exorcised by certain forms of authority, echoing Evans’ (2008) concerns about oracles. Capitalism, globalization, neoliberalism, and commercialization all appear in the paper as potential candidates for oracles governing the digital or the postdigital, particularly when exacerbated by algorithmic control. It is understandable that resistance to such

Between blabbering noise of individuals  211 forces is sometimes accompanied by exhortations: what we must, need and ought to do. This is important; whilst the digital starts to become invisible, the paper points out that citizens, especially students, are rendered visible through digital surveillance and normalization. We need this awareness, we need urgently to discuss the associated obligations of science and education, and we need the dynamism of many voices in that dialogue. A dialogue seems an excellent way to begin a new journal. There should at least be as many readers as authors, and there will probably be many more. And the provocations here are worthy of response.

Open review 2: entangled academic subjectivity (Michael) In the common understanding, peer review is a process in which the name of the reviewer is not disclosed to the authors. In Educational Philosophy and Theory, I tried to experiment with the form in relation to collective writing projects so that reviewing became a collective process where the reviewer could add something more to the text, even ‘become part of the text’ whilst at the same time passing a judgment on the work of the text that has been assembled and developed by a group or network of authors. It is a complex and self-reflective evaluation that differs from traditional peer review. This paper is an example of the collective subject and the mode of collective intelligence that collaboration and especially collective writing can produce. And for this reason, it contains many different perspectives like refracted light that actually casts light on the theme which is academically interesting. In a condensed form that departs from the old industrial capitalist genre of the standard article, this kind of article-assemblage demands focus. Open peer review seems a good method to assess the outcome because in fact often as in this case it is based on a ‘community of scholars’ and represents several strands of research and writings that form a complex writing system. In this case, I need to acknowledge my own embeddedness—not in the production of this paper—but with various author-scholars in previous collaborative writing projects. I am inscribed in all sorts of ways. The questions of fair assessment and review is therefore impossible without indicating my own biases which is towards collective work, experimentation and the participation of multiple authors. Epistemologically I think this form has advantages—a kind of pluralism that helps to resist ideology and ‘nepotism’. I also have a bias toward complexity, brevity, condensation. This is why I like this paper: its form pleases me. Its political praxis explores many possible meanings of the ‘post’ and experiments with new approaches including the critique of the digital, or its pervasiveness—its ubiquity—that now has become a part of us and that conditions the new mode of being or ways of existing. Everything is defined by the digital. The postdigital is not confined to critique of culture, knowledge, media, logic, system but includes aesthetics and the politics of design. Through ‘author-review’ I am already a part of this paper by 19 authors and indebted to the original paper (Jandrić et al. 2018a) which was written by six authors.

212  Sonja Arndt et al I am caught in the net of ‘postdigitalism’—‘after, with, and against’, and the digital as a critical attitude which recognizes the rupture and continuation. The implicit entanglements are thematically repeated by many of the authors: digital and bio; digital and physical; virtual and textual; and ‘automediated’ postdigital user-generated media. These Derridean entanglements also involve identities, practices, forms of self-representation, including the postdigital as a form of ‘community of praxis.’ The critical element for me is the Kantian ‘critique of digital reason’ as an examination of possible conditions of postdigital forms of logic and knowledge. The scholars in this paper develop the concept of the ‘postdigital’ as the agenda of both the critical humanities and critical pedagogy. The ‘postdigital’ is what it means to be human in the time of digital capitalism considered as an ontological and cultural horizon. This emerges and serves as a focus for postcritical activity, ‘the humanization of digital technologies’, but also a better understanding of 5th generation cybernetic rationality, the cause of trade wars around the roll out of 5G networks, and a radical political economy that can effectively analyse interlocking systems of the trillion-dollar global digital giants. My recommendation is to publish. Let us see what comment it provokes.

Notes 1 It is worth emphasizing the need to be wary of any implication as to homogeneity and the potential for Western/Eurocentric assumptions; to appreciate the uneven nature of the postdigital, both within and between countries, and realities as to degrees of (post)digital poverty and limitations as to access, agency and application, etc. Which is not to suggest that there is any outside or outwith an increasingly globalized bioinformational capitalism (Peters 2012), rather that its impacts vary with respect to context, class and country. 2 This is where the postdigital’s focus on collective intelligence and knowledge making (Jandrić 2018; Peters and Jandrić 2018)—as closely related to ‘mass intellectuality’ (Hall and Winn 2017), the ‘democratic intellect’ (Davie 1990) and ‘conscientisation’ as collective critical consciousness (Darder 2015; Roberts 1996)—and hence the collective democratic production of knowledges, values and desires, subjectivities and relations, can be seen to relate to and inform conceptions of genuinely radical or participatory, democracy (Amsler 2015; Bookchin 1990; Shalom 2008). Underpinning a political process focused on democratic participation, relations, practices and decision-making across the different spheres of society (including education and research). 3 https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rept20.

References Adams, T. (2018). Facebook’s week of shame: the Cambridge Analytica fallout. The Guardian. Available: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/ mar/24/facebook-week-of-shame-data-breach-observer-revelations-zuckerberg-silence. Accessed 24 March 2018 Ahlquist, J. (2015). Developing digital student leaders: a mixed methods study of student leadership, identity and decision making on social media. (Doctoral dissertation, California Lutheran University) ProQuest, LLC. UMI Number: 3713711. Amsler, S. (2015). The education of radical democracy. London: Routledge.

Between blabbering noise of individuals  213 Andersen, C. U., Cox, G., & Papadopoulos, G. (2014). Postdigital research—editorial. A Peer-Reviewed Journal About, 3(1). Asher, G. (2015). Working in, against and beyond the Neoliberal University. Presentation for SCUTREA conference. https://www.academia.edu/13925922/ Working_in_against_and_beyond_the_neoliberal_university. Accessed 25 January 2019. Asher, G. (2017). The Porous University: opening up the university; being and becoming critically academically literate? Presentation for The Porous University Symposium: The Porous University – A critical exploration of openness, space and place in Higher Education, May, 2017, University of the Highlands and Islands. https://www.raggeduniversity.co.uk/2017/06/05/the-porous-university-opening-up-the-university-being-and-becoming-critically-academically-literate-by-gordon-asher/. Accessed 25 January 2019. Asher, G. (2018). Critical dialogues for learning and technology: In, against and beyond the neoliberal university. Open Review of Educational Research, 5(1), 144– 149. doi:10.1080/23265507.2018.1547950. Australian Curriculum, Assessment Reporting Authority. (n.d.). Information and Communication Technology (ICT) capability. https://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/f-10-curriculum/general-capabilities/information-and-communication-technology-ict-capability/. Accessed 25 January 2019. Bacevic, J. (2017). Why is it more difficult to imagine the end of universities than the end of capitalism, or: is the crisis of the university in fact a crisis of imagination? Jana Bacevic: Internal conversation, eternal emigration, 17.10.2017. https://janabacevic.net/2017/10/11/is-the-crisis-of-the-university-in-fact-a-crisis-of-imagination/. Accessed 25 January 2019. Bauman, Z. (2008). Los retos de la educación en la modernidad líquida. Barcelona: Gedisa. Berg, M., & Seeber, B. K. (2016). The slow professor. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Berry, D. M., & Fagerjord, A. (2017). Digital humanities: Knowledge and critique in a digital age. Cambridge: Polity Press. Bogner, A., & Menz, W. (2009). The theory-generating expert interview: Epistemological interest, forms of knowledge, interaction. In A. Bogner, B. Littig, & W. Menz (Eds.), Interviewing experts (pp. 43–80). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Bookchin, M. (1990). The meaning of confederalism. Green Perspectives, 20. http:// dwardmac.pitzer.edu/anarchist_archives/bookchin/gp/perspectives20.html. Accessed 25 January 2019. Boyd, D. M., & Ellison, N. B. (2008). Social network sites: definition, history and scholarship. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13, 210–230. v10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00393.x. Buchanan, R. (2011). Paradox, promise and public pedagogy: implications of the Federal Government’s Digital Education Revolution. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 36(2). doi:10.14221/ajte.2011v36n2.6. Canaan, J. (2012). Critical pedagogy, in, against and beyond the neoliberalised university. ESRC seminar Global Citizenship as a Graduate Attribute, UCL, 14 October 2011. http://andreasbieler.net/wp-content/files/Canaan%20Critical%20pedagogy.pdf. Accessed 25 January 2019. Cantwell, B., & Kauppinen, I. (Eds.). (2014). Academic capitalism in the age of globalisation. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.

214  Sonja Arndt et al Carrion, V. G., Weems, C. F., & Reiss, A. L. (2007). Stress predicts brain changes in children: a pilot longitudinal study on youth stress, posttraumatic stress disorder, and the hippocampus. Pediatrics, 119(3), 509–516. doi:10.1542/peds.2006-2028. Chomsky, N. (2017). Preface. In M. Albert (Ed.), Practical Utopia: Strategies for a desirable society. Edinburgh: PM Press. Clarke, M., & Moore, A. (2013). Professional standards, teacher identities and an ethics of singularity. Cambridge Journal of Education, 43(4), 487–500. doi:10.10 80/0305764X.2013.819070. Cope, B., & Kalantzis, M. (Eds.). (2000). Multiliteracies: Literacy learning and the design of social futures. London: Routledge. Cowden, S., & Singh, G. (2013). Acts of knowing: Critical pedagogy in, against and beyond the university. London: Bloomsbury. Crone, E. A., & Konijn, E. A. (2018). Media use and brain development during adolescence. Nature Communications, 9(1). doi:10.1038/s41467-018-03126-x. Crowther, J., Galloway, V., & Martin, I. (2005). Popular education: Engaging the academy – international perspectives. Leicester: NIACE. D’Olimpio, L. (2018). Media and moral education: A philosophy of critical engagement. London: Routledge. Darder, A. (2015). Freire and education. London: Routledge. Davie, G. (1990). The democratic intellect. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Dean, J. (2017). Doing reflexivity: An introduction. Policy Press. Delors, J. (1996). La educación encierra un tesoro. Santillana: Ediciones Unesco. Deng, R., Benckendorff, P., & Gannaway, D. (2019). Progress and new directions for teaching and learning in MOOCs. Computers in Education, 129, 48–60. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2018.10.019. Department of Education and Training. (2018). Through growth to achievement: the report of the review to achieve educational excellence in Australian schools (p. 158). Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia https://docs.education.gov.au/system/ files/doc/other/662684_tgta_accessible_final_0.pdf. Accessed 25 January 2019. Derrida, J. (1990). Let us not forget – psychoanalysis. Oxford Literary Review, 12(1), 3–8. doi:10.3366/olr.1990.001. Edwards, S. (2013). Digital play in the early years: a contextual response to the problem of integrating technologies and play-based pedagogies in the early childhood curriculum. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 21(2), 199–212. doi:10.1080/1350293X.2013.789190. Edwards, R., & Usher, R. (2008). Globalisation and pedagogy: Space, place, and identity (2nd ed.). London: Routledge. Escaño, C. (2013). Educación move commons. Procomún, cultura Libre y acción colaborativa desde una pedagogía crítica, mediática y e-visual. Arte, Individuo y Sociedad, 25(2), 319–336. doi:10.5209/rev_ARIS.2013.v25.n2.39078. Evans, F. (2008). The multivoiced body. Columbia: Columbia University Press. Falcone, T. (2013). Biomarkers for depression and schizophrenia: a progress update. Paper presented at 11th World Congress of Biological Psychiatry; June 2013; Kyoto, Japan. Fawns, T. (2018). Postdigital education in design and practice. Postdigital Science and Education. doi: 10.1007/s42438-018-0021-8. Feenberg, A. (2019). Postdigital or predigital? Postdigital Science and Education. doi:10.1007/s42438-018-0027-2. Ford, D. R. (2016). Communist study: Education for the commons. Lanham: Lexington Books.

Between blabbering noise of individuals  215 Ford, D. R. (2017). Studying like a communist: affect, the party, and the educational limits to capitalism. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 49(5), 452–461. doi:10.1 080/00131857.2016.1237347. Ford, D. R. (2019). Politics and pedagogy in the “post-truth” era: Insurgent philosophy and praxis. London: Bloomsbury. Freire, P. (2005). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Continuum. Fuller, S., & Jandrić, P. (2018). The postdigital human: making the history of the future. Postdigital Science and Education. doi:10.1007/s42438-018-0003-x. Gee, J. P. (2009). Reflections on reading cope and kalantzis’ “‘multiliteracies’: new literacies, new learning”. Pedagogies: An international Journal, 4(3), 196–204. doi:10.1080/15544800903076077. Gibson, W. (2010). Zero history. New York: Berkley Books. Giroux, H. (2011). On critical pedagogy. London: Continuum. Giroux, H. (2017). Rethinking higher education in a time of Tyranny. Truthdig, 14 October. https://www.truthdig.com/articles/rethinking-higher-education-time-tyranny/. Accessed 25 January 2019. Grebowicz, M. (2017). Whale song. London: Bloomsbury. Haiven, M. (2014). Capitalism’s crisis of value and imagination. Truthout, 8 February. https://truthout.org/articles/capitalisms-crisis-of-value-and-imagination/. Accessed 25 January 2019. Hall, R. (2018). The alienated academic: The struggle for autonomy inside the university. London: Palgrave McMillan. Hall, R., & Winn, J. (Eds.) (2017). Mass Intellectuality and Democratic Leadership in Higher Education. London: Bloomsbury. Hartanto, A., & Yang, H. (2016). Is the smartphone a smart choice? The effect of smartphone separation on executive functions. Computers in Human Behavior, 64, 329–336. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2016.07.002. Hayes, S. (2019). The labour of words in higher education. Rotterdam: Brill Sense. Hika Group. (2018). Hika Explorer. http://hikagroup.com/Hika-App/. Accessed 25 January 2019. Holloway, J. (2016). In, against and beyond capitalism: The San Francisco lectures. Oakland: PM Press. Horton, M., & Freire, P. (1990). We make the road by walking: Conversations on education and social change. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. Hoskins, T. K., & Jones, A. (Eds.). (2017). Critical conversations in Kaupapa Māori. Wellington: Huia Publishers. Jandrić, P. (2017). Learning in the age of digital reason. Rotterdam: Sense. Jandrić, P. (2018). Welcome to postdigital science and education! Postdigital Science and Education. doi:10.1007/s42438-018-0013-8. Jandrić, P., & Boras, D. (Eds.). (2015). Critical learning in digital networks. New York: Springer. Jandrić, P., Knox, J., Besley, T., Ryberg, T., Suoranta, J., & Hayes, S. (2018a). Postdigital science and education. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 50(10), 893–899. doi:10.1080/00131857.2018.1454000. Jandrić, P., Ryberg, T., Knox, J., Lacković, N., Hayes, S., Suoranta, J., et al. (2018b). Postdigital dialogue. Postdigital Science and Education. doi:10.1007/ s42438-018-0011-x. Jenkins, H. (2008). Convergence Culture. La cultura de la convergencia de los medios de comunicación. Barcelona: Paidos.

216  Sonja Arndt et al Jones, S. R., & Abes, E. S. (2013). Identity development of college students: Advancing frameworks for multiple dimensions of identity. Chichester: Wiley. Jouët, J. (2018). Digital feminism: Questioning the renewal of activism. Journal of Research in Gender Studies, 8, 133–157. doi:10.22381/JRGS8120187. Junco, R. (2014). Engaging students through social media: Evidence-based practices for use in student affairs. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Kaplún, M. (1998). Una pedagogía de la comunicación. Madrid: Ediciones de la Torre. King, A. L., Valença, A. M., Silva, A. C., Sancassiani, F., Machado, S., & Nardi, A. E. (2014). Nomophobia’: impact of cellphone use interfering with symptoms and emotions of individuals with panic disorder compared with a control group. Clinical Practice and Epidemiology in Mental Health, 10, 28–35. doi:10.2174/17 45017901410010028. Kirschner, P. A., & De Bruyckere, P. (2017). The myths of the digital native and the multitasker. Teaching and Teacher Education, 67, 135–142. doi:10.1016/j. tate.2017.06.001. Kumashiro, K. (2015). Against common sense: teaching and learning toward social justice. New York: Routledge. Lupton, D., & Williamson, B. (2017). The datafied child: the dataveillance of children and implications for their rights. New Media & Society, 19(5), 780–794. doi:10.1177/1461444816686328. Maguire, E. (2018). Girls, autobiography, media: Gender and self-mediation in digital economies. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan. Mallan, K. (2009). Look at me! Look at me! Self-representation and self-exposure through online networks. Digital Culture and Education, 1(1), 51–66. May, S. (2012). Language & minority rights: ethnicity, nationalism and the politics of language (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge. McFarland, A., & Matthews, N. (Eds.). (2017). He kete whakawaitara: he whakatara ā-rangahau. Wellington: NZCER Press. McLaren, P., & Jandrić, P. (2014). Critical revolutionary pedagogy is made by walking: In a world where many worlds coexist. Policy Futures in Education, 12(6), 805–831. doi:10.2304/pfie.2014.12.6.805. Mendoza, J. S., Pody, B. C., Lee, S., Kim, M., & McDonough, I. M. (2018). The effect of cellphones on attention and learning: the influences of time, distraction, and nomophobia. Computers in Human Behavior, 86, 52–60. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2018.04.027. Mihăilă, R., & Mateescu, M. (2017). The gender politics of postfeminist semantics. Journal of Research in Gender Studies, 7, 255–261. doi:10.22381/JRGS71201710. Mills, C. W. (1940). Methodological consequences of the sociology of knowledge. American Journal of Sociology, 46(3), 316–330. Mills, C. W. (1959). Sociological imagination. New York: Oxford University Press. Mirică (Dumitrescu), C.-O. (2018). Online contingent labor in a precarious capitalism: platform business models, nonstandard forms of employment, and digitally driven sharing-economy services. Journal of Self-Governance and Management Economics, 6, 129–135. doi:10.22381/JSME6320184. Mitea, D. R. E. (2018). The expansion of digitally mediated labor: platform-based economy, technology driven shifts in employment, and the novel modes of service work. Journal of Self-Governance and Management Economics, 6, 7–13. doi:10.22381/JSME6420181. Morris, S. M. & Stommel, J. (2018a). An urgency of teachers. Hybrid Pedagogy, 11 September. http://hybridpedagogy.org/an-urgency-of-teachers/. Accessed 25 January 2019.

Between blabbering noise of individuals  217 Morris, S. M., & Stommel, J. (2018b). An urgency of teachers: The work of critical digital pedagogy. Hybrid Pedagogy Inc. Morrish, L. (2018). Can Critical University Studies Survive the Toxic University? Academic Irregularities, 11 June. https://academicirregularities.wordpress. com/2018/06/08/can-critical-university-studies-survive-the-toxic-university/. Accessed 25 January 2019. Negroponte, N. (1998). Beyond digital. Wired, 12 January. http://www.wired. com/wired/archive/6.12/negroponte.html. Accessed 25 January 2019 New Zealand Digital Library. (2018). Niupepa – Mäori Newspapers. www.nzdl.org/ niupepa. Accessed 25 January 2019. New Zealand Legislation. (1987). Māori Language Act. http://www.legislation.govt. nz/act/public/1987/0176/latest/DLM124116.html. Accessed 25 January 2019. O’Neil, C. (2017). Weapons of math destruction: How big data increases inequality and threatens democracy. London: Penguin. Olsen-Reeder, V. I., Hutchings, J., & Higgins, R. (Eds.). (2017). Te ahu o te reo Māori: reflecting on research to understand the well-being of te reo Māori. Wellington: Victoria University Press. Osuna Acedo, S., Frau-Meigs, D., Camarero Cano, L., Bossu, A., Pedrosa, R., & Jansen, D. (2017). Intercreativity and interculturality in the virtual learning environments of the ECO MOOC project. In M. Jemni, K. Kinshuk, & M. K. Khribi (Eds.), Open Education: from OERs to MOOCs (pp. 161–187). Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-662-52925-6. Peters, M. (2015) Interview with Pierre A. Lévy, French philosopher of collective intelligence. Open Review of Educational Research, 2(1), 259–266. doi:10.1080/ 23265507.2015.1084477 Peters, M. A. (2012). Bio-informational capitalism. Thesis Eleven, 110(1), 98–111. doi:10.1177/0725513612444562. Peters, M. A., & Besley, T. (2018). Critical philosophy of the postdigital. Postdigital Science and Education. doi:10.1007/s42438-018-0004-9. Peters, M., & Jandrić, P. (2018). The digital university: A dialogue and manifesto. New York: Peter Lang. Peters, M. A., Rider, S., Hyvönen, M., & Besley, T. (2018). Post-Truth, fake news. Viral modernity & higher education. Springer. doi:10.1007/978-981-10-8013-5. Peters, M. A., Besley, A. C. T., & Arndt, S. (2019). Experimenting with academic subjectivity: collective writing, peer production and collective intelligence. Open Review of Educational Research, 6(1), 25–39. doi:10.1080/23265507.2018.15 57072. Poletti, A., & Rak, J. (2014). Identity technologies: Constructing the self online. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press. Roberts, P. (1996). Rethinking conscientisation. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 30(2), 179–196. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9752.1996.tb00390.x. Roca-Sales, M., & Lopez-Garcia, G. (2017). Contemporary portrayals of women and femininity. A case study of lifestyle blogs in the U.S. Journal of Research in Gender Studies, 7, 186–210. doi:10.22381/JRGS72201710. Ryberg, T., Davidsen, J., & Hodgson, V. (2018). Understanding nomadic collaborative learning groups: nomadic collaborative learning groups. British Journal of Educational Technology, 49(2), 235–247. doi:10.1111/bjet.12584. Shalom, S. (2008). A Political System for a Good Society. ZNet, 31 December. https://zcomm.org/znetarticle/a-political-system-for-a-good-society-by-stephen1-shalom. Accessed 25 January 2019.

218  Sonja Arndt et al Sheppard, E. (2018). 10 Best Planners for 2019: be more organised this year by keeping a bullet journal or planner. https://www.independent.co.uk/extras/ indybest/books/stationery/best-2019-planners-a8022781.html. Accessed 25 January 2019. Sinclair, C., & Hayes, S. (2018). Between the post and the com-post: examining the postdigital ‘work’ of a prefix. Postdigital Science and Education, 1(1). doi:10.1007/ s42438-018-0017-4. Smithies, J. (2017). The digital humanities and the digital modern. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Sorell, T. (1991). Scientism: Philosophy and the infatuation with science. London and New York: Routledge. Stewart, G., & Dale, H. (2018). Reading the ‘ghost book’: Māori talk about Washday at the Pā, by Ans Westra. Video Journal of Education and Pedagogy, 3(2). doi:10.1186/s40990-018-0014-2. Stewart, G., Tamatea, K., & Mika, C. (2015). Infinitely welcome: education pōwhiri and ethnic performativity. MAI Journal, 4(2), 91–103. Sullivan, C. (2018). Digital identity – from emergent legal concept to new reality. Computer Law and Security Review, 34(4), 723–731. doi:10.1016/j. clsr.2018.05.015. Sundén, J. (2003). Material virtualities. New York: Peter Lang. Suoranta, J. (2010). Learners and oppressed peoples of the world, Wikify! In C. Malott & B. Porfilio (Eds.), Critical pedagogy in the 21st century: a new generation of scholars. Charlotte: Information Age Publishing. Suoranta, J., & Renfors, A. (2019). Learning democracy by doing wikiversity. In P. Carr, M. Hoechsmann, & G. Thésée (Eds.), Democracy 2.0: Media, political literacy and education in the era of corporate and (potentially) participatory media. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. Suoranta, J., & Vadén, T. (2012). Wikilearning as radical equality. In P. Trifonas (Ed.), Learning in the virtual: Public pedagogy in the digital age. London: Routledge. Taffel, S. (2016). Perspectives on the postdigital: beyond rhetorics of progress and novelty. Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies, 22(3), 324–338. doi:10.1177/1354856514567827. Torres, V., Jones, S. R., & Renn, K. A. (2009). Identity development, theories in student affairs origins, current status, and new approaches. Journal of College Student Development, 50(6), 577–596. doi:10.1353/csd.0.0102. Toyokawa, S., Uddin, M., Koenen, K. C., & Galea, S. (2012). How does the social environment “get into the mind”? Epigenetics at the intersection of social and psychiatric epidemiology. Social Science & Medicine, 74(1), 67–74. doi:10.1016/j. socscimed.2011.09.036. Wakefield, A., Cartney, P., Christie, J., Smyth, R., Cooke, A., Jones, T., et al. (2018). Do MOOCs encourage corporate social responsibility or are they simply a marketing opportunity? Nurse Education in Practice, 33, 37–41. doi:10.1016/j. nepr.2018.08.020. Wegerif, R. (2017). Dialogic and dialectic: clarifying an important distinction. http://www.rupertwegerif.name/blog/dialogic-and-dialectic-clarifying-an-important-distinction. Accessed 16 February 2019. Williams, J. J. (2012). Deconstructing academe: The birth of critical university studies. Chronicle of Higher Education, 19 February. https://www.chronicle.com/ article/An-Emerging-Field-Deconstructs/130791. Accessed 25 January 2019. Wittgenstein, L. (1958). Philosophical investigations (2nd ed.). Oxford: Blackwell.

Between blabbering noise of individuals  219 Wordstream. (2018). Wakareo. http://www.reotupu.co.nz/wslivewakareo/. Accessed 25 January 2019. Yildirim, C., & Correia, A. (2015). Exploring the dimensions of nomophobia: development and validation of a self-reported questionnaire. Computers in Human Behavior, 49, 130–137. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2015.02.059. Zhao, S., Grasmuck, S., & Martin, J. (2008). Identity construction on Facebook: digital empowerment in anchored relationships. Computers in Human Behavior, 24, 1816–1836. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2008.02.012.

13 Ten theses on the shift from (static) text to (moving) image Michael A. Peters, E. Jayne White, Elizabeth Grierson, Georgina Stewart, Nesta Devine, Janita Craw, Andrew Gibbons, Petar Jandrić, Rene Novak, Richard Heraud and Kirsten Locke A picture held us captive. And we could not get outside it, for it lay in our language, and language seemed to repeat it to us inexorably. —Wittgenstein, Philosophical Investigations, 115

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klimt_University_of_Vienna_ Ceiling_Paintings. ‘Philosophy’ by Gustav Klimt was created as part of the Faculty Paintings (Philosophy, Medicine and Jurisprudence) for the ceilings of the University of Vienna’s Great Hall between 1900 and 1907. Klimt was accused of ‘pornography’ and ‘obscenity,’ and the paintings were not displayed. All three paintings were destroyed by retreating SS forces in May 1945. Klimt wrote

Shift from (static) text to (moving) image  221 at the time: ‘On the left a group of figures, the beginning of life, fruition, decay. On the right, the globe as mystery. Emerging below, a figure of light: knowledge.’ Klimt was supported by the patronage of Karl Wittgenstein, who also sponsored the new headquarters. These paintings marked the first sign of rebelliousness that led to the Secession movement and defection of twelve artists from the Academy of Fine Arts. Klimt’s use of classical myth to provide a critique of modernity breaking with bourgeois convention in the quest for psychological truth. Klimt also painted Ludwig Wittgenstein’s sister Margaret’s portrait in 1905 for her wedding (https://www.klimtgallery. org/Margaret-Stonborough-Wittgenstein-1905.html).1 Klimt, an Art Nouveau painter, was one of the most important founders of the Vienna Secession in 1897, a group so-called because of its collective resignation from the Association of Austrian Artists initiating an ascetic break with the conservatism of the Vienna Künstlerhaus with its uncritical orientation toward historicism. The words ‘To every age its art. To every art its freedom’ (‘Der Zeit ihre Kunst. Der Kunst ihre Freiheit’) were hung above the entrance to headquarters. They tried to create a style that owed nothing to historical reference and tradition. Their break with tradition in art and architecture was part of fin de siècle Vienna that was characterised by the influence of Nietzsche and the work of Freud, Mach, Buber and Wittgenstein. It was a time when the ordered cosmos of the Austro-Hungarian empire fell apart, haunting artists and philosophers alike, comprising a widely diverse group that included Mahler, Schönberg, Berg, Webern, Musil, von Hofmannsthal, Schnitzler, Kafka, alongside Adolf Loos and Ludwig Wittgenstein (Johnson, 1983; Schorske, 1980; Toulmin & Janik, 1973). Vienna became the cradle of modernism and fascism, liberalism and totalitarianism shaping Western philosophy, art and politics. At the same time, the first film technology of moving images was developing in Britain and France, although camera obscura had been used since the early Renaissance as a drawing and painting aid. The first motion picture was developed in the 1880s by Louis Le Prince that led to commercialisation soon after and later digital film. Wittgenstein’s (1953) notion that a picture held us captive was much more an acknowledgement that pictures hold us captive rather than arguments and that, if this is the case, arguments have limited efficacy in getting people to change their minds. Wittgenstein wanted to liberate us from a view of modern philosophy as certain foundations and accurate representations, but he did not want to offer another metaphysics to replace the Cartesian worldview. Rather, for Descartes’ epistemology, Wittgenstein sidesteps metaphysics by moving to language and philosophical grammar to talk of a non-Cartesian worldview (Weltbild) consisting of unverifiable forms of life and non-representational language. Thus Wittgenstein introduces a new way of thinking in order to change our way of seeing. This is a particular understanding of Weltanschauung (worldview) and Weltbild that Wittgenstein was interested in shifting our modern conception of the world. His aim ‘To shew the fly the way out of the fly-bottle’ could not be pursued by the methods of modern philosophy based on logic and forms of

222  Michael A. Peters et al argumentation. In On Certainty, Wittgenstein turns to a meta-consideration of world-pictures where his pluralism consists in epistemically unjustified forms of life and language games within which people construct their worldviews. A Weltbild is not chosen but rather culturally inherited, and it functions like a governing mythology – basically different conceptual schema, frameworks or paradigms – which require understanding in terms of pictures (Naugle, 2002), that is, in aesthetic terms closer to art than philosophy. De-stabilising pre-existing assertions of object-subject relationships, this ‘philosophy of the image’ has opened up a new era for understanding the nature of meaning itself, which was to be pursued later in poststructuralist thought. But, like all philosophies, this is by no means an endpoint. Breaking through this discourse in the twenty-first century, a new ‘kid on the block’ has now taken centre stage – in the guise of the literal moving image. His narrative is yet to be told, which might seem odd since the first moving image was born over a century ago; but the extent to which this dynamic stranger alters the way we might think about the subject (if indeed there is any longer a single subject) presents a new threshold for philosophy. In contemplating the moving image, it seems impossible, and frankly naïve, to ignore its location or its profound effect in and across popular culture (and beyond). No longer harnessed within the static canvas or accountable to a holy God (whom his predecessors fought to break free from), the moving image resides within the complex networked society of the internet and social media in what has recently been described as a ‘post-truth era’ of civilisation (Peters, 2017). As such, its technologies are accessible to consumers who now become producers (or artists?) capable of creating complex combinations of image and text that represent a hybrid formation of what has gone before and generated new forms of aesthetic. Taken together – the moving image and its obscured movement in cyberspace, with joined-up communities who are consumer-creators – a new philosophical epoch may be upon us already. It is the intention of this article to start to explore this epoch through a series of invited responses to a set of ten theses which, we think, have the potential to bring new realms of wisdom to the twenty-first century. In this exodus, there are many promising avenues that might be taken in promulgating a philosophy of the (moving) image. The generation of new spectator theories of knowledge, optical theories of truth and a pedagogy of the senses which enjoins the eye and ear as opposed to smell, taste and touch (although we say this with caution since new technologies are now bringing these to bear on the moving image also) are some promising avenues to explore. The rise of the body – now well beyond any Cartesian split but gaining momentum in its presence in the moving image – has much to offer, as do ocular pedagogies (including the important status of ‘the gaze’). New technologies and affordances – not least virtual reality and augmented reality – are yet to be fully pursued. The shifts that are heralded in thought and action, not least in the capacity of the moving image to convey messages more efficiently and, perhaps, more powerfully, warrant attention, as do their capacity to transform and critique (and conversely, to disguise and deceive).

Shift from (static) text to (moving) image  223 The list of possibilities goes on. For example, a genealogy might reveal the ways in which historical philosophies give rise to this new philosophical era. In particular, poststructuralist theories may have an opportunity to re-assert themselves through contemplation of the moving image and perhaps even move beyond themselves to reconcile the tangled webs that they weave. Similarly, semiotics will likely have something to say on this subject, since it is clear that there the movement of signs and symbols is not merely a novelty, but represents a new ‘reading’ of the world. It is likely that these and other dominant philosophies may have to make room for new and emerging ones, and it is to a beginning examination of these we now turn. In the spirit of Wittgenstein, we present ten theses for a philosophy of the moving image as a starting place for what follows. (i) The concept of text and textuality are deeply embedded in the practices of education, and the humanities since the invention of writing as ‘mark-making.’ Models of textual analysis abound and structure our disciplinary practices. Linguistics, linguistic philosophy, semiotics, hermeneutics and psychoanalysis constitute the main forms of textual analysis and critical reading in the humanities. By contrast, ways of critically examining the image have lagged behind these textual methodologies. Outside of art history and film studies, there are few accepted methodologies for analysing the image or for recognising its role and importance in visual culture. Since we are now not only contemplating the static image in relation to text, it is to the notion of the moving image that we now seek inspiration also. (ii) The text is still the ruling cultural and academic paradigm. Textual analogues define consciousness, the mind, the unconscious, society and culture. Science is comprised of discourses, and we are presented with text-based understandings of reality that call upon the subject to navigate between text and life. To this day, knowledge is predominantly text-based and exchanged, stored and retrieved in texts of this nature. The text dominates our ways of thinking and interpreting the world in philosophical thought. Education is primarily ruled by the text – at least in traditional realms of inquiry. (iii) The shift from text to image defines our visual culture. This migration from the text to the image is enhanced through new digital technologies. One marketing expert notes that ‘Between Facebook, Instagram and Tumblr, consumers share nearly 5000 images every second of every day. Add in Pinterest’s estimated 40 million users and even SnapChat’s meteoric rise, and it’s clear, a shift is afoot – a desire to share what matters most in pictures rather than words.’ [1] This increasing density of images constitutes the new visual web and builds on earlier discussions of visual media by the likes of Innes (1951), McLuhan (1964) and Baudrillard (1994). (iv) Rorty (1979) discusses the ancient conceit that the mind has an eye with which it inspects the mirror to argue that the notion of knowledge

224  Michael A. Peters et al as accurate representation is optional and arbitrary. That it is static and therefore retrievable by all has marked the dominance of rationalism and received truth over many decades. Philosophy has for too long been dominated by Greek ocular metaphors that make a separation between contemplation and action – the seen in the absence of the see-er (Bakhtin, 1990). While Bakhtin seeks to exploit the surplus of seeing offered by ‘other’; Rorty wants to replace this vocabulary with a pragmatist conception that eliminates this contrast, arguing a historical epoch dominated by Greek ocular metaphors may, we suggest, yield to one in which the philosophical vocabulary incorporating these metaphors seems as quaint as the animistic vocabulary of pre-classical. (v) In Downcast Eyes, Jay (1993) demonstrates the ubiquity of visual metaphors that permeate Western languages, often in occluded and dormant forms, and imbue our cultural and social practices. He comments that exosomatic technologies (the telescope and microscope) have extended the scope and range of vision to encourage an ocular-centric science. And he cites the philosopher Mark Wartofsky, who provides a radical cultural reading of vision arguing that all perception is a result of changes in representation. Jay’s argument is that contemporary French thought is ‘imbued with a profound suspicion of vision and its hegemonic role in the modern era’ (p. 14). (vi) The pervasiveness of metaphors of light and sight in classical Greek works can be readily seen in Homer (Tarrant, 1960) and Plato, who uses the sun as a metaphor for ‘illumination’ and indicates that the eye is peculiar among sense organs in that it needs light to operate. The classical Greeks have been called ‘people of the eye’ because they favoured the visual sense that extended to their most fundamental concepts such as the distinction between knowing (being seen) and contemplation. It is thus to notions of the ‘self’ and its (now) collective orientation in an era of the moving image, that we turn. As Burri (2012) reminds us, we need a new logic to explain ‘the self’ in contemplation of ‘the social’; and a new materiality of images that grants them such presence in the social milieu. (vii) Heidegger was influential in providing an account of the metaphysics underlying Greek philosophy in terms of vision and visibility. As Backman (2015) explains, Heidegger’s account of Western metaphysics ‘is rooted in a metaphysics of presence’ (p. 16). Being means presence, and ‘seeing’ is a means of grasping what is there, to paraphrase Heidegger. Backman explains: ‘Seeing is the paradigmatic metaphysical sense because it affords a particular kind of access to being as present’ (p. 16). In an era of social media, such access is unfathomable. (viii) Rorty (1979, p. 263) describes the history of philosophy as a progressive series of problematics, or ‘turns,’ beginning with medieval philosophy and its concern for things, enlightenment philosophy and the concern for ideas, and last, contemporary philosophy – the so-called

Shift from (static) text to (moving) image  225 linguistic turn – and its concern for words. We might hypothesise the next shift from words to moving images, while at the same time signalling the incapacity of modern philosophy and education to cope with this shift and an unprecedented emphasis on the emerging new power relationships between seeing and being seen that exceed Debord’s (1970) earlier emphasis on the spectacle and moves us to the orienting role of image in an era of social innovation. (ix) The semiotic landscape infused with moving images is the basis for visual culture, and the younger generation seems both more attracted to and more adept at engaging with visual media that replaces word and print as the central information medium. Popular culture is on the rise in this domain, as are trends towards performance, satire and ‘post-truth’ that blur conventions of reality in the service of modern technologies that provide a forum for the exploitation of manipulation and the unleashing of unmasked creativity. From an educational standpoint, however, learners need to learn how to ‘read’ and ‘engage’ with the un-real and to become critical participants in this new socially networked society with so much potential and so much risk. As Peters (2010) asks, ‘can the dominance of the image over text really deliver on the promise of a critical approach to pedagogy?’ (p. 46). (x) The ‘pictorial turn’ is already upon us: ‘A picture holds us captive’ (Wittgenstein, 1953). Investigating the later Wittgenstein on visual argumentation, Patterson (2010) writes, ‘although visual images may occur as elements of argumentation, broadly conceived, it is a mistake to think that there are purely visual arguments or, for that matter, that existing arguments are adequate for this new era of thought, in the sense of illative moves from premises to conclusions that are conveyed by images alone, without the support or framing of words.’ In this statement is the seed for an educational philosophy of the moving image. The seven responses that follow deal with the (moving) image in two central ways. Firstly, by examining the capacity of the image to ‘move’ in an educational sense; and secondly by contemplating the additional insights brought forth by moving technologies – not least the rise of video and, more recently, virtual reality; but also in consideration of its movement in social media. The entries are responded to and summarised in our final entry by Kirsten Locke, who sets a provocative agenda in orienting possible futures for educational philosophy based on ‘doing-what-you-can’t.’ Taken together, they respond to the ten theses in various interesting ways that begin to orient what we have called ‘A philosophy of the (moving) image.’ The authors would like to acknowledge University of Waikato for generous funding and leave that enabled Jayne White to spend many hours exploring these ideas on study leave periods during 2014 and 2017; and Michael Peters to

226  Michael A. Peters et al attend the University of Lausanne to present an invited paper entitled ‘Wittgenstein’s Trials, Teaching and Cavell’s Romantic “Figure of the Child”‘ at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RnCFOFIr6eQ.

Note 1 The following note occurs on the Klimt Museum website: ‘Critics were disturbed by its depiction of men and women drifting in an aimless trance.’ The original proposal for the theme of the painting was ‘The Victory of Light over Darkness,’ but what Klimt presented instead was a dreamlike mass of humanity, referring neither to optimism nor to rationalism, but to a ‘viscous void’ (Fleidl, 1989, p. 177). A rough study of the painting can be found here: https://www. klimtgallery.org/Stehend-Etwas-Nach-Links-Bildnis-Margaret-StonboroughWittgenstein-Standing-Turned-To-The-Left-Por trait-Of-MargaretStonborough-Wittgenstein.html.

Refusal of othering in the life of images Elizabeth Grierson Increasingly cyberspace networks are generating a diet of images in everyday and working lives. Social media sites are proliferating images as identity markers for co-creation, titillation, exploitation or other instant affects. How education approaches this arena is open to further revision in light of the politics of the image. The following reflection on the image goes some way towards articulating a theory of the image. I begin with a proposition: images do not need the framing of words to activate them. By refusing the ‘othering’ that textual dominance places upon them, images call to be understood in their own terms. But what is meant by ‘their own terms’? A narrative may work towards some clarification. In November 1953, the French-born, New Zealand-based artist Louise Henderson, later Dame Louise, was visited in her Auckland studio by art critic Anthony Alpers to view her new paintings for a forthcoming solo exhibition at the Auckland Art Gallery. A large cubist nude, The Blue Bird, invited the critic’s opprobrium. Given that Louise Henderson had spent a year painting in the cubist idiom at the Metzinger studio in Paris, she regarded any criticisms of her images in New Zealand as a challenge to be overcome, not through textual or linguistic dialogue, or emotive persuasion, but through imagistic solutions. Rather than attract or escalate pernicious commentary from a prudish New Zealand public, Henderson ‘clothed’ her nude with a diaphanous blue dress. Of her painterly response executed through the logic of faceted form, the artist said in an interview, ‘I have never dressed a cubist nude before’ (cited in Grierson, 1990). Henderson duly exhibited her cubist paintings and the New Zealand artist Colin McCahon, reviewing the exhibition, condemned it with faint praise: ‘these paintings may surprise you, perhaps even shock you, but given a chance to reveal themselves they do not have a lot to tell you’ (McCahon, 1954). In fact, Henderson’s paintings had a great deal to tell for those who had the

Shift from (static) text to (moving) image  227 capacity to look at an image beyond an uncritical and patriarchal viewpoint of pictorial and social norms. Henderson refused any ‘othering’ of herself or her work, and she certainly refused any othering of her imagistic approach to the female form. Herein lies the point of departure for an educational philosophy of the image. The history of art is replete with images of the female as muse or as object of desire – this, the image as a social or political construct. Any thesis of the image as central to the ‘pictorial turn’ for education, and the philosophy of education, calls for more than a passing reference to decades of feminist analysis of the image as a contentious site. Feminist artists and scholars successfully disturbed the positioning of the female nude as signifier of a certain rational logic of gendered and racialised unity and order. Lynda Nead showed how this rational unity and order contributes to ‘a discourse on the subject and is at the core of the history of western aesthetics’ (Nead, 1992, p. 2). Nead’s study of the framing of the female nude in Western art shows how the female nude became synonymous with art itself. Importantly, she showed how the politics of production and consumption determined the norms of sexuality and objectification. Viewing and reception of the nude was, and is, embedded in social history and bound up with power relations. Throughout the Enlightenment and into the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, the passivity of the female nude worked to reinforce the logic of integrity and unity of the aesthetic object of contemplation. All was in order in such a universe, until unsettled by feminist scholars of art history from the revisionist decades of the 1970s to the 1990s. Perhaps the most important contributions to understanding the power and potency of images came from the work of feminist critics such as Griselda Pollock (1988, 1996, 1999), and earlier writings of Lippard (1976, 1983), Petersen and Wilson (1979), Fine (1978), Parker and Pollock (1981), Harris and Nochlin (1981), Broude and Garrard (1982). These scholars questioned the received litany of art and its history and opened the disciplinary territory of image production and reception to reconstructive analyses. Their scholarly interventions made visible the mechanisms of power relations throughout histories of image making, production and reception. They achieved their critically incisive analyses by disturbing normative visual narratives of gender, sexuality and racialisation. From the ‘linguistic turn’ to the ‘cultural turn’ to the ‘pictorial turn’, such revisionist approaches to image analysis soon informed the realm of media and visual studies. The transference of textual analysis to visuality was shown to be a first-principle error, notwithstanding that studies of the image under the rubric of cultural studies holds an indebtedness to semiotics as shown by Evans and Hall (1999). Yet, in spite of the focus of images in visual studies since the 1970s, and in spite of the proliferation of images in the digitally connected lives of cyberspace today, how little attention is devoted to critical examination of images in general settings of education.

228  Michael A. Peters et al Mitchell (1994) reminded us that although the exact nature of images is uncertain, the picture brings into play a complex and contingent field of interconnections. Mitchell warns against employing textual methods in image analysis. It is to the image itself we must turn. Mitchell considers the way registers of meanings operate in the visual field. But the field, as such, is not to be regarded in isolation. It is implicated already by other forces, such as the technologies of production and circulation, social relations, bodies (spectatorship) and figurality (figuring the world). Without imposing textual methods of analysis, the question remains: how may a viewer make meaning from an image? How are images to be approached, considered, discussed, positioned without textual aids? Current curatorial practice in art museums is to add exhibition notes beside images or at the entrance of gallery rooms. For viewers, these notes are helpful in an explanatory way, by categorising images historically, socially, even politically.

Shift from (static) text to (moving) image  229 However, images also stand alone. Consider this image for example.1 How does the viewer access its domain of aesthetics, its domain of meaning? A date and signature is the only textual reference, but this has nothing to do with any nuance of the image. The image itself inhabits a contingent space of meaning and implication. Questions arise from this image with its body in a confined pictorial space. Where is she? Why the fettered space? To find indicators of subject matter, we might turn to ‘other forces’ that Mitchell talks of in his theory of the image (Mitchell, 1994). With regard to images of the body, one of the relevant forces is the power of normalisation. In histories of the image the female nude was normalised by its passive sexuality and availability to the power of the male gaze. But here, in this image, as in the work of German artist Paula Modersohn-Becker, as discussed by Perry (1979), the nude holds a dignity that comes with reclamation of the female body. The image has its own internal logic. There is a felt reality for the body in its enframed environment, and perhaps herein lies its aesthetic or cultural powers. Challenges presented by the image, as shown here, go well beyond solely textual semiotics. Yet a contingency remains, and in this contingency a theory of the image may be found. Images are never neutral. The thrust of interventionist approaches to the image from feminist scholarship disturbed any assumed neutrality. But an ongoing difficulty lies here. If it is found that the image does need the framing of text to explain it, then arguably it would mean that visuality cannot exist on its own terms. Yet, if the image has the capacity to ‘speak’ to its cultural and social mores (setting) on its own terms, then it has a life beyond textual framing. As the female body reclaims its pictorial space, the image is activated by, and activates, forces of production and consumption. This politic is relevant at the time of the image’s inception as much as at the time of its later reception. An outcome flowing from this discussion might be that a theory of the image needs to take account of these contingent perspectives as it considers the intervention of feminist scholarship.

Note 1 Virginia Grierson, Inhibit, 2000, oil on board, 14 × 6 cm. Copyright Virginia Grierson, reproduced with the artist’s permission.

References Broude, N., & Garrard, M. D. (Eds.). (1982). Feminism and art history: Questioning the litany. New York: Harper & Row. Evans, J., & Hall, S. (1999). Visual culture: The reader. London: Sage Publications in association with The Open University. Fine, E. H. (1978). Women and Art: A history of women painters and sculptors from the Renaissance to the 20th century. New Jersey: Allanheld and Schram.

230  Michael A. Peters et al Grierson, E. M. (1990). The art of Louise Henderson, Master of Arts thesis, University of Auckland. Harris, A. S., & Nochlin, L. (1981). Women artists 1550–1950. New York: Alfred Knopf and Los Angeles County Museum of Art. Lippard, L. (1976). From the center: Feminist essays on women’s art. Toronto: Clarke, Irwin & Co. Ltd. Lippard, L. (1983). Overlay, contemporary art and the art of prehistory. New York: Pantheon. McCahon, C. (1954, February 1). Louise Henderson: Colin McCahon discusses the painter’s work which was recently exhibited in Auckland. Home and Building. Mitchell, W. J. T. (1994). Picture theory: Essays on verbal and visual representation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Nead, L. (1992). The female nude: Art, obscenity and sexuality. London: Routledge. Parker, R., & Pollock, G. (1981). Old mistresses: Women, art and ideology. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Perry, G. (1979). Paula Modersohn-Becker, her life and work. London: The Women’s Press. Petersen, K., & Wilson, J. J. (1979). Women artists: Recognition and reappraisal from the early middle ages to the twentieth century. London: The Women’s Press. Pollock, G. (1988). Vision and difference, femininity, feminism and the histories of art. London: Routledge. Pollock, G. (1996). Generations and geographies in the visual arts: Feminist readings. London: Routledge. Pollock, G. (1999). Differencing the Canon: Feminist desire and the writing of art’s histories. London: Routledge.

“Don’t tell me, show me!” Rethinking scholarship in the age of the video journal Georgina Stewart I want to reflect, from the perspective of a Māori teacher and researcher, on what it means to write for the video journal VJEP (the Video Journal of Education and Pedagogy). This new Springer journal provides authors with the facility to embed video clips and combine them with text in a new form of online journal ‘article’ that pushes the boundaries of what is currently accepted as ‘scholarship’ in the discipline of Education and adjacent fields of study. Scholarship implies the non-fictional written word, and numerical/ graphical representations. In education, it is still ‘risque’ to incorporate into research the use of creative forms of writing such as poetry, fiction, narrative, autobiography and auto-ethnography. How much more edgy, then, is the use of video footage in research articles! Yet what does this facility actually afford that is meaningful in an essential research sense, i.e. in epistemological terms? Does video research represent a new paradigm, or just a novel tool for the same old kind of research and scholarship? Why might one choose the video journal (VJEP) as a publication venue for one’s work? How does this scholarship stand in relation to traditional articles? How might postgraduate students respond if I include

Shift from (static) text to (moving) image  231 VJEP articles as course readings? I will consider these questions in the light of my experience preparing an article for the video journal. When I first received the email from the editors suggesting I write a video journal article about my recent research, I immediately rejected the idea. I could understand why the request came, since a few weeks earlier, I had presented at the PESA Conference 2016 held in Coral Coast Fiji, speaking about my work on the history and meanings of the controversy over the old school journal Washday at the Pā (Westra, 1964). This had proved a fruitful topic, with one article published and another on the way (Stewart, 2017, in review; Stewart & Dale, 2016). It was also a labour of love as the Washday story had long ago captured me, since 2010 when I started teaching it as part of the Huarahi Māori initial teacher education programme at the campus in Whangarei. In Fiji the conference presentation mode had given me licence to exploit the visual power of Westra’s magnificent oeuvre of photographs of Māori, but I rejected on principle the idea that I could use that imagery in a journal article. On reflection, after initially declining the approach from the journal editors, I considered the fact that a book is ‘made for reading’ so to speak, and that reading and talking about a book like Washday is a pedagogical and social activity that is captured far more adequately in video form rather than by a traditional written journal article. The fact that I own a copy of the original book, which survived the recall in 1964 and passed into my hands a few years ago, added to the motivation. A dialogue with my colleague Hēmi Dale, who is the course owner and teaches Washday at the Epsom campus, provided an authentic scenario with pedagogical heft, which seemed to me ideal for the video journal. It came naturally for us to speak in te reo Māori, since Te Huarahi Māori is a Māori medium teaching degree. I had previously registered that a video journal is an ideal vehicle for indigenous oral traditions, but this hypothetical insight had yet to translate into a concrete idea for a paper. To add te reo Māori and bilingualism into the mix clinched for me a rationale for taking on a video journal article about the Washday story. I conceived of the video journal article as a ‘layered text’ as Rath (2012) described in relation to autoethnography. For me, the layered text idea also applies in other complex educational scenarios, including indigenous education and Kaupapa Māori research. A video journal article is by definition a layered text, since it contains both video and written elements. I began to think about possible video clips and how to use them in such an article. Hēmi mentioned the existence of a documentary about Westra that sounded likely as a source of video clips to use in the place of written quotes (Luit Bieringa (Director) & Jan Bieringa (Producer), 2017). To prepare the article required me to re-think the very idea of a journal article. I decided to start by making the video clips and building the article around them. Video is an amazing affordance and useful for more than a ‘talking book’ or ‘talking heads’ mode. A ‘video clip’ in a journal article can be of several kinds, though these fall into two categories, namely extracts from pre-existing video, and self-recorded footage. Clips from pre-existing

232  Michael A. Peters et al video sources are somewhat like conventional written quotes, and I decided to use them as such, with text to unpack them and link them into the narrative of my article. Self-recorded footage can vary from professional video lab productions to a recording made ‘in the field’ on a smartphone. In the spirit of the latter, I recorded a conversation with Hēmi in which we read and talked about the book in both Māori and English. Then I had to acquire video editing software and learn how to use it to extract the clips to use in the article. The other main kind of self-recorded footage is somewhat like a recorded lecture using a montage of still or moving images with a voice-over audio track. This kind of clip allows me to present selections from the rich archive related to the Washday story. The final hurdle to overcome is the matter of permissions for pre-recorded video and the use of still images. There is information about permissions on the journal homepage, and I received copious more from the publisher and my IT service at work, but in the way of this kind of ‘information’, none of it clarified what I needed to do! Of course, as a university researcher, I have the resources and expertise available to work through these sorts of challenges. I have articulated how I thought about devising a novel kind of journal article, basing my decisions in logic and in relation to existing standards of scholarship and methodology, including Kaupapa Māori research. Authoring a video article was an interesting challenge, both intellectually and practically, which leads me to believe that the strength of a video journal article depends on the fit between the topic and the vehicle. It is necessary to get beyond the novelty value of video in academic work in order to mine its pedagogical value. My video response is obviously (deliberately) homemade: recorded in my room, on my smartphone, while my family watched TV next door. I had Adobe Premier Pro (video editing software) installed on my laptop a week or so before I recorded my response, and when I had uploaded the footage I trimmed it and overlaid some PowerPoint slides and illustrations. In the brave new world of video journals, we must learn to write with our new tools. This video response is like my first attempt to write: https://www. youtube.com/watch?v=x9N9mdIs85c&t=7s.

References Bieringa, L. (Director), & Bieringa, J. (Producer). (2017). Ans Westra – Private Journeys/Public Signposts. Retrieved from https://www.nzonscreen.com/title/ ans-westra-private-journeys-2006/background Rath, J. (2012). Autoethnographic layering: recollections, family tales, and dreams. Qualitative Inquiry, 18(5), 442–448. Stewart, G. (2017, in review). Mana wahine and the Washday at the Pā affair. Educational Philosophy and Theory. Stewart, G., & Dale, H. (2016). ‘Dirty laundry’ in Māori education history? Another spin for Washday at the Pā. Waikato Journal of Education, 21(2), 5–15. Westra, A. (1964). Washday at the Pā (Rev. ed.). Christchurch: Caxton Press.

Shift from (static) text to (moving) image  233

The extension of ‘text’ to incorporate ‘moving image’ Georgina Stewart, Nesta Devine, Janita Craw and Andrew Gibbons Text and image are no strangers to each other; they have a very long shared history with complex patternings that involve an interactive co-existence of the human and the technical; an ongoing evolving human-technology relation. The history of writing begins with attempts to depict images of the world, gradually refined into symbols for sounds and alphabetisation. As sounds become images, the authority of the image of the sound, the text, is questioned. Recall how Plato disdained the written form of language, calling it ‘dead’ by comparison with spoken dialogue. There is then an evident problematic relationship between text and image in relation to the task of making sense of the world. This is a problem recognised in the work of Jacques Derrida. Hence, in the spirit of Derrida’s provocation that ‘there is nothing outside the text’ (2016, p. 158), in this response we think about the ‘textiness’ of the image. In what ways does text penetrate the image such that the way in which one makes sense of an image is contained and restrained by and within the text? Is the image then no more or less a reality than the text? The text holds an image together in some way. Images are not universally recognisable representations of reality. They draw on a literature, on a common bank of visual gestures, a language of image. This bank or language has been built up over centuries; goodness knows how long. While the bank might be common, part of a common world, it is a mistake to think that everyone reads these images alike: where Palagi (Westerner) see the pointed hand as indicating that something or someone is needed, or identified, to Samoans the pointed hand is an insult, an affront to human dignity. Neither are the techniques of image universal nor necessary to a language of imagery. For instance, perspective (in the sense of depth in representation) was unknown as a technique in Chinese traditions of drawing until introduced from the West, and the Chinese do not seem to have suffered unduly from the lack of it. The plethora of visual images we see today can often be traced, just as text can, to their ‘genealogies’ of meaning. For the Gothic writers, it was the dark wood and the solitary heroine; for the Romantics, it was the bright and beautiful young men and the unattainable heroine. The image is often a rendition of an existing literary image, which refers to a physical one: so the Guardian cartoonist uses the contemporary figures of Trump and May as his subject, but his images reference the Victorian political cartoonist John Tenniel and well-known phrases. Trump and May ‘in bed together’ is one (The Guardian, 2017), ‘dropping the Captain’ is another (Encyclopedia Britannica, 2017). The initial reference is to ‘being in bed together’ or to a steamer that has left port, allowing the pilot who has steered the ship of state through the shallows or rough waters to regain his lighter, but the reference to Tenniel’s cartoons, or contemporary referents such as award-winning movies, also draws in another period of history or domain of popular

234  Michael A. Peters et al culture, in so doing deriving a new and often sardonic layer of meaning. The longstanding sociocultural and political importance of imagery deserves recognition – especially the influence of television on the everyday lives of the last few generations (particularly in the West). Movies have been a hotbed of intercultural creativity, and film industries in small countries such as Aotearoa New Zealand operate quite differently from the conditions in Hollywood (Conor, 2004). The postcard or greeting card and the political cartoon are socially important forms of visual text of long standing, which have evolved and remain relevant today, while morphing into new forms afforded by the internet. The recent flag debate in Aotearoa New Zealand is an example of a political struggle over a visual image that represents our national identity. In Aotearoa New Zealand, Māori have used flags to symbolise their distinct identity within the nation (New Zealand History, 2017). The sociopolitics of these images cannot be detextualised because they are significant technologies through which society operates. Hence text and image are drawn together as technics. Humanity is ‘invented’ through technics. Technics are processes that make thought possible; thoughts are externalised through the technical prostheses of text and image (see for instance Stiegler, 2007, 2013). Thoughts, for example, memories, are externalised, in objects (e.g. statues, sculptures, paintings – and in rocks), through technics. These kinds of human-technical relations can be understood in terms of the gesture (Agamben, 2007), an undertaking with supporting action [that] ‘opens the sphere of ethos as the most fitting sphere of the human’ (p. 154). Gesture, as movement, for Agamben, ‘breaks the false alternative between ends and means that paralyses morality and presents means which, as such, are removed from the sphere of mediation without thereby becoming ends’ (p. 155). The gesture offered here, as a display of mediation that makes visible the means (in, between text, image, and more than), and as such, is a composition, a multiplicity. Rather than setting image – text – object in (any binary) opposition to each other, it’s useful to think about how such multiplicities might, with a nod to Stiegler, ‘compose one another, feed discernibly back into each other, and can therefore account for permanent oscillation between perception and imagination’ (Sabisch, 2011, p. 185). For this reason, questioning beyond a binary of text and image involves attention to the exteriority and materiality of processes of image and text making. While it is imperative to acknowledge this binary, or even examine why and how it might be used, such binaries are attributed with the power to perpetuate a perception that spaces for producing knowledge are or should be limited. Hence, critically intervening must support a way of working with an image-text binary in ways that opens up other ways of thinking the world (with text, image, etc.) that are multiple and dynamic. Thinking differently with text and image creates a network of ambiguities that are, to borrow from

Shift from (static) text to (moving) image  235 Haraway (2015), ‘just big enough to gather up the complexities and keep the edges open and greedy for surprising new and old connections’ (p. 160). CHILDREN’S TALE The taniwha breathes fire and hot stones. The taniwha snorts hot dust and steam Golden snot trickles from his nostrils. Deep inside the Earth the taniwha takes deep-breathing exercises to keep in good shape for when it has to remind us all that we are not as powerful as he. His name is: RU-AU-MOKO. He is the boss of all the taniwhas. He doesn’t give a fart for anyone or anything. But when he does – WATCH OUT! The Earth won’t be able to contain itself. Earth-mother will split her sides with laughing by Hone Tuwhare We now turn to the connection between image, text and education. Techniques of teaching and learning have long included experimentation with new technological designs (see for instance Gibbons, 2007). Designers and early adopting teachers generally express an intention to innovate inside or outside of the classroom or school, remediating both text and image with the hope that education might somehow benefit. So with the ubiquitous availability of powerful, portable, connectable digital cameras, whose content can be streamed and co-edited and embedded and shared, comes the idea of new ways of weaving together text and image in one’s study. However, Peters and White (this issue) argue that ‘ways of critically examining the image have lagged behind’ ways of examining text and that analysis of the ‘role and importance’ of the image in visual culture is a critical line in the sand as the tidal surge of new visual pedagogies approaches contemporary educational institutions. They go on: The text is the ruling cultural and academic paradigm. Textual analogues define consciousness, the mind, the unconscious, society, and culture. Science is comprised of discourses and we are presented with text-based understandings of reality that call upon the subject to navigate between text and life. To this day knowledge is predominantly text-based and exchanged,

236  Michael A. Peters et al stored and retrieved in texts of this nature. The text dominates our ways of thinking and interpreting the world in philosophical thought. Education is primarily rule by the text at least in traditional realms of inquiry. A critical examination here necessarily questions the apparent connections and hierarchies between and in text, image, and education. Our exploration of text and image and our concern regarding the reification of a text-image binary reimages this thing called text in attention to its appearances, for instance: what is the image of educational text, and the text of the educational image? These questions open up educational thought regarding image and text and a question concerning art forms of educationally moving images. Here we are thinking about what moves us educationally when observing the moving image and in particular, what the moving image offers when it appears to have escaped the boundaries of the accepted disciplines of educationally focused thinking and scholarship. How does the image engage with textual thinking, escape the apparent hierarchy of the text, and/or represent more than what can be written? Can we think differently, through a critique of the relationship between text and image, about what it means to have something educational to say/ do/think? An example: In Suzie Gorodi’s moving images, the viewer is pulled along a shabby university corridor by the artist, at the same time observing the space up close. The viewer engages with both a magnification of the institution and a sense of the perpetually observed academic subjectivity, all her movements observed and captured by the devices of the intuition that she is required to pull – our apparent ‘independence and self-reliance’ (Hurrell, 2014) is questioned. With Gorodi’s project the main fascination lay in the links between simultaneous images: the information that was presented in parallel where rapidly changing details could be scrutinised and pleasurably pondered over; various angles, profiles and interacting planes accounted for; spatial, speed and movement patterns accentuated. Add to this the subject placing itself under surveillance, not only as a means of image generation (for its own sake) but also exploring muscular self-understanding in terms of gait, posture and body language. (Hurrell, 2014) How does a text-image binary put in place limitations of thinking about moving images with predetermined educational aims? How do we engage with the risk of prescribing in hidden text, as a hidden curriculum, what the image must do? Education is necessarily a philosophically weak and hence open-ended field. The moving image may amplify this weakness if presented without a script. Yet, our point here is that, thinking beyond the binary, an image always already has a script.

Shift from (static) text to (moving) image  237

Figure 13.1  Jacques Derrida. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques_Derrida.

Figure 13.2  Lonnie Hutchinson, Night: Aroha atu, Aroha mai/I love you, 2016 (two works), from http://ourauckland.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/articles/ news/2016/12/regional-public-art/.

238  Michael A. Peters et al

Figure 13.3  Sue Anaru, Untitled, 2016, from Making New exhibition, Innovating Learning Environments Symposium, AUT North Shore campus, 2017).

Figure 13.4  Michael Parekowhai, Atarangi II, 2005, from http://www.tetuhi.org.nz/ whats-on/exhibitiondetails.php?id=8).

Shift from (static) text to (moving) image  239

Figure 13.5  Victoria O’Sullivan/Janita Craw, Carriers, 2017 (iPhone movie), Making New exhibition, Innovating Learning Environments Symposium, AUT North Shore campus, 2017.

Figure 13.6  Sue Anaru, Untitled, 2016, Making New exhibition, Innovating Learning Environments Symposium, AUT North Shore campus, 2017.

240  Michael A. Peters et al

Figure 13.7  Eye Photo, Andrew Denton, from Girl with a Movie Camera, Jennifer Nikolai, 2012, reproduced with permission of the artist.

Shift from (static) text to (moving) image  241

Figure 13.8  Corridor Series, Suzie Gorodi, 2014, from http://eyecontactsite.com/ 2014/06/unusual-gorodi-exhibition#ixzz4bQblFxUL, reproduced under Creative Commons.

References Agamben, G. (2007). Infancy and history: On the destruction of experience. London: Verso. Conor, B. (2004). ‘Hollywood, Wellywood or the Backwoods?’ A political economy of the New Zealand Film Industry (MA), Auckland University of Technology. Retrieved from http://aut.researchgateway.ac.nz/bitstream/handle/10292/304/ConorB. pdf;jsessionid=E8B20FAE831A707FA4833102EB6 51136?sequence=2 Derrida, J. (2016). Of grammatology. Baltimore, MD: JHU Press. Encyclopedia Britannica. (2017). Dropping the Pilot – cartoon by Tenniel. Retrieved from https://www.britannica.com/topic/Dropping-the-Pilot Gibbons, A. N. (2007). The matrix ate my baby. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. Haraway, D. (2015). Anthropocene, capitalocene, plantationocene, chthulucene: Making kin. Environmental Humanities, 6, 159–165. Retrieved from http:// environmentalhumanities.org/arch/vol6/6.7.pdf Hurrell, J. (2014, June 18). Unusual Gorodi exhibition. Eye Contact. Retrieved from http://eyecontactsite.com/2014/06/unusual-gorodi-exhibition#ixzz4bQblFxUL New Zealand History. (2017). Flags of New Zealand: Page 6 – The national Māori flag. Retrieved from https://nzhistory.govt.nz/politics/flags-of-new-zealand/ maori-flag Sabisch, P. (2011). Choreographing relations: Practical philosophy and contemporary choreography in the works of Antonia Baehr, Gilles Deleuze, Juan Dominguez, Félix Guattari, Xavier Le Roy and Eszter Salamon. Munich: Germany: epodium. Stiegler, B. (2007). Technics, media, technology. Theory, Culture and Society, 24(7–8), 334–341.

242  Michael A. Peters et al Stiegler, B. (2013). What makes life worth living: On pharmacology. Cambridge: Polity Press. The Guardian. (2017). Steve Bell on the special relationship – cartoon. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/picture/2017/jan/26/stevebell-uk-us-theresa-may-donald-trump-cartoon

Ways of seeing turn digital: the unsettlement remains Petar Jandrić and Michael A. Peters The relation between what we see and what we know is never settled. (Berger, Blomberg, Fox, Dibb, & Hollis, 1972) In 1972 John Berger and his colleagues ‘opened our eyes to visual culture’ (Saddhu, 2012). In his famous BBC series Ways of Seeing, ‘John Berger changed our ways of seeing art: He taught us that photographs always need language, and require a narrative, to make sense’ (Gunaratman & Bell, 2017). It could be argued that digital visual cultures of today have little resemblance to analogue visual cultures of the early 1970s. Shareability, modifiability, and other digital features have first brought about Lessig’s (2001) ‘rip-mix and burn culture’ and then the ‘total information solution’ of the contemporary Internet (Peters & Jandrić, forthcoming, 2017). The digital age is in its infancy, and technical aspects of visual cultures are undergoing continuous transformations. Yet, almost half a century after the first airing of Ways of Seeing, and only a couple of months after John Berger’s death, the opening quote for this article, taken from the opening paragraph of the book based on the television series, is as true as ever. Digital technologies have indeed brought about new visual cultures. However, the relationships between what we see and what we know is less settled than ever. ‘Semiotics is the study of signs and codes, signs that are used in producing, conveying, and interpreting messages and the codes that govern their use’ (Moriarty, 2005, p. 227). The general theory of semiotics, developed through works of its main protagonists such as Charles Sanders Peirce, Umberto Eco, Claude Lévi-Strauss, Ferdinand Saussure, and others, has primarily been developed in the context of language. According to Peirce, signifying activity can be described by a simple model consisting of sign (the signifier), object (the signified), and interpretant (mental idea). Moriarty shows that ‘because of Peirce’s emphasis on representation as a key element in how a sign “stands for” its object, semiotics has become particularly useful to visual communication scholars who are, by definition, scholars and students of representation’ (ibid: 228). Semiotics is similar, yet quite different, to semiology. According to Arthur Asa Berger, ‘the essential breakthrough of semiology is to take linguistics as a model and apply linguistic concepts to other phenomena – texts – and not just to language itself’ (Berger, 2013, p. 134). What we see becomes what we know through the process of communication. Indeed, semiotics and semiology are primarily focused on sending,

Shift from (static) text to (moving) image  243 conveying, and receiving different messages. Speaking of the shift from (static) text to (moving) image, we are interested in two main sub-fields of semiotics: visual semiotics, which focuses on images, and media semiotics, which focuses on mass/digital media. Both semiotics and semiology understand the importance of the interpretant’s context. However, almost half a century ago, John Berger has gone one step further: he described contextual, cultural, temporary understanding of images, and linked that understanding to technologies of production, sites of production and consummation, and wide social context (capitalism). Alongside communication, therefore, what we see becomes what we know through the process of cultural shaping, mediation, remediation, and interpretation. This brings about the important problem of the semiotic threshold: the problem, in semiotic terms, has always been where to place the threshold between the empirical experience of the continuum of authentic reality and the mediated experience of signs composed by an author and interpreted by a reader (inauthentic reality). (O’Neill, 2008, p. 145) In the realm of digital media, the semiotic threshold becomes even more complex, because the road between an author and a reader consists of a vast number of less visible (and sometimes fully invisible) technological layers. Arguably, the semiotic threshold is not just an epistemic problem – (the existence of) authentic reality is by and large paramount for (critical) visual pedagogy. Signs can be anything: words, images, music, interactive interfaces, etc. Semiotics operates in ecologies of interconnected signs, or Umwelten, which comprise Lotman’s (1984/2005) concept of semiosphere. Similar to, but nonetheless different from biosphere and noosphere, the semiotic universe may be regarded as the totality of individual texts and isolated languages as they relate to each other. In this case, all structures will look as if they are constructed out of individual bricks. However, it is more useful to establish a contrasting view: all semiotic space may be regarded as a unified mechanism (if not organism). In this case, primacy does not lie in one or another sign, but in the ‘greater system’, namely the semiosphere. The semiosphere is that same semiotic space, outside of which semiosis itself cannot exist. . (Lotman, 1984/2005, p. 208) The Umwelt (we can also use the plural Umwelten, to signify diversity of possible approaches) created by today’s digital technologies consists of visible ecologies of text-audio-image-video, and the less visible yet deeply intertwined ecologies such as databases, algorithms, and machine languages. The contemporary Umwelt simultaneously transforms human environment and calls for redefinition of what it means to be human. In this way,

244  Michael A. Peters et al the digital semiosphere is inextricably linked to posthumanism. According to Bayne and Jandrić, posthumanism is concerned with the questioning of the foundational role of ‘humanity’ as it has been constructed in modernity. Rejecting clear distinctions between ‘nature’ and ‘culture’, it also rejects dualisms and the binaries we have tended to draw on to define what it means to be human in the world: human/machine, human/animal, subject/object, self/other and so on. (Bayne & Jandrić, 2017, p. 200) The digital semiosphere is textual and non-textual, visual and non-visual, clear and unclear, familiar and uncanny, human-made and machine-made, natural and cultural. It is within its complex nature that (digital) signs are created, transported, transformed, and interpreted. Furthermore, the marriage between digital semiosphere and post-humanism brings about different relationships between the individual and the collective. Here, shows Bruni, the focus would be rather on the cultural dynamics that results from the acceleration of processes implicit in the contemporary technosphere, where the ‘content’, cultural products, texts and objects of signification are as crucial, in terms of sustainability, as the cognitive changes and limits of the participating individuals. (Bruni, 2015, p. 111) Speaking of the shift from (static) text to (moving) image, it is not enough to include (interpretation of) (moving) pictures to our existing systems of reasoning. Instead, we need to open up questions regarding relationships between the human and the nonhuman, between authentic reality and inauthentic reality, between the individual and the collective. The age of the digital reason permanently re-creates new digital semiospheres, where these (and many other) concepts co-exist and interact in the state of permanent flux. This calls for constant reinvention of semiotics, semiology, linguistics, epistemology, (visual) pedagogy, and other fields. Created at the peak of the analogue era, John Berger’s work has left important traces in various fields from visual studies to feminism. Arguably, the majority of these contributions firmly belong to the past. However, the relationship between what we see and what we know is indeed never settled, and Berger’s understanding that visuality can be thought of only in relation to the full semiosphere will continue to live on well into the age of the digital reason.

References Bayne, S., & Jandrić, P. (2017). From anthropocentric humanism to critical posthumanism in digital education. Knowledge Cultures, 5(2), 197–216.

Shift from (static) text to (moving) image  245 Berger, A. A. (2013). Semiological analysis. In O. Boyd-Barrett & P. Braham (Eds.), Media, knowledge and power: A reader (pp. 132–155). New York: Routledge. Berger, J., Blomberg, S., Fox, C., Dibb, M., & Hollis, R. (1972). Ways of seeing. London: British Broadcasting Corporation & Penguin. Bruni, L. E. (2015). Sustainability, cognitive technologies and the digital semiosphere. International Journal of Cultural Studies, 18(1), 103–117. Gunaratman, Y., & Bell, V. (2017, January). How John Berger changed our ways of seeing art: He taught us that photographs always need language, and require a narrative, to make sense. The Independent. Retrieved from http://www.independent.co.uk/ arts-entertainment/art/features/john-berger-ways-of-seeing-a7518001.html Lessig, L. (2001). Code: And other laws of cyberspace. New York: Basic Books. Lotman, J. (1984/2005). On the semiosphere. Trans. W. Clark. Sign Systems Studies, 33(1), 205–229. Moriarty, S. (2005). Visual semiotics theory. In K. Smith, S. Moriarty, G. Barbatsis, & K. Kenney (Eds.), Handbook of visual communication research: Theory, methods, and media (pp. 227–242). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. O’Neill, S. (2008). Interactive media: The semiotics of embodied interaction. London: Springer Science + Business Media. Peters, M. A., & Jandrić, P. (2017). The digital university: A dialogue and manifesto. New York: Peter Lang. Saddhu, S. (2012, September 7). Ways of Seeing opened our eyes to visual culture. Guardian. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2012/ sep/07/ways-seeing-berger-tv-programme-british

Perspectives on truth in virtual reality: immersive video – the next pictorial tradition Rene Novak Virtual reality environments can be erected artificially into digital constructs, but they can also come into existence by capturing settings from the real world through Immersive Videos (Stuart, 2001). This thesis will have a greater focus on the latter. Immersive video recordings enable views in all directions (360 degree recordings), can provide the depth of view (stereoscopic 3D recordings) and enable us to control the environment through manipulation (Trindade et al., 2013). These properties specific to the new visual tradition mark the key advantages it holds over traditional video and photographic mediums (Pujol-Tost, 2011). For instance, the representation of a bridge going over a river and how this would traditionally be represented in different mediums will be discussed. Written text would portray the setting with words, where different writers would use a range of sentences with a high level of subjectivity in representing the truth. The perception of this reality for a reader would also differ marginally depending on the individual’s interpretation of the text. Consequently, if we had several writers describing the setting with several readers interpreting their work, we would end up with multiple realities and with at least two levels of subjective truths. This correlates with Husserl’s (1999) idea of reality where he suggests that multiple worlds offer multiple truths from individual

246  Michael A. Peters et al subjective perspectives. Arguably drawings and paintings might diminish some of the subjectivity if the pictorial representations are realistic. Drawings with pencils might leave colour to interpretation. Drawings, paintings, photographs and videos show the observers only the angle the author has chosen, hence still concealing a number of truths and imposing further bias. With the video, the viewing angles can change but are still in control of the person recording. Both photo and video add to realism by arguably capturing more realistic illustrations than drawings and painting, where the subjectivity of the author decreases. In these traditions the level of manipulation is very slim. A painting or photograph can be turned around, looked at closer or from afar, and a video can be paused, rewound and fast forwarded. Viewing angles and manipulation increase drastically in VR (Dourado & Martin, 2013). Not only does it entail a highly accurate representation of the viewed image, but the viewer is able to control the view point in every direction and sense the depth of view which lifts the observer into the third dimension, creating a sense of immersion in a vastly more accurate representation of reality. Here the observer would feel as standing in front of the bridge, he could observe the river flowing from underneath it, turn around and look at where the path behind leads to, walk to the bridge, lean down and look at the stones on the gravel road beneath. Nevertheless, immersive videos are not without limitations (Heim, 1993; Stuart, 2001). Walking distance is confined to the view area of the camera, and therefore its placement introduces a level of author’s bias. Manipulation within immersive videos is impaired compared to digitally constructed virtual worlds; this impairment is comparable to the difference of the level of manipulation in videos and video games. This means that we could observe the bridge, and walk over it, but we could not alter it as it was pre-recorded. If it was digitally constructed, it could have been a drawbridge we would be able to pull up. This example highlights some of the complexities of different pictorial traditions in relation to truth. VR adds to this complexity particularly as it is designed to simulate or create reality taking the participant on a journey through the cybernetical looking glass into the digital world where, according to Heim (1993), the metaphysical laboratory of philosophy resides. The term ‘Virtual Reality’ is contradictory in, and of, itself as ‘virtual’ means something that is not physically existing or something that is close to the truth but is not the truth itself (Heim, 1993). If we are able to see, hear, touch and interact with the virtual world just as well as we can do with the real-life one, how ‘real’ is the virtual world in comparison with the physical world? Are virtual worlds still mere representations of reality, or are they something more? These questions can be addressed very differently depending on which school of realism we pose the question to. One philosophical theory defines realism depending on the presence of the mind in the world (Convergent realism) (Aronson, 1997). It deems a world ‘real’ if we can argue that the world still exists even if the human mind is absent from it. One of the features of virtual worlds is that the user can ‘visit’ them with their mind and leave when desired. The computer simulated world is therefore still in existence, running on the machinery in which it resides but

Shift from (static) text to (moving) image  247 which the mind is not ‘logged into’ at that point in time. Aronson (1997) further argues that it is questionable whether the notion of a mind-independent world is a necessary feature of realism, for there is a distinction to be made between ‘truth realism’ and ‘object realism’. Therefore, from the perspective of object realism, the virtual world is ‘real’. This brings us to the notion of truth. From a philosophical perspective, VR attempts to change the user’s perceptions of truth by offering worlds constructed by men, in other words, by giving the designers the role of an omnipotent entity within the designed world. From this perspective, VR worlds can be seen as embodiments of verisimilitude, a falsehood that seems real while having the appearance of a true reality (Renardel de Lavalette & Zwart, 2011). This must be seen in the light of the purpose of VR being to mimic reality (Heim, 1993; Sharma, Chandra, Venkatraman, Mittal, & Singh, 2015). Current authenticities of verisimilitude are being explored in relation to the question of whether the inquired, complete empirical truth (which in our case is reality itself) is known to the researcher in such a manner as to allow them to be able to descriptively assess how close the false (arbitrary) truth is to the true reality. We can identify the ‘truth’ in VR (which is the real-life world), and the different VR worlds can be investigated, therefore, with the determination of similarities and distinctions (non-referring propositional variables) between the real-life world and certain individual virtual worlds, we can determine the level of verisimilitude. Another way to determine the ‘distance’ between the complete truth and arbitrary truth is to apply a practical test to measure the success of both theories. Based on this thinking, truth in VR would be accomplished when it is indistinguishable with the real world. Immersive videos are an exact recording of the reality that is being played back in the virtual world, therefore arguably as long as the viewer perceived it true it would also make it true in fact from this viewpoint. The level of current technology is not yet capable to create such a similitude, but it is rapidly closing the gap (Pujol-Tost, 2011). Heim (1993) posed these questions as well. He has noted that people shy away from the ‘R word’ (meaning reality), even though reality was previously the key word of philosophy. When virtuality is talked about in contrast to reality, Heim looks at this from an alternative perspective, naming it ‘artificiality’, in his search for a word which can adequately counterpoint ‘reality’ in the mirror of terminology. He likewise touches on the ideas of a few philosophers, particularly their sense of the real. He mentions Plato’s views of ‘ideal forms’ as reality. In this sense, VR could be viewed as real as it tempts viewers with the allure of a perfect world, but to affirm this we would have to assume that forms in reality hold the same value as forms in the digital reality. Similarly, Aristotle’s view would also prove relevant as he was talking about substances we can touch (VR technology can make us believe we are touching things with the force-feedback glove). Symbolic significance of ‘real’ in the medieval period is once again comparable with VR reality and passes with ease, as well as in the Renaissance view, as we are able to count and observe objects repeatedly with our senses. In the

248  Michael A. Peters et al modern era, ‘reality’ connotes atomic matter that has internal dynamics or energy. This would not apply for virtual worlds, as the objects we are seeing are graphical representations of digital data (unless we ascribe the attribute of ‘real’ substance to data itself in its electro-magnetic existence. Heim (1993) notes the link between cyberspace and virtual reality: ‘Cyber space can make breaking through the interface (a human user connects with the system, and the computer becomes interactive) possible and inhabiting an electronic realm where reality and symbolized reality constitute a third entity – Virtual Reality’ (p. 78). Heim even goes so far as to call VR consensual hallucination inasmuch as VR systems use cyberspace to represent physical space. A year after Heim published Metaphysics of Virtual Reality, Coyne (1994) responded to his work with a paper speculating on the implications of representations in VR from the perspectives of different theorists and a specific focus on Heidegger’s views. Heidegger’s concern for the extremes in technology enframing phenomena was great and as VR aims to capture reality itself and there are few extremes that currently measure up to it, it is thought that he would look upon it with criticism (Heidegger, 1996). He was also concerned about the authors bias in representations of reality which has already been discussed. Coyne (1994) focused on Heidegger’s notion of the tension between correspondence and the social construct that underlaid the workings between truth and reality mirroring the relationship between subjectivity and objectivity, hence his ideas about truthful representations indirectly address ‘VR’s quest for realism’ (Coyne, 1994, p. 69). Following from this, Heidegger’s concept of disclosure becomes relevant for VR as he is more concerned about which truths constructs (in our case the virtual world) disclose rather than how close to reality the representation is, hereby the message carried in an immersive video is more important than the sense of reality it provides. Another duality of Heidegger that is relevant for VR is the contrast between the earth and the world where the earth is seen as the real-life reality and the world as the constructed virtuality (Coyne, 1994). He stresses the notion of difference between these and the clash between constructed order and the realized materiality of the real world. Heidegger suggests that it is this tension that provokes research which is very much apparent for researchers of virtual reality who are perusing to close the space between reality and virtuality while speculating about it as it also measures the distance between truth and verisimilitude, the thickness of the cybernetical looking glass between worlds. Coyne (1994, p. 71) expressed this difference with an example of his own: The VR experience is not like walking through a building – we can fly through it, pass through walls, and shrink and expand the building around us. Heim portrays VR as an ‘event or entity that is real in effect but not in fact’ (1993, p. 109), again highlighting the difference. This notion of Heim’s comes to light in something I got to call ‘The Dinosaur Effect’. We perceive

Shift from (static) text to (moving) image  249 truth through our senses, the purpose of VR is to deceive our senses to perceive a virtual truth as reality. We all hear, read and see about how large the prehistoric animals were and while text, picture and video can conjure up an abstraction of this perception, it is Virtual Reality that can produce a concrete account that can be felt cross-modally and multi-sensory by immersing the participant in the event. The effect is staggering as it usually draws out involuntary quick reactivate movements and shouts caused by a sensio-motor reaction of embodied cognition. After, people usually comment that they could feel it breathe into their face while they were struggling to comprehend the enormity of the creature before them. Arguably, if VR can cause a real-life sensio-motor bodily reaction accompanied with feelings such as fear and startlement in adults, they must at some level perceive it as truth. It feels appropriate, though ironic, considering that over two decades have passed since, to conclude with Heim’s (1993) proposal: If for two thousand years, Western culture has puzzled over the meaning of reality, we cannot expect ourselves in two minutes, or even two decades, to arrive at the meaning of virtual reality. (p. 43)

References Aronson, J. L. (1997). Truth, verisimilitude, and natural kinds. Philosophical Papers, 26(1), 71–104. doi:10.1080/05568649709506557 Coyne, R. (1994). Heidegger and virtual reality: The implications of Heidegger’s thinking for computer representations. Leonardo, 27(1), 65–73. doi:10.2307/1575952 Dourado, A. O., & Martin, C. A. (2013). New concept of dynamic flight simulator, Part I. Aerospace Science and Technology, 30(1), 79–82. doi:10.1016/j. ast.2013.07.005 Heidegger, M. (1996). The question concerning technology and other essays. (W. Lovitt, Trans.). New York, NY: Harper and Row. Heim, M. (1993). The metaphysics of virtual reality. New York: Oxford University Press. Husserl, E. (1999). Das allgemeine Ziel der phänomenologischen Philosophie. Husserl Studies, 16(3), 183–254. Pujol-Tost, L. (2011). Realism in virtual reality applications for cultural heritage. International Journal of Virtual Reality, 10(3), 41. Renardel de Lavalette, G. R., & Zwart, S. D. (2011). Belief revision and Verisimilitude based on preference and truth orderings. Erkenntnis, 75(2), 237– 254. doi:10.1007/s10670-011-9293-z Sharma, G., Chandra, S., Venkatraman, S., Mittal, A., & Singh, V. (2015). Artificial neural network in virtual reality: A survey. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Greeshma_Sharma/publication/297556633_Artificial_Neural_ Network_in_Virtual_Reality_A_Survey/links/56dfd64808ae9b93f79aa51a.pdf Stuart, R. (2001). The design of virtual environments. Ft. Lee, NJ: Barricade Books. Trindade, D., Teixeira, L., Loaiza, M., Carvalho, F., Raposo, A., & Santos, I. (2013). LVRL: Reducing the gap between immersive VR and desktop graphical applications. The International Journal of Virtual Reality, 2(1). Retrieved from http://webserver2. tecgraf.puc-rio.br/~abraposo/pubs/IJVR/LVRL_IJVR2013_Vol01.pdf

250  Michael A. Peters et al

Past the post: contemplating a proto philosophy of the ‘moving’ image E. Jayne White A thousand paths are there which have never yet been trodden; a thousand salubrities and hidden islands of life. Unexhausted and undiscovered is still man and man’s world. Awake and hearken, ye lonesome ones! From the future come winds with stealthy pinions, and to fine ears good tidings are proclaimed … New paths do I tread, a new speech cometh unto me; tired have I become – like all creators – of the old tongues. No longer will my spirit walk on worn-out soles. Too slowly runneth all speaking for me: – into thy chariot, O storm, do I leap! And even thee will I whip with my spite! Like a cry and an huzza will I traverse wide seas, till I find the Happy Isles where my friends sojourn; –(Nietzsche, First Part. Zarathustra’s prologue. p. 88) Nietzsche’s utopian proposition – now over a hundred years ago – was a philosophical cry for the yet-to-be-known which could be only achieved through an awareness of what already exists. His infamous ‘superman’ portrayed a series of prophetic symbolic encounters that were cognizant of, yet surpassed existing boundaries and ‘truths’, thus providing a creative proto-type for an unknown future. The superman heralded a new optimism that evaded Nietzsche’s reality and which, he argued, could only be realized through the awakening actions of the spirit to itself, in the manifestation of a man who could exceed his own bounds through other (Higgins, 2010). His artistic attempts to augment these ideas through his infamous text ‘Thus Spake Zarathustra’ set in motion an optimistic stance that, perhaps only now, might be fully appreciated in a proto contemplation of a philosophy of the moving image that moves us past the dominant ‘post-era’ of thought that characterizes our present. Like Nietzsche’s superman, the moving image acts as a bridge between human and ‘other’, walking a tightrope that connects, and perhaps at last begins to reconcile, (wo)man and machine. The moving image does not merely lie in the static parchment of text; nor does it draw its source from the sign as a mere communicative exchange from self to ‘other’, as traditional semiotics would suggest. It is a technical, psychological and sensory artistry. While the poststructuralist turn provided an important means of establishing a much more complex relationship between the image and the subject,

Shift from (static) text to (moving) image  251 the image itself remains static within this philosophical realm – until given a breath of life through movement (active engagement) of and with the subject. Even if it had the means to ‘speak’ from a posthumanist stance, the image, in the absence of this inflation, could not physically move (beyond a psychological ‘movement’ through aesthetic engagement) and therefore act beyond its internal affect on the discerning subject. In contrast, the moving image – once unleashed via its fast-changing technologies and social platforms – is active and has a literal voice that is expressed through intervisual movement. The latter manifest through the addition of sound which brings simulacra to its knees in a myriad of ways. At its most primitive the moving image can be viewed as a mode of production comprised of a series of connected still frames and sounds presented to the viewer at a fast pace, dominant in popular culture today; while at its limits the moving image offers a means of inviting the self into its sphere as a co-creator and multiple personhood – both networked author and consumer. These limits are merely temporal since the technologies of the moving image are moving well in advance of the knowledge base (and an associated means of understanding its semiotic location) that struggles to keep up with this (e)motion. Movement is central to human experience and a central source of becoming. It is embodied in live events, as actions that take place in the flux of time and space. As Zinchenko outlines, action is both ‘heterogenous and heterostructural – represented in it are the main attributes of the soul – cognition, feeling and will’ (p. 191). As such, those who are open to the possibilities that unfold are brought into a new consciousness through such means. In an associated manner the moving image acts upon, through and with humans both in the world, with the world and on the world through its capacity to mobilize, connect and create in hitherto unimaginable ways. Through such movement image(s) summon new forms of engagement through existential, virtual, metaphoric, satiric and representational means (to name but a few – each of which has yet to be explored in education) via evolving technologies. Summoning its fullest potential, the moving image therefore has the means to penetrate conventional philosophy as a kind of trans-genre proto-type which diminishes the tyranny of the receiving (or appreciative) human subject by rupturing the self-other (or author-audience) divide that has, until recently, dominated philosophies of the image (and, indeed, education) in one way or another. It re-actualizes Malevich’s (2014) entreaty for the non-objectification of art, and collapses the tyranny of both selfhood and hierarchies concerning the image as a static aesthetic expression by the artist alone. Through access to alternate combinations and complexities of visual worlds in motion the non-coinciding nature of otherness and the non-objectivity of art is at last heralded – creating opportunities for critical inquiry, self-awareness, de-construction and even deception or destruction. The latter is made possible because the moving image in the hands of – like Zarathustra’s ‘child in the mirror’ – is highly capable of manipulating ‘reality’ and

252  Michael A. Peters et al has the capacity to actively conflate fiction with non-fiction, thus generating multiple selves; granting access to alternate existences, collapsing traditional notions of time and space, and providing both access to and beyond the body (eventually, perhaps, abandoning the body altogether as a proto-encounter that takes place beyond the limits of a physical self as in VR and AR). This is a creative moment that takes account of our philosophical heritage yet moves to contemplate unknown futures that have the potential to reconstitute existing dichotomies of virtual vs real; ‘I’ vs ‘us’; technology vs experience, and so on. Adopting this ‘proto’ stance, Epstein (2012) calls for a new logic to explain the ‘self’, seeking a new materiality of images that grants them agentic presence in the ‘social’ alongside both artist and admirer. Video now commonly summoned to Facebook, as a classic example, takes us well beyond traditional linguistic, geographical, political and even intellectual barriers – granting access, creative formation and inviting response to all. Its presence is felt everywhere – on cell phones and shopping malls alike – generating new forms of engagement for the masses. The moving image galvanizes the collective intellect on a technical level that acts as a multi-sensorial host and provides a portal into previously unimagined forms of intelligentsia – far beyond the academy where traditional borders might now be penetrated through the means now at their disposal. The moving image grants wo(man) freedom to duplicate, create, distort, alternate and eliminate as all-seeing shape-shifters within the networked society that is becoming central to civilization today. With this freedom, the moving image has the potential to take philosophy of education beyond moral concerns with ‘post-truth’ to a transhuman interplay with the multi-senses – an active creative engagement that is accessible to all who can ‘see’, and not the chosen few who have the good fortune to know how to ‘read’ the static sign – here a cautionary note is applied to the uncritical treatment of what is seen and the challenges this poses for education. A non-coinciding proto-type vis-à-vis the unbridled potential of the moving image is especially relevant for philosophy of education in consideration of the contemporary endurance of dominant ‘posts’ which, while helpful in moving beyond the taken-for-granted constructs of their predecessors over the past century, no longer serve educational futures adequately in the era of the moving image. ‘Post’ anything is always, by its very nature, a reaction against or in opposition to its predecessor. As a consequence, ‘post’ philosophies only flourish when they can distinguish categorically between existing ways of thinking as a kind of ‘break’. The moving image does not seek so much a harsh break but rather provides fresh opportunities to go beyond existing philosophical strongholds of ‘the subject’ and ‘the image’ in anticipation of connected dialogic futures that lie in its wake. Hence, rather than yet another ‘post’, the moving image starts to map out a ‘proto’ pathway for future educational thought which stakes its contemporary claims on an anticipated future in consideration of a non-coinciding (human) self who is the moving image as much as the moving image is him. Is this Nietzsche’s superman in (virtual, temporal and ideological) carnation? Only time will tell but,

Shift from (static) text to (moving) image  253 if we are wise to the proto potentialities advanced through the moving image, there is every possibility that we can and will exceed our own bounds through such active means. I, for one, look forward to the future in this regard.

References Epstein, M. (2012). The transformative humanities: A manifesto. Chicago: Bloomsbury Academic. Higgins, K. (2010). Nietzsche’s Zarathustra (Revised ed.). Plymouth: Lexington Books. Malevich, K. (2014). The world as objectlessness. (Hatje Cantz Verlag Trans.). Ostfildern, Kuntsmuseum Basel, Germany: Ganske Publishing Company.

The robot-teacher, text, the moving image, and their philosophical function Richard Heraud Suppose that the teacher’s role in the not too distant future is assumed by a robot-teacher and furthermore that this turn of events is accompanied by a political initiative that obligates students to form themselves as entrepreneurs, which is understood here as a kind of antithetical development. I have coupled together these two ideas to highlight how the student’s capacity to change meaning and practice might function as a counter to the robot-teacher’s summary use of our collective history of thought. In other words, I am writing with a view to describing how the contemporary student might avoid becoming manipulated by the robot-teacher’s more effective use of human knowledge or what might be called their deep intelligence (Musk, 2017).1 The paradox here, and the challenge to the student’s capacity to be philosophical in thinking this paradox, has to do with the fact that artificial intelligence (AI) has become both the fundamental operant in the student’s process of learning and the inhibiter to postdigital thought; that which will enable the student to be capable of changing the meaning and practice in the context of being taught by a robot-teacher. In response to the invitation to contribute to this collective article, it will be argued that it is through new forms of writing that new relations with the image and the moving image will be formed, and that it is through these new forms of writing that the nature of the above described paradox will be grappled with.2 Before discussing the relation of text to image and that of the text to moving image, I will attempt to ground my original proposal in contemporary experience. Firstly there is the question of whether robot-teachers will in fact be dispatched to fill the role of teachers.3 Why is this development inevitable? Economics – the defining factor in the governance of education – tells us that the relationship between ‘ends and scarce means’ has been exhausted such that teachers can no longer provide the means to produce the ends that economics and technological development in a global world now require of them. For this reason we have seen the introduction of innovative learning environments as a policy development – a development that is not uniquely

254  Michael A. Peters et al policy driven in that student use of AI presupposes both an opening up of the learning space in the interests of student learning and a deterritorialization of the same learning space. This development is not the consequence of teachers not wanting to teach, nor is it a consequence of teachers not being good at the task of implementing education policy. Neither ‘passion’ nor ‘conviction’ will serve to change this situation or the narrative that education now finds itself engaging.4 Of course there are other factors that play a role in the evolution of these events, including innovations in AI that make teachers too expensive, education failure as a commercial service, young people learning that they do not need teachers for the reason that they can teach themselves, networked collaboration addressing real problems more directly and more effectively, and traditional thinking no longer being able to resist change.5 What this means is that the politics of aesthetics and the way images and moving images are understood are about to undergo a huge shift. In particular, this shift will be evidenced in new ways that thinking is employed in new forms of writing; writing that will overcome the hypostatic scenario that education has entrenched itself in while exhibiting students as being no longer afraid to create according to the diversity of their thinking. Some will argue (see Mubin & Ahmad, 2016) that robots will only be dispatched to the classroom as mere ‘learning tools’, an idea that suggests that AI will not be up to the task of functioning in a teaching role any time soon. The problem with this assessment is that it does not recognize the speed with which new technologies are emerging – how quickly they are developed, introduced and accepted – which is to say such an assessment muffles the more critical analysis of what is already happening in education (see Lévy, 1997).6 This said, the development of new technologies should not cease, and furthermore, it makes sense that they should accelerate in their capacity-building. What is more, it can be assumed that robot-teachers, with a machine learning capacity, will be able to assimilate and process all curriculum and pedagogical materials available to teachers and therefore be in a position to outsmart teachers. Robot-teachers will be demeaning to teachers because they will be algorithmically more effective and more sophisticated. This is the challenge to entrepreneurial thinking: how to introduce new means and practices with the history of meaning and practice is more effectively analyzed and given purpose by deep intelligence? In light of this question, we might ask what is the value of the image and the moving image, and how do these values become affordances for new forms of writing and, as such, make writing a means of thinking about how we now see our relationship with society, nature and world? If the image describes a situation, then the moving image recounts the narrative that proceeds from, to, around and in this situation. The situation and its narrative exist together in the classroom. They are not interchangeable as forms of capturing our relationship with each other, nature and the world: they have distinctive political implications for how students might tackle their learning and the role of the robot-teacher. To understand the problem of student relations

Shift from (static) text to (moving) image  255 with the robot-teacher, we need to understand the nature of relations with respect to how images and moving images are used, and why the difference in the way the situation and the narrative is understood should provide a need for new forms of writing. We might expect the AI capacitated robot-teacher to summarize this relationship in a way that is more complex than that of the student’s assessment of what is, of what comprises the moment, the action, and the action in the moment, for the robot-teacher works with an exponentially much greater capacity in terms of pure processing speed. From this we suppose that the robot-teacher is also able to construct a narrative account of the situation. What possibilities does the student have of projecting their development beyond the anticipated and of commencing something new? Imagine the image of the situation that involves the robot-teacher employing face-recognition technologies in the governance of student learning and instead of understanding a particular student’s diversity of thought for what it is, the robot-teacher categorizes the student’s thinking as deviating from the only data the robot-teacher has to work with. Will the student be sufficiently suspicious, scrutinizing and investigative in advance of any decision made by the robot-teacher to toss the image of the situation, in all its elements, into the air just to see how these elements might behave in the form of a conscious experiment and, in so doing, construct a narrative that disrupts the function of the algorithms used to educate and, as such, create a new moving picture or will the student be bereft of the play required to keep the paradox alive?7 One way students might be able to protect the diversity of individual thought and the creative relations that make relations distinctive is if they learn the discipline of writing text in relation to the need to understand such situations and narratives – how to think a thought as if newly designed and without knowing its shape (see Aicher, 2015). If not, the algorithmic mechanism that governs the robot-teacher’s black box will decide for students and in ways that may be wildly inaccurate while convincing the student of the unnatural disappearance of paradox. In this way, the value of writing text will experience a renewal of importance as it may be through writing that the thought it supposes becomes the only defence capable of disrupting algorithmic certainty. In these circumstances, the production of text becomes a renewed practice for the very reason that we need new practices of thinking that may only be able to be achieved through writing.

Notes 1 At this point there is little in the way of a definition of deep intelligence. Musk (2017) describes it as reflecting the capacity for robots to draw their own conclusion, where existing and uploaded information is used in ways that are new and potentially contrary to the original intention of building a robot. 2 I will speak of the moving image rather than speak of video or film, because I want to de- emphasize the evolution of the film and video technology because I think if we don’t do this, we risk not understanding the situation that an image captures – a situation that a moving image, video or film can only partly capture.

256  Michael A. Peters et al 3 If a robot cannot be introduced to students as an agent that cannot be known (sabido) but only known (conocido), then what will the action of introduction be: dispatch, deposit, offload, takeover, substitute etc.? This is important because their introduction to students will define the limits and possibilities of this new student/robot-teacher relationship. 4 See William Butler Yeats’ poem ‘The Second Coming’, Retrieved from http:// www.potw.org/archive/potw351.html 5 This thinking is not new. See for example Pierre Lévy’s work dating after the late 1990s, beginning with Collective Intelligence: Mankind’s Emerging World of Cyberspace (1997). 6 See Mark Lister’s article ‘Ignore the Tech Revolution at Your Peril’ (2017), for commentary on how technology intensive industries can expect as much technological development in the next 5 years as was experienced in the last 50 years. 7 The idea of the need to be suspicious of algorithms, to scrutinize algorithms and to investigate algorithms is drawn from Zeynep Tufekci’s TED talk, Machine Intelligence Makes Human Morals More Important. (See https://www.ted. com/talks/zeynep_tufekci_machine_intelligence_makes_human_morals_ more_important)

References Aicher, O. (2015). Analogous and digital. (M. Robinson, Trans.). Berlin: Ernst & Sohn. (Originally published 1994). Lévy, P. (1997). Collective intelligence: Mankind’s emerging world of cyberspace. (R. Bononno, Trans.). London: Plenum Trade. Lister, M. (2017, June 27). Ignore the tech revolution at your peril. New Zealand Herald. Retrieved from http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article. cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11882316 Mubin, O., & Ahmad, M. (2016, November 7). Robots likely to be used in classrooms as learning tools, not teachers [Blog]. Retrieved from https://theconversation.com/ robots-likely-to-be-used-in-classrooms-as-learning-tools-not-teachers-66681 Musk, E. (2017). Elon Musk talks cars and humanity’s fate with governors. [Associated Press, Interview by Matt O’Brien]. Retrieved from http://www.msn.com/en-nz/ news/techandscience/elon-musk-talks-cars-and-humanitys-fate-with-governors/ ar-BBEyy4r?li=BBqdk7Q&ocid=mailsignout

Reflection on ten visual theses: #DoWhatYouCant K. Locke We make what can’t be made so you can do what can’t be done. Samsung Gear VR advertisement (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ckmMSeUtSHc) The clip begins with a single ostrich pecking a path away from the flock that unwittingly leads it to an outdoor patio where a VR headset lies on the table. Buoyed by the selection of tasty titbits left by the humans, the ostrich enthusiastically jabs at the edible remains only to accidentally thrust its head into the VR headset. The ostrich stumbles back, temporarily dazed by the new reality that engulfs it. The perspective shifts to the ostrich’s point of view and

Shift from (static) text to (moving) image  257 we/the ostrich are transferred high above the ground at the level of billowing clouds. The perspective then shifts to a close-up of the ostrich eye, pupils dilating as it adjusts to the soaring panorama of moving clouds. A thought wisps over the filmy moistness of the cornea perceived by the viewer and the ostrich simultaneously through the ostrich eye’s reflection of undulating clouds: this is what flying feels like. The melancholic strains of Elton John’s ‘Rocket Man’ saturate the view: She packed my bags last night pre-flight; Zero hour nine AM. The ostrich, VR headset firmly in place, plumps out its sinewy feathery side-wings and steels itself in preparation for take-off. The other ostriches look on with quiet disinterest (or disbelief) as the VR-enabled ostrich launches into a determined run, the powerful strides made slightly comic by the feeble flaying-about of its long-dormant wings. And I’m gonna be high as a kite by then, promises Elton John. The ostrich stumbles in an ungainly mess of feathers and muscular limbs and there ensues a ‘dark night of the soul’ for the ostrich as it wills itself to achieve the impossible. The climactic point of the clip arrives alongside the triumphant chorus where the ostrich, now headset-free, raises its head in defiance, spreads its wings, takes determined strides for take-off and finally, resolutely, lifts itself off the ground with the pack of ostriches running underneath looking up in awe at this unlikely feat of aerial mastery. And I think it’s gonna be a long, long time ‘Till touch down brings me round again to find I’m not the man they think I am at home Oh no, no, no, I’m a rocket man As the chorus jubilantly thrums in accompaniment to the beating wings, the quote at the top of this reflection appears: We make what can’t be made so you can do what can’t be done, resting at the end of the clip on the hashtag phrase #DoWhatYouCant. The simple message couched in nuanced semiotic layering is that the impossible is made possible through the help of technological devices, in this case the VR headset (made in this case by Samsung). Because the ostrich experienced the feelings, sensations, images and movements of flight, it learnt the ‘possibility’ of flight and therefore learnt ‘how’ to fly. In reflecting on the philosophical theses that refer in different ways to the shift from static text to moving image on offer in this compendium, the possibilities, power, potentialities and even the pitfalls of our immersion in the visual emerge (like the case of the flying ostrich) as vigorously pedagogic. A philosophy of the image as this collection demonstrates has to be considered – viewed – as historically, culturally, visually and technologically contingent. All ten theses in some way speak to this contingency, and to the pedagogic possibilities that arise through this contingency. As Grierson notes, a focus on the politics of the image reveals a visualization of power relations that calls for an engagement with feminist analysis as a site of othering and difference. In Grierson’s analysis, any articulation of an educational philosophy of the image needs to be robust and ethically layered enough to

258  Michael A. Peters et al encapsulate the ‘pictorial turn’ of the current epoch. The possibilities opened by the moving image in the form of the video are explored by Stewart alongside an ethical acknowledgement of the resonance video has to indigenous oral cultures. An aural genealogy of histories and identities can be sufficiently honoured and developed toward important contributions to education in a medium more sympathetically structured to do this. Stewart, Devine, Craw and Gibbons’ thesis pushes the orality of the video to a consideration of the disruption the moving image poses to academia’s hegemonic privileging of the written text. In a somewhat adjacent context to our flying ostrich, Jandrić and Peters consider the expansion of the visual alongside a deconstruction of modern doctrines that categorize and separate the human and the non-human, and the authentic and non-authentic. Like the anthropomorphizing ostrich who, with the help of VR, takes on a thoroughly modern human quest to extend, achieve, flout tradition and shock, we are reminded by Jandrić and Peters that the ostrich is a metaphor for the way the human and non-human blend into one glorious conglomeration of desire and matter. The reciprocity inherent to the reality of the digitally mediated and filtered experience of the flying flightless bird blends into the reality of the wingless, flightless human and by doing so dissipates the categories and borders between the two. As Novak posits, this dissipation is essential to any consideration of truth which can be accomplished only when the real is indistinguishable from the unreal. A philosophy of the (moving) image, then, is one that disrupts the primacy of the human toward a carnal intersubjectivity that encompasses the non-human in the company of humans – a more immersive philosophy that extends the possibilities of education. For Heraud this extension incorporates the ‘voices’ and agency of the young people who so adeptly and thoroughly engage with the image as a pedagogical tool outside of the structures of the institution. It also, Whyte continues, offers a ‘proto’ perspective that enables a new logic to emerge where new coordinates can be plotted between the self and society. The group of authors in this collection unite in their disparate ways in the idea that education, as primarily a construct of modernity in its massed form, has been lacking in its response to the shift of the visualization of contemporary cultures. Like the ostriches looking on at the VR prowess of one its members, education has been woefully slow and lacking in courage when tackling the pedagogical possibilities of the visual. This collection demonstrates it is time to take our collective heads out of the sand and to consider the potentialities of an educational philosophy of the visual that goes some way to enabling education to turn toward unknown possibilities, to #DoWhatYouCant.

References Backman, J. (2015). Towards a genealogy of the metaphysics of sight: Seeing, hearing and thinking in Heraclitus. In A. Cimino & P. Kontos (Eds.), Phenomenology and the metaphysics of sight (pp. 11–36). Leiden: Brill.

Shift from (static) text to (moving) image  259 Bakhtin, M. M. (1990). Art and answerability: Early philosophical essays (M. Holquist & V. Liapunov, Ed.; V. Lipapunov, Trans.). Austin, TX: University of Texas Press. Baudrillard, J. (1994). Simulacra and simulation. Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press. Burri, R. V. (2012). Visual rationalities: Towards a sociology of images. Current Sociology, 60(1), 45–60. Debord, G. (1970). The society of the spectacle. Detroit, MI: Black and Red. Fleidl, G. (1989). Gustav Klimt, 1862–1918: The world in female form. Cologne: Benedikt Taschen. Innes, H. (1951). The bias of communication. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Jay, M. (1993). Downcast eyes: The denigration of vision in twentieth-century French thought. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press Johnson, W. (1983). The Austrian mind: An intellectual and social history, 1848– 1938. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. McLuhan, M. (1964). Understanding media (1st ed.). New York, NY: McGraw Hill. Naugle, D. (2002). Worldview: The history of a concept. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans. Patterson, S. W. (2010). A picture held us captive: The later Wittgenstein on visual argumentation. Cogency, 2(2), 105–134. Retrieved from http://www.academia. edu/770551/_A_picture_held_us_Captive_The_later_Wittgenstein_on_visual_ argumentation Peters, M. (2010). Pedagogies of the image: Economies of the gaze. Analysis and Metaphysics, 9, 42–61. Peters, M. (2017). Education in a post-truth world. Educational Philosophy and Theory. Retrieved from http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00131 857.2016.1264114 Rorty, R. (1979). Philosophy and the mirror of nature. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Schorske, C. (1980). Fin-De-Siecle Vienna. New York, NY: Random House. Tarrant, D. (1960). Greek metaphors of light. Classical Quarterly, 10(3–4), 181–187. Toulmin, S., & Janik, A. (1973). Wittgenstein’s Vienna. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster. Wittgenstein, L. (1953). Philosophical investigations (G. E. M. Anscombe, Trans.). Oxford: Blackwell.

14 Education in and for the Belt and Road Initiative The pedagogy of collective writing Michael A. Peters, Ogunniran Moses Oladele, Benjamin Green, Artem Samilo, Hanfei Lv, Laimeche Amina, Yaqian Wang, Mou Chunxiao, Jasmin Omary Chunga, Xu Rulin, Tatiana Ianina, Stephanie Hollings, Magdoline Farid Barsoum Yousef, Petar Jandrić, Sean Sturm, Jian Li, Eryong Xue, Liz Jackson and Marek Tesar Introduction – Michael In 2019 at Beijing Normal University, I developed a master’s course based on the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) to inquire into the question of education as a part of the initiative. It was a course that was to review development within the BRI to examine existing initiatives but also to try to understand the BRI as part of the wider context of the Chinese Dream and to begin to identify the elements of the BRI that formed the parameters of all projects. Given that what President Xi called ‘the project of the century’ emphasizing the scope, variety, and depth of it, the course aimed at providing a philosophical and imaginative overview of the BRI attempting to analyse the constitutive elements and principles of the BRI as a new development model and alternative mode of globalization. The course inquired into the possible role of education and how it fits with the ethos of the project. The course was attended by 12 students who had to produce a 3000-word paper of publishable quality, and in stages began by selecting a topic and producing abstracts, and finally, through different stages of the writing process, a final paper. As part of this writing process, we decided to engage in the experiment of collective writing where we aimed to produce a single paper consisting of the abstracts. First, course participants wrote and presented their abstracts in class. Abstracts were developed as 250 words and then later expanded to 500 words. Second, the abstracts were then integrated into one document by a couple of editors. Then course participants were introduced to the methodology of collective writing. Third, in terms of group work, participants discussed their work in terms of possible subheadings that would structure the paper as a whole. As it turned out, each of the groups came up with the same subheadings. They were asked to return to their abstract to carefully examine them within the context of the whole paper. In the next stage, the overall paper was reworked to focus on the process of integration and sequence, and one of the instructors began to edit the paper

Education in and for the Belt and Road Initiative  261 and write a conclusion. The final paper was then subjected to the process of open review, where the reviewer’s comments were included in the paper. Finally, the paper was proofread and, with final edits, sent to a journal for publication. The final 3000-word papers were then redrafted in terms of the piece of collective writing of integrated abstracts as final papers to be graded as part of the course assessment. They were submitted several weeks after the end of the course for consideration as chapters in a book on Belt and Road education as the second part of a volume that also contained a theoretical article on the concept of BRI and historical work on the continuity of the ancient Silk Road. The course emphasized a philosophy of development to indicate both the significance of education for the future and the principles that lie behind the philosophy of the BRI as the new Silk Road, focusing on the following concepts and principles: 1. Chinese infrastructuralism – the new Chinese development model – ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ infrastructure (i) roads, rail & ports, transport hubs, (ii) knowledge networks, ‘technology transfer’ & services, (iii) people-to-people (education & ideas exchanges); 2. Philosophy of Openness – economy (trade), society (education, science, tourism), philosophy (interculturalism, world diplomacy), OA, open science, open education; 3. Interconnectivity – digitization, speed & compression, the new 5G digital Silk Road; 4. Eurasia as a geopolitical concept led by Sino-Russian rapprochement; 5. China as an emerging techno-state based on AI, 5G, ML, quantum computing, etc.; 6. The civilizational state and civilizational dialogue and learning, and the future of humanity; 7. A communicational and media model of education: Content, Code, Infrastructure with discrimination among data, information, knowledge and wisdom; 8. ‘Educating the Future’ – analysis of the philosophical narratives (Marxist, Confucian, Liberal) that comprise the Chinese Dream and future Dreams (the Green Dream, the World Diplomacy Dream, the Space Dream, the Science Dream, and the Dream of the Bio Informational Becoming). This is an attempt to build a philosophical approach to the Chinese Dream through the analysis of narrative (narratology) and the BRI highlighting the future significance of education as an emerging cultural and economic evolutionary development, perhaps the final stage that is both necessarily speculative and imaginative. It is not a stage model, but it does rest on the evolution of the economy with implied historical but not invariant stages from agriculture, to industry, to services – industrial and postindustrial capitalism – with education and automation as final stages. Can we imagine what this future might look like? The BRI is a project that runs until 2040; who knows what BRI will look like at that point?

262  Michael A. Peters et al

Globalization, cooperation and exchange BRI strategy as an alternative to the hegemony of the Western World – Artem In a moment that is widely understood to represent the starting point for the formation of the BRI, on September 7, 2013, at Nazarbayev University, Chinese President Xi Jinping put forward a foreign policy initiative to unite Central Asia and Europe with ‘one belt.’ The People’s Republic of China is both the initiating and founding member state of the global foreign policy initiative known as the BRI. The main target states are the countries directly located within and along transport corridors that hold strategic value to China, with the remainder representing third-party states whose developmental interests intersect with the BRI (Fatkulin, 2017). If the BRI is China’s new global foreign policy strategy, then what are its ideological premises, and what is the true nature of its purpose? Chinese experts maintain that the process of globalization is manifestly neoliberal, with institutions, norms, values and developmental dictates that are primarily directed by and for the interests of the collective West. While some scholars have argued that the pre-eminence of the neoliberal model represented ‘the end of history,’ currently, the neoliberal model suffers from a lack of ‘moral superiority’ stemming from its inability to satisfy the developmental needs of all humanity. The turning point, and, in effect, the last nail in the symbolic coffin of the old developmental model, was the global financial crisis of 2008. Stemming from the collapse of the US housing market, which quickly swept up global markets in its wake, the devastating and long-term global economic repercussions which followed clearly demonstrated to the world that the West was no longer entitled to stand at the helm of economic development and human welfare. As a result of growing volatility within world political processes, along with the growth of intractable regional conflict, it has become readily apparent that the world community is unable to qualitatively respond to pressing geopolitical challenges. Thus, the economic crisis and the ineffectiveness of the international community catalyzed the need for both a radical revision of the basic economic model as well as the need to change the overarching political superstructure. Within these new historical conditions, it is necessary to revise the mechanisms of globalization and its implementation, the roles of the main players, and the rules of the game. Furthermore, ideological foundations need to be adapted to the requirements of these historic times. According to Luo Yujie, it is precisely this task that China’s new foreign policy strategy must solve (Womack, 2017). In On China, Kissinger (2011) states that the United States is guided by the ‘duty’ to spread its values to all parts of the planet. However, while liberalism presupposes the notion that the evangelization of Western values is a prerequisite to globalization, China does not attempt to convert others to the ‘faith’ of market socialism. Moreover, China does not believe that either the success or validity of its modernizing socialist institutions necessitates

Education in and for the Belt and Road Initiative  263 or strives for dictatorial power outside of China. But China is the successor to the traditions of the Middle Kingdom, which, in the notion of tia nxia,’ compiled its own ideas about other countries as being positioned at different levels of vassal dependence. ‘Chinese thinkers developed strategic thought that placed a premium on victory through psychological advantage and preached the avoidance of direct conflict’ (Kissinger, 2011, p. 115). Figuratively speaking, the Middle Kingdom, thanks to reform-era successes in domestic and foreign policy, ‘won the tender’ for the reconstruction of the system of international relations according to its own ideological principles. Within this context, the BRI is viewed as a ‘road map’ for reforming the existing world order, along well-established ideological guidelines found throughout the course of Chinese history. The BRI skillfully combines ‘liberal’ market-based economic reforms with political authoritarianism, which has a tendency to tighten support for the regime and develop patriotism. Also, the BRI initiative is inextricably linked with the implementation of the Chinese goal of ‘Two Centuries’ and the ‘Chinese Dream’ of the revival of the Chinese nation (Zhibao, 2013). Over a long period of development, a distinguishing feature of China’s path towards socialist modernization has been the national pursuit of ‘comprehensive power’ (Shambaugh, 2014, p. 5). In ideological terms, there are various interpretations of the Chinese Dream and its elements in Chinese society. For instance, whether the interpretation of the ‘great rebirth’ signifies merely economic superiority or military-political domination over other states; understanding whether tia nxia means having literally everything and everyone ‘under the China,’ all Chinese people in the world, or just the population of the PRC, etc. Some of these interpretations are fundamentally different from official statements and may lead to a premature conclusion that the concept of the Chinese Dream is a kind of ‘wrapper’ in which one can contain any content. Is it really too early and unfair to say so? Time will tell. Unlike previous policies, theories and concepts promulgated by the CPC, the Chinese Dream and the BRI initiative are equally directed towards both an external and internal developmental need for reform and are actively used as instruments of China’s ‘soft power’ abroad. In domestic politics, this allows the country’s top leadership to justify toughening censorship, and the propagation of controlling party rhetoric, so long as it keeps its promise to achieve the ambitious goal of a ‘great revival’ in the near future. Despite the apparent inconsistency and uncertainty, in a practical sense, the concept of the Chinese Dream may well serve as the main program for the development and reform of the PRC for the next five to ten years. From the Marshall Plan to the Belt and Road Initiative: the possible challenges and countermeasures – Hanfei Since its proposal by President Xi Jinping in 2013, the BRI has witnessed broad support and active participation by relevant countries (Belt and Road Portal, 2019). In its brief existence, the initiative has gained numerous

264  Michael A. Peters et al world-renowned achievements, and the Chinese government expects that, in the near future, the initiative will function as a promoter of win-win economic growth in both China and the world at large. However, at present, some problems have emerged. For example, Mexico has shelved high-speed rail projects tendered by Chinese companies (‘Mexico ‘indefinitely’ shelving,’ 2015), Malaysia has ‘re-examined’ Chinese investment projects (Sohu, 2018), the Prime Minister of Tonga has openly called for Pacific island countries to collectively demand their exemption from Chinese government loans (Liu & Zhao, 2018). We should think about these troubling instances and seek viable options for the mitigation of such issues in the future. The Marshall Plan, a US developmental initiative that took place in the 1950s, is one such large-scale assistance and investment program which can shed light on current issues within the BRI. The Marshall Plan, like the BRI, was also initiated by a single government, in a particular region, within the modern era, and as such, should provide the most appropriate available benchmark by which to evaluate China’s BRI. Subsequent to a review of the relevant literature (Maier & Hoffmann, 1984), it may be stated that theorists, politicians and business elites of European and American countries regarded the Marshall Plan as a program for international development that falls within a context of ‘high praise, calm view, and rational reflection.’ The Marshall Plan promoted the development of the European economy, helped the United States to export its excess production capacity, changed the structure of global industry, and served the export of American values, with the overall effects of the Marshall Plan’s implementation being overstated (Maier & Hoffmann, 1984). The BRI is very different from the Marshall Plan in terms of background, purpose, principle, method and effect. However, it could be foreseen that some of the challenges that the BRI may encounter are those that the Marshall Plan had previously encountered. The first challenge may be described as the conflicting patterns of economic development between China and Western developed countries. The second challenge is a result of the intractable disagreements between antagonistic regimes within the BRI member countries. The third challenge begs the question of how to balance the influence of both geopolitical and geoeconomic powers along the BRI. The reason why the BRI has left many Western countries in doubt lies fundamentally within the dispute between an emergent China model of economic development and the historically dominant yet embattled US economic developmental model. So long as China continues its meteoric rise, this ideological conflict will continue to create challenges and barriers to cooperation along the BRI for the foreseeable future. China’s best response will be to continuously and systematically study and organize the socio-economic theoretical framework and path-dependent model of reform and opening up that has enabled both its continued growth as well as its right to contribute as a global leader to a new model of global economic development along the Belt and Road. China should continue to emphasize the purpose of building a Community of Common Destiny (CCD) and a

Education in and for the Belt and Road Initiative  265 community of interests with countries along the BRI, implement specific policies on trade, industry, technology, and capital, and embody great power responsibility, while taking measures to care for the core interests of all countries. In addition, China should continue to increase financial cooperation with currency swaps between countries along the BRI. China should also continue to gradually explore mechanisms that allow the RMB to flow out as capital and return as trade. Moreover, China must also expand its pilot programs for RMB trade and investment dispute settlement, while continually exploring pathways for the overseas distribution of the RMB through various financial instruments. Review and prospect of the Belt and Road Education Community – Rulin The BRI inherits important spiritual facets of the ancient Silk Road, specifically its core concern for ‘Peace and Cooperation, Openness and Inclusiveness, Mutual Learning and Mutual Benefits’ (Belt and Road Portal, 2019). Moreover, the practical aspect of the BRI includes the concept of ‘a community with a shared future of mankind,’ also known as a Community of Common Destiny (CCD), which connects five thousand years of Chinese history with the call for a ‘New Era’ of Chinese civilization (Belt and Road Portal, 2019). Included among the focal points within the construction of the BRI: policy communication, facility connectivity, smooth trade, capital finance, hearts and minds, and education, which is an important factor of talent cultivation and plays a fundamental role in promoting communication between people of different cultural backgrounds. Educational exchanges serve as a bridge between the hearts and minds of the many diverse groups of people found along the BRI. In July 2016, the Ministry of Education of the People’s Republic of China took the lead in formulating the Promotion of Educational Initiatives for Joint Construction of the ‘Belt and Road,’ which expounded upon the supporting role of education in the construction of the BRI and advocated for the establishment of ‘educational communities’ in countries along the route (2016). The establishment of an education community within the BRI is both an urgent requirement for the implementation of the BRI and an inexorable connection between regional cooperation and international cooperation in this new era of globalization. Within the BRI, the achievement of an educational community plays a fundamental and leading role in the overall implementation of the BRI. The BRI conceptualizes an education community as a multicultural group that transcends geographical, cultural and linguistic boundaries, while considering common interests and common responsibilities as the core foundation on which equality and respect are built (Qie & Liu, 2018). With the current outpouring of global support for the BRI within the international community, the Belt and Road Education Community has been advancing steadily in the following aspects. First, various forms and types of BRI university alliances have emerged; these, in turn, have gradually developed into an organizational form of

266  Michael A. Peters et al human landscape that affects the rules within the emerging field of BRI higher education cooperation. Second, aiming to enhance the flow of international talents and the participation of young people in education cooperation, China has signed mutual academic degree recognition agreements with 24 countries along the BRI. Third, according to the Ministry of Education of the People’s Republic of China, China has leveraged its comparative advantages in higher education to increase the intensity of overseas education by building university branch campuses within various member countries participating in the BRI International Education Cooperation Organization (2017). The basic structure, mode of talent training, and policy framework of cross-border education within the BRI have been initially formed, with many valuable experiences having thus far been accumulated. Cross-border education has laid a very important foundation for the construction, opening up, and expansion of the BRI education community. However, in practice, there are also problems, such as, in realist terms, a relatively narrow foundation for cooperation, a weak internal cooperation mechanism, imbalanced multilateral cooperation, mixed levels of schooling, and a complex external development environment (Zhu & Liu, 2019). To promote the sustainable and healthy development of education, the following aspects should be emphasized. First, strengthen top-level design. Adopt a synergistic approach that combines both top-down and bottom-up approaches to improving the educational cooperation mechanism. Second, strengthen the cooperative alliance. Maintain close communication with governments along the BRI, create a unified access system, develop a uniform criterion for quality assurance and an evaluation and certification system for Sino-foreign cooperative education. Third, set up a special fund to promote scientific research, cooperation and academic exchanges etc. It should be noted that the use of high-tech Internet, AI, 5G and other technologies in the internationalization of education can no longer be ignored. Exploring new ways of developing ‘Internet learning’ and jointly creating the ‘Online Educational Silk Road’ can be both a core concern and a future direction for the further construction of the Belt and Road Education Community.

Internationalization in theory and practice The internationalization of the higher education and the Belt and Road Initiative: the benefits and the challenges – Magdoline China has charted a noteworthy course towards increased developmental capacity, specifically regarding the internationalization of its higher education system as a core element of the BRI. Since the onset of the BRI in 2013, it may be said that there are numerous achievements to be lauded as well as multiple challenges to both learn from and avoid on the path towards the continued internationalization of China’s Higher Education Institutions

Education in and for the Belt and Road Initiative  267 (HEIs). The idea of mutual or ‘win-win’ benefits, one of the main goals of the BRI, is appropriate to the discussion of China’s form of HE internationalization. As a result of collaborations with 46 key international education organizations, as well as numerous educational partnerships founded between 188 different countries and regions (Ministry of Education, 2018), China’s BRI can be considered a leading global contributor to the overall connectivity between culturally diverse peoples from almost every corner of the globe. By continuing to offer scholarships to students from countries along the Belt and Road, China has attracted and encouraged an ever-increasing influx of international students to study at its burgeoning world-class universities (WCUs), further internationalizing and enhancing the research capacities of its domestic HEIs. Providing this opportunity to international students to be a part of the research culture in China’s fields of study will also serve to develop the respective domestic research fields of international students who return to their countries of origin along the BRI. Michael Peters, a distinguished professor at Beijing Normal University, argues that ‘interconnectivity’ as a core product of educational exchange, once a historical facet of China’s ancient Silk Road, has emerged once again within the cultural and people-to-people exchanges of the new BRI, serving to further globalize and internationalize Chinese HE (Peters, 2019a). China’s large investment in Interconnectivity is readily seen by the interaction between international students being supported by the Silk Road Scholarship and their international professors who lecture and conduct research within China’s many international HE degree programs. It has been asserted that, through these initiatives, China is on track to be the centre of HE in the foreseeable future (Peters, 2019a). However, in order for China to truly become the centre of globalized HE, there must be an acute avoidance of some crucial challenges that have manifested as unintended byproducts of the process of HE internationalization within other countries. For instance, the lack of coordination between university programs was a big challenge faced by Japan’s HE system (Zolfaghari, Sabran, & Zolfaghari, 2009). China is trying to avoid this lack of coordination through a concerted effort to develop their universities under the ‘Double First Class’ initiative. Another challenge to Chinese HE is the ‘brain drain’ described by Zolfaghari et al. (2009). Finally, the continued commercialization of international HE, as yet another challenge faced by many developed countries, is responsible for the exploitation of students. However, China’s case is different, as the government offers its university programs for free to those students who hail from countries along the BRI. This signifies China’s continued commitment against the commercialization of its HE system. Thus, China is cultivating humanity through the BRI and also working towards the betterment of both its own domestic welfare and that of other countries as well. This fact has been shown by its unique model of HE internationalization, which aims, through the concept of ‘interconnectivity,’ to overcome the aforementioned challenges of past models.

268  Michael A. Peters et al Internationalization of Chinese and Russian higher education institutions in the context of the Belt and Road Initiative – Ianina The University Alliance of the Silk Road (UASR) is one of the many examples of successful cooperation between countries. For example, Russia and China, which are both developing countries, have a long history of intercultural communication. Official encounters between the two nations date back to the 17th century, when representatives of the two countries made several attempts to meet each other, sometimes with unsatisfactory results (Chernikova, 2015). Those meetings were mainly initiated by the Russian side. This was due to the foreign policy of certain Chinese emperors, which asserted that China – as the 中 国 (‘Middle Kingdom’) – was not interested in establishing diplomatic relationships with other countries so much as it was concerned with internal struggles with national unity (Hui, 2012). BRI is based on the concept of the old Silk Road and Maritime trade route. It connects China and other states, with China’s central position reflecting its role as the main policymaker. Nowadays, the central aim of the BRI is to connect countries along the Road through economy, finance, infrastructure, culture, and communication. In regard to the more recent historical developments between Russia and China, the two countries shared similar political systems and learned from each other in terms of education, technology, and transfers of qualified personnel and technology. However, after Nikita Khrushchev stopped relations with socialist China in 1969, China began to develop its own education system without the intervention of the USSR. Relations between the two countries were revived in the 1980s, culminating with Soviet leader M. Gorbachev’s historic state visit to China in 1989. Since the dissolution of the Soviet Union, the Russian education system has faced the challenges of both globalization (adjusting to the global education system) and the call for its re-alignment towards a so-called ‘European’ education system. With globalization, Russian universities are facing competition from many foreign universities. The Russian government is trying to promote a rise in the international rankings of its domestic universities, one of the projects in this area concerns Federal universities (national designated big universities in all parts of Russia) and the 5-100 project, which is aimed at better positioning Russian universities within the global higher education market (Poldin, ­Matveeva, Sterligov, & Yudkevich, 2017). For China, a crucial moment in the history of education reform came in 1978, when Deng Xiaoping implemented the new policy of ‘socialism with Chinese characteristics.’ One of the key characteristics of this modernization policy concerned the internationalization of Chinese universities. For that purpose, China later established projects ‘985’ and ‘211’ for the development of key national universities, turning them into ‘world-class universities’ (WCUs). Nowadays, the promotion of China’s national image amongst potential academic recruits is an important part of internationalizing higher education.

Education in and for the Belt and Road Initiative  269 Educational exchange falls under the rubric of soft power. China has been consciously promoting international exchange and educational collaboration as a means of employing soft power to expand its global influence. One of the key components for the promotion of an internationalized WCU is attracting international students and scholars. Both Russia and China claim this as a stated goal and are therefore implementing various initiatives to recruit both foreign faculty and students. Recently, the number of Russian and Chinese students exchanged between the two countries has been growing steadily. In fact, Russian students hold sixth place among international students in China, while 2018 witnessed the number of students from BRI countries reach 65% of China’s total international student population (Ministry of Education, 2018). While the number of Chinese students in Russia is the third-largest, following students from Kazakhstan and Ukraine (Tishchenko, 2017). Russian and Chinese universities are currently facing new challenges. With a long history of cooperation in the field of education, in order to promote the development of their universities and scholars, Russia and China should seek to further deepen the current level of cooperation. The BRI can become a vehicle that will provide a necessary framework for improving relations between Russia and China in the field of education and science, as well as providing Russian and Chinese universities with a tool to improve the prestige of their Higher Education Institutions (HEs) within the international knowledge economy. Opportunities and challenges in the implementation of the Belt and Road Initiative in the education sector in developing countries in Africa – Jasmin China has hitherto passed through many phases of development, which, of course, has been fraught with many challenges and missteps along the way. However, China is currently looking towards the future, echoing the ancient Chinese saying Never ask where I am from, as it boldly ushers forth new initiatives designed to better promote global development. China’s BRI represents a modern development plan aimed at enhancing cooperation and peace, inclusiveness and openness, while also promoting mutual benefits and mutual learning across the globe (Shang, 2019). China has a rich and multifaceted historical connection with the many diverse countries found within Africa, and this historical connection is being further built by the BRI (Ehizuelen, 2017). This history stretches back to China’s imperial period, specifically from 960-1279, during the many trading activities between Asia, Europe and Africa (Peters, 2019b). The modern era of China-Africa relations began in 1949, after the establishment of the Peoples’ Republic of China (PRC). Historically, China-Africa relations can be categorized within the following three phases: (1) from the 1950s until the end of the 1970s, during which time both continental Africa and China were struggling against Western imperialism; (2) the end of the 1970s until the 1990s, during China’s

270  Michael A. Peters et al historic ‘reform and opening up’ period of global economic cooperation; and (3) from 2000 until the present, in reference to the foundation of the Forum on China-Africa Cooperation (FOCAC), established with the express purpose of building up bilateral and multilateral relations among African countries (Qu, 2018). In this regard, FOCAC acts primarily in a supporting role, helping to foster the implementation of the BRI in African countries. Moreover, in line with its main aims and objectives of stimulating development, not only within Africa’s developing countries but in developing countries the world over, FOCAC also continues to promote a form of economic, social and ideological development that is in line with the BRI’s modern developmental agenda. Of significant note, China has stated that the BRI contains five main concepts, or target areas, on which it intends to focus so as to fully promote the aforementioned goals. These are policy coordination, facilities connectivity, free trade, financial integration and people-to-people ties. Chief amongst these aims is the notion of interconnectivity and exchange, or ‘people-to-people bonds’ – which takes practical form within both the BRI’s education exchange programs and the continuous development of professional talents and cultural exchanges between the countries along the BRI. While it is true that there are multiple China-sponsored institutes in Africa within the education sector, such as Confucius Institutes (CIs), that coordinate exchange programs between China and African countries, there are still some exchange opportunities yet to be explored. All of this notwithstanding, there remain challenges that require equal attention and must be overcome in order to not just fully realize and unlock the true potential of the BRI within Africa but also to understand its long-term ramifications. China-Africa cooperation and challenges related to the BRI – Moses It has been said that ‘there is no doubt that the Chinese narrative under President Xi has shifted the ontological possibilities with an accent on Chinese modernity, global diplomacy and world economic leadership defining the next period leading up to 2035 when, given current projections, China will be the largest economy in the world’ (Peters, Tesar, Jackson, & Besley, 2020b, p. 6). The BRI is a new global vision inspired by the ancient Silk Road. To put it simply, the Belt and Road Initiative, though on a much larger scale, is a replica of both the Silk Road Economic Belt and the 21st Century Maritime Silk Road proposed by Chinese President Xi Jinping during two separate speeches on two separate occasions. The first one was made at Nazarbayev University during his visit to Kazakhstan on September 7, 2013, while the second one was made almost a month later, on October 3rd of the same year (Fallon, 2015). The main content of the BRI consists of policy coordination, connectivity of infrastructure and facilities, unimpeded trade, financial integration, and closer people-to-people ties (a five-pronged approach), focusing on eight fields – infrastructure connectivity, economic and trade cooperation,

Education in and for the Belt and Road Initiative  271 industrial investment cooperation, energy resources cooperation, financial cooperation, cultural and people-to-people exchanges, ecological and environmental cooperation, and maritime cooperation, and aiming at the construction of six Economic Corridors and two key directions (Shang, 2019). The BRI is not only a crucial national strategy, but also represents an important measure for China to practice the concept of ‘win-win’ cooperation. Indeed, the initiative shakes off the dated logic, which holds that the rise of traditional major countries must occur through economic and cultural colonization. Instead, the BRI charts a new path of peaceful rise, which opposes hegemonism and power politics, while fundamentally rejecting the old Western maxim, which states that a country growing in strength is bound to seek hegemony. On the 20th of January, 2015, shortly before the initiative’s vision statement was published in March, former chief economist of the World Bank Justin Yifu Lin suggested that China should also include Africa in the Initiative, expanding it to ‘One Belt and One Road, One Continent’ and that the initiative’s ‘core task in Africa should be industrial relocation and infrastructure construction.’ This renewed focus on infrastructure, proposed by Justin Yifu Lin, is completely in line with an agreement signed between China and the African Union (AU), which aims to link all 54 African nations through transportation infrastructure projects, including modern highways, airports, and high-speed railways. Since the launch of the BRI, as well as Vision and Actions on Jointly Building Silk Road Economic Belt and 21st Century Maritime Silk Road, opinions remain divided over the Initiative. Moreover, misconceptions, as well as misunderstandings about the nature and function of the BRI, continue to abound. Despite the fact that the Initiative aims to further ‘win-win’ economic cooperation, without any geopolitical intention, there are voices from the international community which claim that the Initiative is part of an expansionist geopolitical strategy, which sees China targeting its neighbouring countries. For instance, Khanna (2019) records Washington’s attitude to BRI: either as a long-term exercise in debt trap neocolonial diplomacy or as a serious threat that will witness China’s quest for global hegemony marked by an ongoing trade war and a resurgent Cold War. However, as is evident within the modus operandi of the Initiative, its primary concern remains the welfare and economic development of the participating countries, rather than a so-called expansionist strategy. However, with the recent lacklustre performance of the global economy, the Initiative has been labelled by many in the Western media as a new version of the Marshall Plan. The Marshall Plan came into being as a result of the ideological confrontation between the US and the Soviet Union, which resulted in a decades-long Cold War that enveloped the globe. Moreover, this conflict was driven by geopolitics, which at the time was dominated by the US government and its proxies. Conversely, the BRI entails the deepening of globalization and a demand for increased win-win cooperation, rather than global exclusion and fractious ideological and geopolitical posturing.

272  Michael A. Peters et al The BRI is driven by the interconnectivity of infrastructure, facilitation of trade, as well as investment and financial cooperation, with the free market continuing to play the main role. Similarly, the Initiative has also been regarded as heralding the advent of an inevitable Thucydides Trap between the US and China. In realist terms, a Thucydides Trap refers to the proposition that an emerging country is bound to challenge the ruling power in particular and the existing international order in general (Shang, 2019). The ruling power is also sure to respond to the growing threat from an emerging power; hence, a war is inevitable. However, such a line of thought towards the BRI does not hold water because the essence of the initiative is to enhance global economic development by creating room for increased cooperation and mutual understanding. With respect to Sino-African cooperation, there is no doubt that the BRI could represent a new economic phase for the realization of a co-developing agenda between China and participating African nations, while also constituting a platform for the acquisition of mutual ‘win-win’ benefits amongst all BRI participant nations. Therefore, the benefits accruing from the BRI (e.g., the connectivity of the Silk Road from China to Africa) is predicated on the mutual agreement of both regions (Silin, Kapustina, Trevisan, & Drevalev, 2018). Moreover, sacrosanct to this is the envisaged co-development of new theories and models that are appropriate for addressing the future frictions that will inevitably arise between both parties (China and participating African nations) (Himaz, 2019). In the final analysis, it is important to realize that in spite of seemingly formidable risks and existing threats (to name a few: challenges of mal-infrastructuralism, mal-investment and corruption, cross border crises as well as diplomatic and administrative bottlenecks), the full implementation of the BRI project could record a huge success with both regions (China and Africa), while achieving a balance of interests and long-term mutual benefits. Notwithstanding, there are an abundance of benefits to be shared amongst countries involved in the initiative, and the inherent risks, if properly managed, will not hinder the progress of global infrastructure development envisioned by the BRI. BRI and new missions in teacher education – Tosane According to President Xi, the ancient Silk Road represents a historic bridge for the future development of the ‘three togethers’ – planning together, building together and sharing together for five connectivities policy, infrastructure, trade, finance, and people to people exchange for win-win cooperation (Ministry of Foreign Affairs, People’s Republic of China, 2019). As stated by Shang (2019, p. 22): ‘The Belt and Road Initiative is an important strategy that seeks to bring China’s growth opportunities to the rest of the world.’ The BRI was initiated as a means to promote a form of mutually beneficial ‘win-win’ global development in terms of trade, infrastructure, and finance. It is expected that the Initiative will create more cooperative

Education in and for the Belt and Road Initiative  273 projects, such as opportunities for educational exchange, while also encouraging financial institutions to provide increased resources to universities and colleges, which will then support educational study projects and international research collaborations. In this sense, China is both a beneficiary of and a contributor to (Shang, 2019) the BRI’s goal of people-to-people exchange. As a result of the BRI’s educational agenda, China has established a new seminar-based study project which aims to unveil the current issues and challenges which hamper the development of both global and domestic teacher education (TE) practices. This new seminar study-project highlights the challenges of the Chinese education system in terms of teacher professional development (TPD) and the characteristically vague notion of ‘high quality’ education that accompanies China’s educational reform policies. In addition, this project has also highlighted one of China’s hallmark practices towards developing successful educational systems – cooperative engagement, which allows scholars from participating countries to create collaborative solutions to shared TPD challenges, practices, and policies. The new study project – based primarily on seminars and field exploration (visit sites), is called the BRI Shanghai Autumn Study Project. The project was founded in 2017 by the Research Institute for International and comparative education (RIICE) and the Teacher Education Centre (TEC) under the auspices of UNESCO. The 3rd phase of this project focused on the ‘policy and practices of teacher professional development.’ This educational exchange involved senior leaders, educational administrators, teachers’ educators and researchers from over 36 BRI countries. The discussions revolved around a range of essential topics starting from basic (BTP) and initial teacher preparation (ITP), as well as the role principals, senior and grassroots educational leaders can play in filling important gaps in TE knowledge and practice. Since the start of the BRI, research has focused mainly on the commercial and financial side of BRI. In response to this, the RIICE Biennial report (2017/2018) highlights the many academic and faculty conferences, forums, activities, visits and projects supported by the BRI, UNESCO and BRI countries towards the promotion of cooperative educational development in particular to the field of TE. Due to the importance attached to TPD by RIICE and TEC, the commencement of a new study project aimed at dissolving the challenges in both China and participating BRI countries. This project has taken shape in the form of national and international collaborative research projects, which generally aim to develop the global educational system and to strengthen, particularly, the field of TE. In effect, the joint RIICE, UNESCO and TEC study project aims to establish a global teacher education community and promote international education development. This BRI training project, under the banner of addressing challenges to TPD – policy & practice, signals China’s goal of both promoting China’s brand of educational modernization to the world, while also serving to enhance China’s international image and soft power. China’s goal of people-to-people exchange is met through its continued efforts to train scholars,

274  Michael A. Peters et al educators and education administrators in a fashion that promotes common sharing and understanding, allowing these educational leaders to gain valuable learning experience while advancing the BRI’s overall aim of promoting the development of global education. Similarly, the Shanghai Autumn Study Project aims to share Shanghai’s successful development stories, discussing and solving the current challenges found within the field of TPD, and, in particular, TE, both within China and in the participant countries. Ultimately, the question is whether this project makes a positive impact on solving the challenges facing TPD within BRI countries. As well as, how will this project facilitate collaboration between researchers, enabling the development and establishment of effective and appropriate teaching and learning models that ameliorate the inherent challenges found within the globalizing practice of TPD? This study-project provides close insight into a specific educational project within the BRI, specifically highlighting how universities and education ministries collaborate to find joint solutions to challenges while sharing successful teaching and learning models. The study-project is also important to future research, which seeks to understand clearly how collaborative study projects function as frameworks for the building of international platforms for communicative discussion and research within the BRI. Higher education internationalization and the BRI Perspectives from BRI PhD students at a university in China – Stephanie The overarching theme of education runs through all five of the BRI’s core conceptual pillars. In particular, higher education, and its internationalization, is an important part of the social and cultural exchange aspect of the BRI. Within the BRI, cultural exchange aims to facilitate growth in the ‘knowledge economy,’ creating more people-to-people bonds and allowing for a deeper mutual understanding between the many diverse cultures and people that participate in this initiative (Jiang & Shi, 2019, p.76; Peters, 2019b). Thus, the only way to succeed in the creation of a ‘community of shared future of mankind [sic]’ is through education. Along with this grand notion of education, China also understands how important the more practical aspects of higher education are for the attainment of the BRI’s educational aims. Specifically, how education (in this case, the internationalization of higher education) may possibly represent the key factor in enhancing, through public opinion, China’s soft power amongst the many countries, that will be linked by the BRI (Jiang & Shi, 2019, p.76). To accomplish this, with the hope that its rhetoric will align more closely with reality, China has been actively seeking to increase the number of international students (with an emphasis on students from BRI countries) studying within China. Therefore, international students from BRI countries who are studying in China represent not just an essential part of the mission of the BRI, but also an essential part element necessary to understand the challenges and opportunities present within the BRI, i.e., these students

Education in and for the Belt and Road Initiative  275 represent the future of the BRI. An analysis of interviews conducted with seven students who hail from BRI countries, currently studying education within an English-taught PhD program at a prominent university in Beijing, will shed much light on not only the internationalization of Chinese education but also in answering the question: how do international students perceive the internationalization of education as a component factor of the BRI? The students themselves, often presenting with limited knowledge of either the BRI, the role of their country within the initiative, or both, have shown that there is still much work to be done. Specifically, there is much work to be done by both the Chinese government and its universities before the rhetoric of the BRI can match the stated aims of domestic educational internationalization. Moreover, more efforts are needed before the BRI can be an acknowledged factor for the students who are being specifically recruited as a result of said internationalization policies. While the internationalization of China’s universities faces a litany of standard issues such as cultural differences, language gaps and misunderstandings, greater issues have also arisen. As shown through these interviews, one of these issues directly relates to how the university saw its international students. This challenge is understood clearly as an identity clash between the self-perceived identity students held of themselves as ‘scholars’ and the identity of ‘student’ that was assigned to them by the Chinese university. This mismatch of identities was seen in seemingly juvenile accommodation rules required by the administration but deemed unnecessary by the students, how the professors’ teacher-centred approach (in line with Confucian principles) positioned these scholars as merely students to be taught. These, along with other such identity clashes, led to an apparent (self-perceived, yet shared) understanding by the participants that the Chinese university did not see them as PhD scholars but rather as PhD students. The second key finding suggests that even though these students have a greater understanding of China, these students still do not feel so connected to their host country. This is partially a result of communication (language and cultural) barriers, as well as the fact that they were all English-taught students who could not speak Mandarin fluently. A few students also mentioned that they felt as if they were ‘living in a bubble’ isolated from China, or that they felt more of a sense of community with other international students, and that while they enjoyed the international atmosphere and diversity within their classes, they had no genuine connections or bonds with any Chinese person, beyond the scope of the professors they interacted with. To be true, as it was beyond the scope of this study, it remains unclear whether or not, or to what extent, they actively tried to forge these. Thus, through this study, the internationalization of China’s universities has been highlighted as seemingly at odds with the mission of the BRI. However, this study still shows that people-to-people bonds were, in fact, created, and knowledge was in effect spread, but not necessarily between BRI students and the rest of Chinese society. More than anything, it seems as if China’s BRI represented more of a silent facilitator, providing the background for the rhetoric of the

276  Michael A. Peters et al BRI to be partially fulfilled. The voices of these international BRI students studying within China are little sought after, but their lived experiences are a testament to the internationalization of Chinese higher education and the related BRI policies that support this end. These voices have shown that while a ‘community with a shared future of mankind’ could be possible, it may primarily or initially manifest between the countries and peoples of the BRI, and not necessarily China and the Chinese people. The participants, having studied together as international students, were allowed to create meaningful and lasting bonds amongst themselves. However, it is clear that both the Chinese Dream and the BRI remain far from their isolated daily lives within China. As China faces many of the same challenges and issues relating to the internationalization of its system of higher education encountered by most countries, the BRI remains a guiding framework towards educational modernization for countries that would follow suit. These students have shown that challenges are still prevalent, yet their answers highlight that these students saw both themselves and China as having benefitted from each other. The students saw themselves as ambassadors between their country and China, as researchers in a unique position to compare both their home and China, as a place to gain more of an understanding of China, and – as one student mentioned – that by doing a PhD, he was himself part of the BRI and the Chinese Dream.

Challenges and opportunities Education as intercultural communication in BRI – Chunxiao To offer a panoramic view of the cultural diversity present along the BRI, in his article ‘Cornerstones of Chinese Education Going Global: Language Services, Cultural Identity and Policy Communication,’ Li Xiaoying analyses many of the relevant cultural circles. I offer up here a personally translated version: There are a variety of cultural circles along the BRI, including the Cultural Circles of Western Europe, Eastern Europe, Eastern Asia, Southern Asia, Southeast Asia, Islam, Africa, Latin America and Pacific. What makes the situation more complex is that there are a host of subculture circles inside every culture circle, with cultural crossing and fusing taking place within. In particular, Buddhist culture, Arab Islamic culture, Jewish culture, and Christian culture co-exist in cross-cultural circles. While various ethnic cultures, national cultures and religious cultures have become intricately entwined with each other. This is a kind of cultural ecological pattern or network state. On the one hand, this functions to form a phenomenon known as a cultural fault line, while, on the other hand, this represents a core tenant of intercultural communication. (X. Li, 2019a, 2019b).

Education in and for the Belt and Road Initiative  277 Cultural diversity poses tough challenges to the coordinating efforts of the BRI, such as facilities connectivity, unimpeded trade, financial integration and people-to-people bonds. The Li Xiaoying article mentioned above serves as an example of the significance of language services. It is specifically translated and quoted here to show one of the challenges brought on by cultural diversity in trade. It is also an example of Chinese enterprise in Kazakhstan, where the majority of Chinese workers in local petroleum companies cannot speak any Kazakh, let alone understand the country’s many taboos concerning religion, food, gender, discussion topics, gifting decorum, appropriate colour schemes and business etiquette. A large number of Chinese engineers and other experts, who possess limited capacity for the Russian or English language, also have no concept whatsoever of Kazakh. Even interpreters sent there to facilitate communication can only speak Russian rather than Kazakh. An awkward situation happened when a governor of a state in Kazakhstan spoke the local language with Chinese officials during the course of routine trade cooperation. The instance occurred when the interpreter from China could not understand what the governor said, prompting a breakdown in communication and a subsequent failure in cooperation. The governor later quit because they not only felt neglected, but also because they interpreted this disregard for Kazakhstan’s mother tongue as a sign of disrespect on the part of the Chinese enterprise. Within this context, intercultural comprehension, which can be promoted by education, serves a crucial function in the elimination of conflicts between individual BRI participants. Since their cultural networks are formed by countries along BRI, it is assumed that each country should make its own contribution to cope with the challenges faced when positioning education as a facilitator of intercultural communication. This is particularly true for elementary education, where international education of understanding (IEU) can accomplish much as well as within higher education (HE), where relevant language training courses can be included. Each country participating in the BRI should take responsibility by promoting the facilitatory role of education within their respective nations. It is a fact that in recent years IEU courses have already been implemented in Korea and Japan. Significantly, neither of the two countries participates in BRI. By contrast, despite China establishing its theoretical IEU system in countries along BRI, IEU has not been widely taken seriously and has not been given the recognition it deserves. On the other hand, in regard to increased intercultural understanding, it has been suggested that courses of emotional geography should be adopted by more educational exchange institutes. Thus, the content, code and infrastructure of elementary and higher education, both within countries and educational exchanges across countries, can be explored more with the further development of theories relating to both intercultural communication and emotional geography.

278  Michael A. Peters et al China’s international conferences: an inclusive forum for the discursive heuristic analysis of Higher Education with Chinese Characteristics (HEWCC) – Benjamin As China develops from a ‘system vindicator’ to a ‘system shaper,’ it has begun to propose innovative ideas aimed at reforming/reshaping the global institutional landscape (Bo, 2018). However, within the international community, China’s ambitious agenda for global developmental reform continues to be as far-reaching as it is misunderstood. This situation has created a heightened need for inquiry into both the theoretical and practical implications such ‘reshaping’ might entail. More specifically, within the field of Higher Education (HE), an increased understanding of China’s current agenda for educational reform is required. The Chinese Dream (CD) is a grand narrative approach to the development of China for the next 30 years (Peters, 2019b). The CD represents China’s global aspirations and domestic agendas for reform. Chinese Characteristics (HEWCC) represents a model for the future development of Chinese higher education, which encompasses traditional Chinese moral and ideological guidelines for education reform ‘on the road’ to the China Dream (Li & Zhu, 2019). HEWCC aims to ensure that China’s students possess the global competencies necessary to become effective builders of a Community of Common Destiny (CCD). While HEWCC itself is considered by some to constitute a revolutionary new university model that may one day rival the Humboldtian paradigm par excellence, as a new model, much clarification is needed. For example, while many challenges presented by the notion of internationalization are broadly understood within the framework of HEWCC, a definition of internationalization with ‘Chinese characteristics’ is still required. Nevertheless, scholars like Ruth Hayhoe and Li Jun continue to posit that HEWCC represents a new model of Chinese University 3.0. Li (J. Li, 2019a, 2019b), in particular, states that as a result of its unique historical characteristics, HEWCC provides an open and inclusive university model which, in this global age, is more suitable to the promotion of cross-national understanding than traditional models. Of further note, while the CD represents ‘the core connotation of Chinese Characteristic socialist moral values in current [sic] Chinese Higher Education’ (Li & Zhu, 2019, p. 52), most research which describes the Chinese Dream as both a political and developmental global agenda for reform, fails to adequately bridge the divide between ideological policy reforms, theoretical assumptions, and practice-based implications. Moreover, while HEWCC may be a new model of Higher Education (HE), as a purposely vague central guideline for institutional reform, it is characteristically devoid of any concrete theoretical or practical guidelines for institutional practice. While China’s experimental policy process of ‘central control and local discretion’ (Husain, 2017) represents a form of strategic ambiguity which allows for improved localization of centralized educational reforms, it also

Education in and for the Belt and Road Initiative  279 entails the need for further critical abstraction through grassroots policy feedback. While China’s experimental policy process occasions the need for grassroots policy input, previous research within China’s HEIs suggests a passive form of institutional policy interpretation, reflecting a continued view that China’s educational policy networks remain hierarchical, opaque and exclusive. Contemporary research into HEWCC should strive to combat this oversimplified notion and instead build from the policy network perspective offered by Han and Ye (2017), which offers a more inclusive view of China’s uniquely experimental process of educational policy reform and implementation. Specifically, while it may be said that HE reforms in China originate from a centralized, hierarchical policy regime, its experimental, bottom-up heuristic model of policy interpretation cum implementation constitutes a uniquely democratic national discourse on local practice. One example of this inclusive policy translation/interpretation/implementation process may be found in China’s burgeoning international conferences. These sites of ‘glonacal’ heuristic reimagining offer a historical window into a process wherein Chinese scholars continually reinterpret and refine the national political discourse of the Chinese Dream into localized educational reforms which define HEWCC in practice. Moreover, the diverse theoretical and practice-based approaches to CD–based educational policy reforms presented by practitioners, officials, and scholars provide a vital avenue of research for those wishing to better understand HEWCC in practice. In this regard, China’s international conferences represent an expansive network of democratic inclusivity which constitutes an essential facet of the Chinese University 3.0., or HEWCC on the road to the CD. BRI and the future of education in China – Yaqian More than 2,000 years ago, industrious and courageous peoples of many varied ethnic groups within the Eurasian continent began to explore a number of trade and cultural exchanges routes connecting the major civilizations of Asia, Europe and Africa; the result of these endeavours would eventually become known by later generations as the ‘Silk Road’ (Li & Yao, 2016). This ancient Silk Road was a road of peace, cooperation, openness, inclusiveness, mutual learning and mutual benefit. The spirit of the ancient Silk Road has continued to serve as an inspiration to generations of Chinese people. In September 2013, President Xi Jinping called for modern Chinese to claim their inheritance in the form of a Silk Road spirit. To this end, President Xi put forward the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), which aims to promote participation in global openness and cooperation, improve the global economic governance system, promote common development and prosperity around the world, and promote the building of ‘a community with a shared future for mankind.’ Education is the foundation of national prosperity and a crucial element for the attainment of both individual and collective happiness. Educational exchange can serve as a bridge that secures improved people-to-people ties

280  Michael A. Peters et al across nations, whereas the cultivation of talent can buttress the policy coordination efforts of these countries towards improved connectivity of infrastructure, unimpeded trade, and financial integration along the BRI (Belt and Road Portal, 2017). Co-construction of education as a core agenda within the Belt and Road represents a great aim towards a benefit for the people of the countries along the belt and road. Deeply analysing the educational models and changes of relevant countries, actively building mechanisms for educational cooperation, deepening educational exchanges, and promoting cultural exchanges is of undoubtedly profound significance and unique practical value. However, it is clear that throughout the construction of the Belt and Road, countries along the Belt and Road have mainly focused on such fields as infrastructure construction, international cooperation on production capacity, financial innovation and ecological and environmental protection, while cooperation in the field of education is often put on the back burner. This may be because it is initially difficult to bear witness to the tangible returns of educational cooperation, the implementation of which is therefore delayed while people pursue more immediate benefits. But we must make it clear that education can serve economic construction through its ability to facilitate cooperative planning and development. In recent years, China has been promoting the opening up and reform of both its domestic education institutions as well as the global system of education. For example, it has put forward some opinions on opening up education to the outside world in the new era, 2013, and the Education Action Plan for the Belt and Road Initiative July 2016. Under the guidance of the two policies, the educational cooperation between countries along the BRI and China have made some exciting breakthroughs, from increased cultural communication and understanding, improved talent training and delivery, as well as fuller intellectual and material support for academic exchange and cooperation. But we also need to see that the complexity of the international political environment, to include the diverse economic, political and cultural traditions represented among the varied countries along the BRI, makes cooperation between countries more difficult and stressful. China is now standing at a new historical precipice. Accurately seizing opportunities, while calmly responding to challenges, remains an urgent problem for China to solve. In view of this, based on China’s tradition of internationalized education and the development strategy of the BRI, China’s continued desire to expand educational openness and realize in-depth cooperation among relevant countries can be approached from the following aspects. First, the development of education must keep pace with modern development. China should formulate an international development strategy to adapt to the new era and establish supporting measures around this strategy (Qin, 2019). Second, China should deeply understand and respect the cultures of other countries, continuing to emphasize ‘harmony without uniformity’ while promoting the free expression of diverse cultural identities. Third, China should oppose power politics, zero-sum thinking and

Education in and for the Belt and Road Initiative  281 protectionism, uphold the common development of education through the many B&R education agendas, follow its own path of globalization, and truly achieve extensive consultation, joint contribution and shared benefits. Indeed, to optimize international cooperation in higher education, we still need educational policymakers, researchers and practitioners to work together to ‘look beyond the narrow individual, organizational and regional perspectives to plan our own development from a global perspective and make contributions to the international community’ (Zhou, 2016). In this way, China and countries along the Belt and Road can work together to build an equal and mutually beneficial cooperation platform and contribute to the promotion and development of education within all countries, while furthering the construction of a community with a shared future for mankind.

Conclusion – Petar In 2016 Michael Peters founded the Editors’ Collective – a small group of journal editors and academics gathered with the goal to: develop an experimental and innovative approach to academic publishing; explore the philosophy, history, political and legal background to academic publishing; build a groundwork to educate scholars regarding important contemporary issues in academic publishing; and encourage more equitable collaborations across journals and editors. (Editors’ Collective, 2019) Since then, the Editors’ Collective has published many experimental articles on diverse themes from the philosophy of academic publishing (Peters, Rider, Hyvönen, & Besley, 2018) to collective writing (Jandrić et al., 2017), and the format of the collective article has spread into different research communities (see Cormier et al., 2019; Jandrić, 2017) together with associated intellectual challenges (Jandrić et al., 2018). Yet, by now, no one in these communities has yet tried to develop a collective article with graduate students, and Michael Peters has again taken the lead in opening research directions new and unexplored. As this article testifies, this new experiment posits many challenges. Yet overcoming these challenges is well worth the effort, as the format offers some new insights which seem to be invisible for more traditional forms of research. When I entered Michael’s class at Beijing Normal University as visiting professor in November 2019, I was immediately struck by the diversity of the students. This small 13-student classroom literally looked like an encyclopedia entry on ethnic and racial diversity; while everyone spoke excellent English, their utterances bore traces of multiple accents and sometimes radically different grammatical constructions. As I started

282  Michael A. Peters et al teaching, I was even more struck by the quality of debates, the depth of student questions, and their respect for each other and their teachers. When Michael asked me to join this writing experiment, I wondered: How will all these people come together and produce something publishable in an academic journal? As we started working together, I realized the full extent of my prediction. Sections of this article approach the BRI from radically different perspectives, are based on radically different worldviews, and are written using radically different styles. Putting these sections together on one (hopefully) coherent piece of writing is a delicate balancing act between retaining the diversity of authors’ voices and standardizing the language for publishing in an inevitably hegemonic environment of a Western academic journal. For better or for worse, I decided to leave our student-authors as much freedom as they could get. Some parts of writing have been edited to ensure that the text sends a message which is understandable to its readers, yet these edits have been firmly restricted to the development of a clear understanding. Some sections of this article do not flow neatly one after another; I made some interventions into the article’s flow, while allowing their authors to pursue their own research interests. Based on my academic experience, I would probably sequence sections in this article slightly differently; yet I left the structure made by one of the students (Ogunniran Moses Oladele) almost intact. Being their visiting professor and also an academic editor, the only aspects I firmly insisted upon are: (1) Edits to avoid repetition. (2) Technical prerequisites for publication, such as consistent referencing style and other journals’ house standards. So what can we learn from the students about the Belt and Road Initiative? The BRI is a complex construct that lies at the intersections of ideological, economic, and other social forces. Chinese people, from educators to politicians, see these forces very differently from their counterparts in BRI countries, and this sometimes causes confusion and even conflict. In shortterm projects, these problems are typically addressed through a combination of diplomacy, persuasion, and economic pressure. Yet the BRI – with its projected end in 2040 – can truly benefit from a more powerful but typically much more time-demanding vehicle for its further development: education. Student-authors in this paper explore the theoretical underpinnings of the BRI, looking at relationships between globalization, cooperation, and exchange. They explore the theory and practice of educational internationalizations in diverse countries and continents, including, but not limited to, Asia and Africa. This brings them to explorations of educational challenges and opportunities of the BRI. Throughout the paper, this amalgam of international students hovers between theory and practice, and offers practical solutions based on their own experiences. The authors of this paper are children of the BRI (which reflects their daily student experience) and also those who will move the BRI into the future. Based on the sophistication and depth of their insights, I am sure that this future is in good hands.

Education in and for the Belt and Road Initiative  283

Responses to the paper Response 1: Collective perspectives on higher education in and for the belt and road initiative for ‘Two Centenary Goals’ – Jian and Eryong The theme in regard to Higher Education in and for the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) offers a specific and innovative approach to integrating teaching and research of the BRI. It aims to explore the overall landscape within the BRI to investigate the existing initiatives to mapping the BRI as one indisputable policy in the national strategy of ‘Two Centenary Goals.’ In 1997, The Report to the 15th National Congress of the Communist Party of China (CPC) proposed the ‘two centenary goals.’ By the centenary of the founding of the CPC, the national economy will be more developed, and the institutions will be improved. By the centenary of the founding of the People’s Republic in the middle of the century, China will have basically realized modernization and built itself into a socialist country that is prosperous, strong, democratic and culturally advanced (J. Li, 2019a, 2019b). All the practice of higher education in/for the Belt and Road Initiative contributes to fulfil the ultimate orientation of ‘Two Centenary Goals.’ Along with those goals, this study involves offering a collective stakeholder’s philosophical perspective on the Chinese Dream as the ultimate task of ‘Two Centenary Goals’ by means of narrative theory to figure out the implications of education as the implicit power. Specifically, the part of Globalization, Cooperation and Exchange is divided into BRI Strategy as an alternative to the hegemony of the Western world, from Marshall Plan to the Belt and Road Initiative, the possible challenges and countermeasures, and Review and Prospect of the Belt and Road Education Community to explore the relevant policy, history, and the content related to higher education in/for the Belt and Road Initiative. It offers the connectiveness and imagery of the process that shaping the development of higher education in/for the Belt and Road Initiative, historically, contextually and systematically. More importantly, the part of internationalization in theory and practice includes the Internationalization of the Higher Education and the Belt and Road Initiative, internationalization of Chinese and Russian Higher Education Institutions, opportunities and challenges in the implementation of the Belt and Road Initiative in the education sector in developing countries in Africa, China-Africa cooperation and challenges related to the BRI, BRI and new missions in teacher education, and higher education internationalization and the BRI to uncover the role of internationalization in shaping higher education in/for the Belt and Road Initiative, geographically. Lastly, the part of challenges and opportunities concentrates on exploring education as intercultural communication, China’s international conferences, BRI and the future of education in China to investigate the local changes and indigenous practices in higher education in/for the Belt and Road Initiative. The conclusion is offered to describe personal feelings and reflections as one of ‘collective perspectives,’ to present how to integrate teaching and

284  Michael A. Peters et al research in one signal course. The BRI is a national strategic plan, which lies at the interplay of ideological, economic, and other social factors. In conclusion, the rich and in-depth research on Higher Education in/ for the Belt and Road Initiative also offers a verified response to President Xi: ‘Now, we are closer to the goal of the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation than at any time in history, and we are more confident and capable of achieving this goal than at any time in history.’ Response 2: on collective writing as transversal – Sean Writing is usually held to be ‘the act of producing a discrete textual object’ (Nicotra, 2009, p, 261), an object that gravitates between writer, message and reader (as personifications of ethos, authority; logos, argument; and pathos, affect) in the field that is its particular context, or ‘occasion’ (kairos). But it is the writer as an author who is usually taken to dominate the field, as both origin and owner of the text (Woodmansee, 1991), an assumption reinforced by virtuosic paeans to writing as a force like the essays of Barthes (1977) and Derrida (1976). What collective writing, or composition (Wyatt, Gale, Gannon, & Davies, 2011, after Deleuze, 1992), like this article does is open up writing as a diagrammatic play of forces by multiplying and redistributing these centres of power: the relations of writers, messages and readers that result constitute writing machines (diagrams, or scripts, such as ‘the author’ as writing ‘I’ and ‘the essay’ as a post facto artefact of thought) that produce various writing assemblages (texts, or inscriptions). To take the example of the reader of an academic journal article, we see that the figure of ‘the reader,’ insofar as we can reduce this script to a subject-like centre of power, can include the academics’ colleagues, friends and partner(s) (or fellow students, in the case of this article); journal editor(s), peer reviewers, production editor(s), copyeditor(s) and typesetters; readers of the journal alert, abstract or article; data scrapers like Google Scholar, or Altmetrics; writing and editorial software; and so on ad infinitum. And these readers – human and more-than-human – of the article also contribute to its writing, in ways that are sometimes acknowledged (for example, the colleagues; see Peters, Besley, & Arndt, 2019) but often not (for example, the software; see Bayne, 2006). Furthermore, once we admit more-thanhuman readers, whether ‘artificial’ or ‘natural,’ as co-writers, or composers, we cannot deny our more-than-human ‘participants’ and ‘data’ a similar role (see Morton, 2010). In short, writing seen this way becomes transversal, or ecological – and, as such, depersonalized, because it ‘open[s] [the writers] up to the multiplicities everywhere within them, to the intensities running through them’ (Deleuze, 1995, p. 6), and democratic, in that it suggests ‘new … practices of cooperation and solidarity’ (Guattari, 2015, p. 133). Collective writing, then – and, in an academic context, the pedagogy that occasions it (see Howard, 2001; Lunsford & Ede, 1991) – alerts us to the writing of others (of all kinds) and to the writing machines at work in any particular ecology. As a Writing Studies teacher, I used writing activities such

Education in and for the Belt and Road Initiative  285 as informal and formal peer review (including through online peer review software like PeerMark and Aropā), public critique by one teacher of another teacher’s mock essay, and various types of ‘exquisite corpse’ (collective writing assemblages) to enable students to hack the ‘academicwritingmachine’ (Honan, Bright, & Riddle, 2018, p. 5). What such activities did, over and above demonstrating to them through encountering others’ writing that writing is a learnt practice (that writers are made, not born, and that writing is rewriting; see Zinsser, 1976) and a way of thinking (that writers think through writing; see Richardson, 1994), was plug them into others’ writing and other writing machines to produce new compositions, such that, as Gilles Deleuze (1998, p. 1) puts it, ‘Writing [becomes] inseparable from becoming.’ Response 3: students as scholars: collective writing as pedagogy? – Liz Collective writing is one manifestation of what Peters calls ‘knowledge socialism,’ an approach to understanding knowledge, and its development, which highlights significant features of knowledge that are hidden and devalued within neoliberal, capitalist-oriented approaches to knowledge production and circulation (Gibbons et al., forthcoming; Peters, 2019c. In particular, knowledge socialism recognizes that knowledge is cultivated through dialogical and dialectical engagement within a community. This has significant implications related to the value of scholarly conversations, peer review (Jackson et al., 2018), equity in scholarship (i.e., Stewart et al., 2017) and more (Jandrić et al., 2017). I have been pleased to be a part of some of the innovative work Peters and others have developed through collective writing in the past, as such activity is intrinsically valuable to those participating in it, as well as useful for cultivating multifaceted, interdisciplinary, multiperspectival understanding. Knowledge, and especially useful knowledge, is social. So why do so few of us attempt to produce knowledge through sustained collaboration with others? Peters and his colleagues’ latest article marks a breakthrough in collective writing, shedding greater light on its pedagogical, educational value. While academics must contend with challenges related to private capitalistic knowledge production practices in postdigital, cybernetic spaces (Arndt et al., 2019), somehow teaching and learning in universities continues to go forward in the same way it has for centuries, more or less: students are asked not to produce knowledge themselves, but to retain and demonstrate an understanding of others’ knowledge. In upper-level classes and for postgraduate students, this education goes so far as to require that students analyse sources next to each other, juxtaposing and synthesizing information and understanding across articles, in analytical literature reviews. Despite Freire being the most widely read author in educational thought, the goal of education around the world is still to demonstrate knowledge to the teacher: knowledge which the teacher already has. While knowledge production and dissemination outside the classroom rapidly evolves and

286  Michael A. Peters et al radically transforms, professors rarely encourage their students to make genuine contributions to the development and production of knowledge, outside of thesis writing. It is no wonder as the knowledge economy transforms that education in this context appears old-fashioned and increasingly irrelevant in many parts of the world in light of late-stage capitalism, post-truth, and their values (Jackson, 2020; Peters et al., 2018, Peters, Besley, Jandrić, & Zhu, 2020a). In this context, this article demonstrates how students can be, and indeed ought to be, encouraged not only to sit before the feet of their master educators, but to produce knowledge and contribute to scholarship. Such collective writing takes students beyond the classroom, and the wastebasket economy of schools as ‘unreal’ spaces and gives them tools to engage and make an impact in the field and world around them. The article reveals the power of collective writing, to be dialogical, to expand on experiences and perspectives beyond a single individual or insular community, and to deliver more than a single person can hope to do, working alone in their office. Such a writing and educational experiment finally brings students and academics into the world today, encouraging empowering future engagements with the world of tomorrow. The article expresses education for life. Response 4: Re-thinking the pedagogy of a collective writing experiment – Marek The pedagogy and philosophy of academic publishing provide a very clear framework, which thinkers, if they wish to be successful in academia, are expected to use. These frameworks can be learnt in workshops and seminars, and focus on justifying and strengthening evidence-based pedagogy, the notion of ‘innovation’ in the scholarship, and expect that as a result, that high impact research will be produced and published. ‘Publish or perish’ is the performance of the academic policies that often push academics to publish in predatory journals and publish potentially unfinished arguments. Peters et al. (2016) have produced a new methodology and pedagogy of operating and working collectively on a topic, and many research papers have subsequently been constructed and produced using the outlined methodology and pedagogy. The collective writing experiment that Peters envisioned has both ‘theories’ and pedagogies’ that have not yet been fully discussed. The pedagogy of the collective writing experience deals with both the theory and practice of thinking, reading and writing. Traditionally, in thinking ‘what is pedagogy?’ the focus is on maintaining ‘effective pedagogy.’ Effective pedagogy is often considered as pedagogy that engages and allows all voices (e.g., participants or students) to be heard and represented. In collective writing, this takes various forms, but perhaps the most important is the democratic principles for all voices to be heard, to communicate, to listen and respond to each other. As such, it is the democratic element, the liberation from the oppression, the breaking of form, the connection of the diverse scholars who otherwise might never be working together. Perhaps, in some

Education in and for the Belt and Road Initiative  287 sense, one could position Aristotle and Marx as the intellectual forefathers of collective writing. The origins of the turn to the collective are an account of practical reason beginning, perhaps, with Aristotle (2000), who in the Nicomachean Ethics (Book VI) talks of phronesis as the ability to use the intellect practically, as a form of practical reason (and, in some ways, I propose that we can read practical as collective). It is also important when arguing for a pedagogy of collective practice to mention Marx with his materialist social ontology that has influenced many thinkers but also has directed us to the notion of ‘collective’ and ‘labour.’ Some of the elements of theories and pedagogies of collective writing are embedded in the notion of the ‘cultural turn’ in philosophy and theory and therefore emphasizes a focus on cultural (and linguistic) practices. This implies a central focus on ‘collective’ and collective knowledge, especially within the idea of collective practice. Theories that underpin collective writing do not necessarily shape what should be accepted as ‘true’ and ‘normal,’ but also implicitly constitute a set of politico-ethical choices. The uses of the notion of ‘theories’ of collective ‘writing’ often are portrayed as the bedrock of the pedagogy of the process, which may be generally regarded as self-evident. Collective writing is part of the revolutionary philosophical thought that challenges the publishing regarding an emphasis of form, on cultural construction and post-empiricist theory, which may even create a new constellation of pedagogical form.

References Aristotle. (2000). Nicomachean ethics (R. Crisp, Trans.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Arndt, S., Asher, G., Knox, J., Ford, D. R., Hayes, S., LVazVaroiu, G., … Peters, M. A. (2019). Between the blabbering noise of individuals or the silent dialogue of many: A collective response to ‘postdigital science and education.’ Postdigital Science and Education, 1(2), 446–474. doi:10.1007/s42438-019-00037-y Barthes, R. (1977). The death of the author. In S. Heath (Ed. & Trans.), Image, music, text (pp. 142–148). New York, NY: Hill & Wang. Bayne, S. (2006). Temptation, trash and trust: The authorship and authority of digital texts. E-Learning and Digital Media, 3(1), 16–26. doi:10.2304/elea.2006.3.1.16 Belt and Road Portal. (2017). Education action plan for the belt and road initiative. Retrieved December 14, 2019 from https://eng.yidaiyilu.gov.cn/zchj/ qwfb/30277.htm. Belt and Road Portal. (2019). List of countries that have signed cooperation documents with China for the Belt and Road Initiative. Retrieved December 14, 2019 from https://www.yidaiyilu.gov.cn/gbjg/gbgk/77073.htm. Bo, P. (2018). China, global governance, and hegemony: Neo-Gramscian perspective in the world order. Journal of China and International Relations, 6(1), 48–72. doi:10.5278/ojs.jcir.v6i1.2363 Chernikova, L. (2015). Rossiysko-kitayskiye Otnosheniya: Istoriya I Sovremennost’ [SinoRussianrelations:Historyandmodernity].IssuesofOrientalism,(68),24–47.Retrievedfrom https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/rossiysko-kitayskie-otnosheniya-istoriya-i-sovrenost.

288  Michael A. Peters et al Cormier, D., Jandrić, P., Childs, M., Hall, R., White, D., Phipps, L., … Fawns, T. (2019). Ten years of the postdigital in the 52 group: Reflections and developments 2009–2019. Postdigital Science and Education, 1(2), 475–506. doi:10.1007/ s42438-019-00049-8 Deleuze, G. (1992). Expressionism in philosophy: Spinoza (M. Joughin, Trans.).New York, NY: Zone Books. Deleuze, G. (1995). Negotiations: 1972–1990 (M. Joughin, Trans.). New York, NY: Columbia University Press. Deleuze, G. (1998). Essays critical and clinical (D. W. Smith & M. A. Greco, Trans.). London: Verso. Derrida, J. (1976). Of grammatology (G. C. Spivak, Trans.). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. Editors Collective. (2019). Home. http://editorscollective.org.nz/. Accessed 16 November 2019. Educational Initiatives for Joint Construction of the ‘Belt and Road’ (2016). Retrieved November 25, 2019, from http://www.moe.gov.cn/srcsite/A20/ s7068/201608/t20160811_274679.html. Ehizuelen, M. M. O. (2017). More African countries on the route: The positive and negative impacts of the Belt and Road Initiative. Transnational Corporations Review, 9(4), 341–359. doi:10.1080/19186444.2017.1401260 Fallon, T. (2015). The new silk road: Xi Jinping's grand strategy for Eurasia. American Foreign Policy Interests, 37(3), 140–147. Fatkulin, B. G. (2017). Comparative analysis of the information support of the foreign policy initiative ‘One Belt–One Road’ in the electronic press of Iranian-speaking countries (Tajikistan, Afghanistan, Iran.). Political Linguistics, 5(65), 10–15. Gibbons, A., Tesar, M., Arndt, S., Kupferman, D., Badenhorst, D., Jackson, L., … Peters, M. A. (forthcoming). The highway robber’s road to Knowledge Socialism: A collective work on collective work. In M. A. Peters, T. Besley, P. Jandrić, & X. Zhu (Eds.), (2020). Knowledge socialism: The rise of peer production: Collegiality, collaboration, and collective intelligence. Singapore: Springer. Guattari, F. (2015). Transdisciplinarity must become transversality. Theory, Culture & Society, 32(5–6), 131–137. doi:10.1177/0263276415597045 Han, S., & Ye, F. (2017). China’s education policy-making: A policy network perspective. Journal of Education Policy, 32(4), 389–413. doi:10.1080/02680939.2 017.1291998 Himaz, R. (2019). Challenges associated with the BRI: A review of recent economics literature. The Service Industries Journal, 1–15. doi:10.1080/02642069.2019.15 84193 Honan, E., Bright, D., & Riddle, S. (2018). Bringing monsters to life through encounters with writing. In E. Honan, D. Bright, & S. Riddle (Eds.), Writing with Deleuze in the academy (pp. 1–14). Springer: Singapore. Howard, R. M. (2001). Collaborative pedagogy. In G. Tate, A. Rupiper, & K. Schick (Eds.), A guide to composition pedagogies (pp. 54–70). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Hui, V. (2012). History and thought in China’s traditions. Journal of Chinese Political Science, 17(2), 125–141. doi:10.1007/s11366-012-9189-z Husain, L. (2017). Policy experimentation and innovation as a response to complexity in China’s management of health reforms. Globalization and Health, 13(1), 54. doi:10.1186/s12992-017-0277-x

Education in and for the Belt and Road Initiative  289 Jackson, L. (2020). But is it really research?’ mentoring students as theorists in the era of cybernetic capitalism. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 52 (1), 17–21. doi :10.1080/00131857.2019.1591150 Jackson, L., Peters, M. A., Benade, L., Devine, N., Arndt, S., Forster, D., … Ozolins, J. (2018). Is peer review in academic publishing still working? Open Review of Educational Research, 5(1), 95–112. doi:10.1080/23265507.2018.1479139 Jandrić, P. (2017). Learning in the age of digital reason. Rotterdam: Sense. Jandrić, P., Devine, N., Jackson, E., Peters, M., LVazVaroiu, G., Mihaila, R., … Brighouse, S. (2017). Collective writing: An inquiry into praxis. Knowledge Cultures, 5(1), 85–109. doi:10.22381/KC5120177. Jandrić, P., Knox, J., Besley, T., Ryberg, T., Suoranta, J., & Hayes, S. (2018). Postdigital science and education. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 50(10), 893–899. doi:10.1080/00131857.2018.1454000 Jiang, T., & Shi, L. (2019). The way of the international cooperation of higher education under the strategy of ‘the belt and road.’ Science Journal of Education, 7(3), 73–80. doi:10.11648/j.sjedu.20190703.12 Khanna, P. (2019). The future is Asian: Commerce, conflict and culture in the 21st century. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster. Kissinger, H. (2011). On China. London: Penguin. Li, J. (2019a). Chinese model of higher education. In Peters, M. A. (Eds.), Encyclopedia of educational philosophy and theory. Singapore: Springer. Li, J. (2019c). Education policy perspective on internationalization and globalization of higher education in China. In Global higher education shared communities: Efforts and Concerns from Key Universities in China (pp. 39–52). Singapore: Springer. Li, X. (2019b). Zhongguo jiaoyu zouchuqu de jishi: yuyanfuwu, wenhua rentong hezhengce goutong [Cornerstones of Chinese education going global: Language services, cultural identity and policy communication]. The Second XMU Forum on the Belt and Road Development Memoir: 358. Li, X. (2019d). Zhongguo jiaoyu zouchuqu de jishi: Yuyanfuwu, wenhua rentong hezhengce goutong [Cornerstones of Chinese education going global: Language services, cultural identity and policy communication]. The Second XMU Forum on the Belt and Road Development Memoir: 351. Li, W., & Yao, L. (2016). ‘Yidaiyilu’ fazhanzhong de minzu jiaoliu yu hexin jiazhi rentong [National communication and core value identification in the development of ‘the Belt and Road‘]. Qilu Xuekan, 1, 66–73. Li, J., & Zhu, X. (2019). Conceptualizing and contextualizing higher education with Chinese characteristics: Ontological and epistemological dimensions. Singapore: Springer. Liu, T., & Zhao, J. (2018, August 21). Tonga’s prime minister ties South Pacific island countries ‘to ask China to cancel debt.’ Global Times. Retrieved from https://news.china.com/shendu/13000808/20180821/33640649_all.html. Lunsford, A. A., & Ede, L. (1991). Collaborative authorship and the teaching of writing. Cardozo Arts & Entertainment Law Journal, 10(2), 681–702. Maier, C., & Hoffmann, S. (1984). The Marshall Plan: A retrospective. Boulder, CO: Westview Press Inc. Mexico ‘indefinitely’ shelving Chinese companies’ participation in high-speed rail projects (2015, January 31). Mexico ‘indefinitely’ shelving Chinese companies’ participation in high-speed rail projects. Retrieved from http://world.people. com.cn/n/2015/0131/c157278-26485111.html.

290  Michael A. Peters et al Ministry of Education. (2018). Facts and figures: Educational opening up to provide services for the Belt and Road. Retrieved December 14, 2019 from http://en.moe. gov.cn/Specials/Review/Facts_2147443481/201806/t20180626_341024. html. Ministry of Foreign Affairs, People’s Republic of China. (2019, April 26). Keynote speech at the opening ceremony of the second belt and road forum for international cooperation. Retrieved from https://www.fmprc.gov.cn/mfa_eng/ zxxx_662805/t1658424.shtml. Morton, T. (2010). Ecology as text, text as ecology. Oxford Literary Review, 32(1), 1–17. doi:10.3366/olr.2010.0002 Nicotra, J. (2009). ‘Folksonomy’ and the restructuring of writing space. College Composition and Communication, 61(1), 259–276. Peters, M.A., Rider, S., Hyvönen, M., Besley, T. (Eds.). (2018). Post-truth, fake news: Viral modernity & higher education. Berlin: Springer. Peters, M. A. (2019a). The Chinese Dream: Educating the future. London, UK: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9780429329135 Peters, M. A. (2019b). China’s belt and road initiative: Reshaping global Higher education. Educational Philosophy and Theory. doi:10.1080/00131857.2019.16 15174 Peters, M. A. (2019c). Knowledge socialism: The rise of peer production: Collegiality, collaboration, and collective intelligence. Educational Philosophy and Theory, doi:1 0.1080/00131857.2019.1654375 Peters, M. A., Besley, T., & Arndt, S. (2019). Experimenting with academic subjectivity: Collective writing, peer production and collective intelligence. Open Review of Educational Research, 6(1), 26–39. doi:10.1080/23265507.2018.1557072 Peters, M. A., Besley, T., & Jandrić, P., Zhu, X. (2020a). Knowledge socialism. The rise of peer production: Collegiality, collaboration, and collective intelligence. Singapore: Spring. Peters, M. A., Tesar, M., Jackson, L., & Besley, T. (Eds). (2020b). What comes after postmodernism in educational theory? London: Routledge. Peters, M. A., Jandrić, P., Irwin, R., Locke, K., Devine, N., Heraud, R., … Roberts, P. (2016). Toward a philosophy of academic publishing. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 48(14), 1401–1425. doi:10.1080/00131857.2016.1240987 Poldin, O., Matveeva, N., Sterligov, I., & Yudkevich, M. (2017). Publication activities of Russian universities: The effects of Project 5-100. Voprosy Obrazovaniya/ Educational Studies Moscow, 2, 10–35. doi:10.17323/1814-9545-2017-2-10-35 Qie, H.X., & Liu, B.C. (2018). ‘Yidaiyilu’ Jiaoyu Gongtongti Goujian yu Quyu Jiaoyu Zhilimoshi Chuangxin [The construction of ‘The Belt and Road’ Education Community and the innovation of Regional Education Governance Model]. Hunan Shifan Daxue Jiaoyukexue Xuebao, 17(6), 37–44. Qin, J. (2019). ‘Yidaiyilu’ beijingxia hangye gaoxiao jiaoyu guojihua fazhan lujing [The development path of internationalization of higher education in the industry under the background of ‘the Belt and Road‘]. Shanxi ligong daxue xuebao (shehui kexue ban), 37(4), 68–71. Qu, Z. (2018). On further promoting cooperation and development of education among countries along the Belt and Road. In Liu, W. (Ed.), China’s Belt and Road initiatives: Economic geography reformation. Singapore: Singapore Springer Richardson, L. (1994). Writing: A method of inquiry. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 516–529). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Education in and for the Belt and Road Initiative  291 Shambaugh, D. (2014). China goes global: The partial power. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Shang, H. (2019). The Belt and Road initiative: Key concepts. Singapore, SI: Springer Singapore. Silin, Y., Kapustina, L., Trevisan, I., & Drevalev, A. (2018). The silk road economic belt: Balance of interests. Economic and Political Studies, 6(3), 293–318. doi:10.1 080/20954816.2018.1499072 Sohu. (2018, May 19). Malaysia’s 92-year-old new prime minister takes office! Re-examine China’s investment projects, talk about the South China Sea issue again! Retrieved from http://www.sohu.com/a/232135133_817483. Stewart, G., Arndt, S., Besley, T., Devine, N., Forster, D. J., Gibbons, A., … Tesar, M. (2017). Antipodean theory for educational research. Open Review of Educational Research, 4(1), 61–74. doi:10.1080/23265507.2017.1337555 Tishchenko, M. (2017, August 3) Educational migration: Ministry of Education reports students from which foreign countries are in Russian universities. Russia Today. Retrieved from https://russian.rt.com/russia/ article/415140-inostrannye-studenty-v-rossii. Womack, B. (2017). International crises and China’s rise: Comparing the 2008 global financial crisis and the 2017 global political crisis. The Chinese Journal of International Politics, 10(4), 383–401. Woodmansee, M. (1991). On the author effect: Recovering collectivity. Cardozo Arts & Entertainment Law Journal, 10, 279–293. Wyatt, J., Gale, K., Gannon, S., & Davies, B. (2011). Deleuze & collaborative writing: An immanent plane of composition. New York, NY: Peter Lang. Zhibao, Z. (2013, March 13). Special report: World dialogue on the ‘Chinese dream.’ Retrieved November 13, 2019, from http://russian.people.com. cn/31521/8165029.html. Zhou, Z. (2016). Kuajing gaodeng jiaoyu: guoji siwei yu shijian xiangying [Crossborder higher education: International thinking and practical responses]. Guojia Jiaoyu Xingzheng Xueyuan Xuebao, 1, 7–10. Zhu, Y.C., & Liu, Z.M. (2019). Cong ‘Gongjian’ dao ‘Gongming‘: ‘Yidaiyilu’ Gaoxiao Zhanlue Lianmeng de Jiazhiquxiang [From co-construction to resonance: Value orientation of the ‘Belt and Road’ university alliance]. Jiaoyu Xuebao, 15(5), 70–79. Zinsser, W. (1976). On writing well. New York, NY: Harper Collins. Zolfaghari, A., Sabran, M.S., & Zolfaghari, A. (2009). Internationalization of higher education: Challenges, strategies, policies and programs. US-China Education Review, 6(5), 1–9.

15 Video ethics in educational research involving children Literature review and critical discussion Michael A. Peters, E. Jayne White, Tina Besley, Kirsten Locke, Bridgette Redder, Rene Novak, Andrew Gibbons, John O’Neill, Marek Tesar and Sean Sturm Introduction This article is an exercise in collective writing and research that addresses the vexed question of video ethics in educational research, with a particular emphasis on the inclusion of young children. It emerges from pedagogical and research contexts that are now utilising video to understand, include and advocate for (and with) children. While video is not a new phenomenon in education, its legitimised presence in scholarship has been slow to appear until the arrival of the Video Journal of Education and Pedagogy.1 As the first journal of its type in the world to publish a journal based on videos, and as a consequence of its Open Access status, there were clear ethical concerns from the outset in consideration of children in particular. We knew that researchers and teachers working in this space would be reluctant to contribute video articles based on their research without some guarantees of ethical protection for child subjects. This was especially so given that ‘informed consent’ is a tricky concept when children are involved. Yet, at the same time, we wanted readers to have ready access to visual representations of research alongside and sometimes even instead of text that tends to dominate the scholarship domain. Our resolution was pragmatic: we simply held that researchers should meet the ethical criteria concerning human subjects of their home institutions – taking into account ethical guidelines already in place for their work or country. However, we also set out to understand how such guidelines worked, what assurances they required and what underpinned their premise. To this end members of the Association for Visual Pedagogies2 and the journal set up a committee to investigate and report back on video ethics for children. This article is the result of our investigations which we hope will provide a starting place for discussions concerning how we might approach these vexing questions. These and related questions are becoming increasingly important as the world turns to visual culture – a world now saturated with social media for inspiration and answers. Our article begins with an introduction to the topic by laying bare some serious questions confronting educators and researchers alike in working with video, then explores visual culture as a contemporary and ubiquitous means of seeing into the world of and for learners. We then introduce the journal which

Video ethics in educational research  293 brought the ethical questions we explore into the spotlight in relation to publishing and visibility. Subsequent sections investigate the ethical issues we face – first in general terms and then in terms of children – ending with some additional ethical issues to navigate in light of recent technologies and attitudes. Our final remarks synthesise these views and set forth a series of provocations for future work. The article comprises the following sections:   1. Introduction   2. Visual studies in education   3. The Video Journal of Education and Pedagogy   4. Ethical dilemmas and reflexivity in qualitative research   5. Visual ethics: ethical issues in visual research   6. Using digital video as a research tool: ethical issues for researchers   7. Visual children: a silent(ced) ethical dilemma   8. Taking ethical photos of children for medical and research purposes  9. Ethical considerations when applying virtual reality technology in research with children 10. Final remarks 11. Reviewers’ reflections The article follows the methodology and philosophy of collective writing, the ethos of the Editors’ Collective3 and the basis of a dozen successful academic articles that explore collective writing, peer review, openness and academic subjectivity, including the twenty-one authors in ‘Toward a philosophy of academic publishing’ (Peters et al., 2016b)4 and ‘Experimenting with academic subjectivity: collective writing, peer production and collective intelligence’ (Peters, Besley, & Arndt, 2019).5 The methodology was quite straightforward: (a) a literature review was carried out on the topic with all results collected as pdf articles and an orienting introduction produced; (b) the material was structured into ten subheadings that reflects the major extant concepts; (c) the list of subtopics were circulated to the group who were asked to select a topic; (d) the group participants were initially requested to write approximately 500 words on their topic; (e) participants were asked to familiarise themselves with the literature on ‘collective writing’; (f) participants were asked to make their contributions within a couple of months; (g) contributions were added and formatted as they were submitted; (h) the draft was circulated to the whole group for editorial work and final editing including the addition of ‘final remarks’.

Visual studies in education (Michael A. Peters, Tina Besley and E. Jayne White) In 2013 a group of New Zealand education scholars from diverse disciplinary backgrounds, including some involved in writing this article, became interested in visual culture and the field of visual studies in education, including visualization methodologies. The group jointly held the view that education

294  Michael A. Peters et al and social sciences had yet to explore and develop visual research methods and the convergence of research with visual culture. We knew of many teachers who were curating videos of their own or utilised existing video clips in their teaching and assessment. We were also keenly aware of the huge growth in online teaching and learning platforms that utilised images, yet there were few reports of exploring the composition, creation and reproduction of the moving image for pedagogical purposes. Educational research using video has also been slow to develop. Video-based observation research started to become a promising method and with new low-cost technical improvements, ethnographic video recordings helped to revitalize the fields of social science, especially anthropology and education. In the field of education particularly, video research is predominantly characterised by small-scale ethnographic projects that collect descriptive data using participant observation as the principal research method via video recordings of children. These and related studies appreciate that visual narrative offers some distinctly different vantage points from the written narrative concerning movement and sound, as well as new forms of validity and reliability that disrupt one-off assertions of truth concerning what can and cannot be seen. Despite its many benefits as opposed to traditional forms of observation, video recording has been underutilized as a data collection tool because of confidentiality and privacy issues that are especially pronounced in early childhood studies where there are many predators. Video-as-data also provided greater flexibility in the recording, classification, description and coding of behaviour. It has also begun to tentatively challenge principles of evidence and, in the service of new methodological approaches, challenge the very notion of subjectivity itself (Murris & Soern, 2019). The wider field of visual culture in popular media is constructed daily by users at the interface with new technologies using the internet as a platform. Never has the visual been more prominent. Individuals, groups, researchers, teachers and students take photos, make videos and edit them and store them in the Cloud – often for all to see. The technologies have developed rapidly and now have become standard programs on smartphones – so much so that visual fields now order (and manipulate) new ways of thinking (White & Odegaard, 2019). The younger generation seem somehow most adept and familiar with image processing and appear to be well in advance of both teachers and researchers in these worlds. Some hold the view that today’s students are becoming increasingly more remote from books and the culture of print and correspondingly more at ease with moving images, with video and film. It seems that there is a sense of needing to play ‘catch-up’ if education is to meet learners in the visual spaces that orient their lives. With all this in mind the group began to entertain the idea of setting up a new learned society and journal dedicated to video research in education set within the framework of visual culture and visualization.6 Such a journal would create a much-needed space to not only share visual pedagogies and research, but also to explore this new normality for and with learners. Since the academic journal anchored in the late eighteenth and nineteenth centuries remained

Video ethics in educational research  295 firmly in the age of print publishing, we set out to bring it into alignment with the emerging digital global knowledge system, visual culture, pedagogy and research for proto-learners and their teachers today and for tomorrow. Hence the Video Journal of Education and Pedagogy was born, along with the Association for Visual Pedagogies in 2015 to support the journal.

The Video Journal of Education and Pedagogy (Michael A. Peters) The Video Journal of Education and Pedagogy initiates a new movement in academic publishing in the field of Education by establishing the first video journal in the field and a database of video articles that captures the latest developments in educational practice, including teacher education, classroom teacher and child observation. The journal provides a database of video articles that is dedicated to teaching and education fundamentals through simple and easy to understand demonstrations. The journal also uses the video medium and research on new visualization methodologies to provide structured interviews with leading scholars. This is the first video journal in the field of Education to utilise the medium of the video clip to scientifically examine, critique and problematise teaching moments in a multimedia format based on a 15 minute clip supported by text materials such as teaching notes, theory explanations, literature review and a full set of references. Rather than writing about the development of the journal here and the issue of video ethics with young children, we highlight and refer readers to sites where we have previously discussed these questions. i. The first webpage introduces the Video Journal of Education and Pedagogy from the site of the Association for Visual Pedagogies, the association that owns the journal. It provides some information on the editorial team and the sponsoring founding institutions.7 ii. The second webpage introduces readers to the Brill publisher’s site that includes live articles for Volumes 1 (2016), 2 (2017) and 3 (2018). It also provides all articles so far published in the journal.8 iii. The third site provides an early interview with the editors on setting up the journal based on a set of questions in 2016 (Peters et al., 2016b).9 iv. The fourth site is a record of a talk given by Michael Peters and Jayne White to introduce their thinking behind the development of the journal at the inaugural conference of the Association for Visual Pedagogies in Zagreb, June 2016. The video journal is introduced as a third generation form of scientific communication after the print-based journal and the digital online journal. The concept of the journal as the cornerstone of the scientific enterprise has evolved as new media technologies have become available. Industrial media known for its broadcast functionality of one to the many now is being replaced and remediated with video and mixed media increasingly with an accent on responsiveness and interactivity. In the second part of the presentation forms of visuality are explored and new visualization methodologies are discussed.10

296  Michael A. Peters et al v. The fifth site is an editorial by E. Jayne White entitled ‘Video Ethics and Young Children’ where she raises the question and puts forward an agenda concerning video ethics involving young children. This editorial was an earlier attempt to start this discussion based on Jayne’s own experiences as an early years researcher and the struggles that she, and others, encountered in their efforts to work with video in these spaces.11

Ethical dilemmas and reflexivity in qualitative research (Kirsten Locke) Video research in education highlights the ethical dimensions to reflexivity and the responsibilities the researcher has in ensuring their research actions are carefully positioned in relation to the visual ‘data’ being collected. As this collective writing piece demonstrates, the need for a practical ‘ethic of care’ that unleashes the participatory potential of this kind of research while maintaining ethical relationships within the research context (and beyond) brings in a heightened emphasis on the reflexive activity that is germane to academic research of all kinds. The importance and challenge posed by reflexivity in qualitative research in general signals interesting openings and ambiguities when placed within the context of video recording the research encounter specifically. Importantly, the notion of reflexivity when framed within the written text as the interpretation of the researcher’s own imbrication in the research encounter shifts to a much more fluid, temporal and potentially more exposed position that cannot be so easily buffered, shaped and potentially obfuscated through academic textual analysis. When looking at how the notion of reflexivity was developed in the context of ethnographic research, for instance, the idea that the researcher themselves needed to be aware of their own impact on how the research encounter unfolded was seen as a correlate to the growing awareness of the power differential between ‘researcher’ and ‘participant’. An important dimension to the power differential was also to look at the way the researcher, whether they intended to or not, became part of the object of analysis through virtue of providing the analytical ‘eye’ of interpreting data. According to Okely and Callaway (1992, p. ix), elements such as ‘race, nationality, gender, age and personal history of the fieldworker affect the process, interaction and emergent material’ that constitutes the social relations of the research encounter. Davies refers to this as ‘turning back on oneself, a process of self-reference’. She continues: In the context of social research, reflexivity at its most immediately obvious level refers to the ways in which the products of research are affected by the personnel and process of doing research. (Davies, 1999, p. 4) This pointedly brings us back to the immediacy of the videoed research encounter and the direct engagement the participants have to their wider

Video ethics in educational research  297 viewing audience as well as to the curatorial dimension to the researcher as ‘lens’ and ‘author’. While there is so much resistance to the use of the video recording, especially of children, in the education research community as has been outlined above, there are also some important areas of liberation and resistance that have direct bearing on the notion of reflexivity and which are interesting analytical lines to pursue. As Anderson and Munoz Proto point out, video has the potential to ‘show’ and not just ‘tell’ a phenomenon and this is extremely important when placed in the context of the process of doing research and ensuring the ‘personnel’ conducting the research are right for the job. The troubling of the ‘objective’ researcher as the revealer of a ‘truth’ by video places even more ethical responsibility on the researcher to ensure their analytical ‘lens’ is consonant with the intentions and actions of their participants. Anderson and Munoz Proto (2016) point out, video ‘can trouble the traditional power dynamics between participant and researcher. Literally ‘looking back’ at the world through technologies, participants are invited to use research as a vehicle to speak for themselves and their communities’ (Anderson & Munoz Proto, 2016, p. 381). The researcher, then, becomes less a fount of all-knowing authority and more of a conduit to give voice to, and space for, a more authentic and meaningful notion of reflexivity that extends beyond the authorial gaze to that of the agentic manoeuvres of participant-informed research. Not only does video-based research have relevance for the research encounter, then, it also has relevance for the ways researchers reflexively operate in the research setting.

Visual ethics: Ethical issues in visual research (Rene Novak) The Economic and Social Research Council [ESRC] National Centre for Research Methods wrote an influential Review Paper that has outlined some of the important issues that need considering by researchers undertaking visual research with media such as film, photos or video (Wiles et al., 2008). A decade ago, they recognised that the ethical issues that visual researchers face develop from the very specific individual research contexts their studies are positioned in and hence this creates significant problems for researchers as they attempt good ethical practice. Delivering guidance and support in this area is also difficult, due to the diverse nature of visual research. Nevertheless, this review identifies some common ethical considerations, that may emerge from a number of important issues, such as consent, confidentiality and anonymity, and supplies several useful examples on how to manage these in creative ways. Wiles et al. (2008) also stress the importance of researchers engaging with current theories and approaches to ethics, to be able to arm themselves with formidable understanding of how and why they will be using certain tools from their arsenal of ethical considerations. Furthermore, important ethical decisions should be made in consultation with the researcher’s moral outlook and the relevant professional guidelines in order to be able to articulate and argue a moral case for their ethical decisions. This is especially important considering the rapid rise of ethical

298  Michael A. Peters et al regulation in academic research (Dingwall, 2012) and is vital for ensuring the reputation as well as integrity of current and future visual research. The review (Wiles et al., 2008) suggests that foremost, researchers need to understand the universal ethical considerations before they engage with the specific requirements of the many types of visual approaches to research. Therefore they start their review by providing some of the important considerations applying to all research in social sciences, clarifying ‘the links, overlaps and differences between morals, ethics, ethical approaches, ethical frameworks, ethical regulation and legal regulation are an important starting point for this paper,’ (Wiles et al., 2008, p. 4). Understanding these relationships will enable the visual researcher to establish a balance between the researcher’s individual moral outlook and the correlating specific moral principles about right and wrong established by the society, by actively engaging with such ethical issues through drawing from a range of resources from literature and the research community. Specifics of visual research are addressed in the second part of their article where the authors engage with issues of consent, confidentiality and anonymity. Questions such as which people captured in research videos or photographs need to give consent, and what is needed to safeguard the participants and the researcher are outlined in the article. When considering anonymity and confidentiality some concrete examples are given on how to anonymise the visual data while minimising the adulteration of data. Visual data provides researchers with the ability to comprehend substantial amounts of data. It also enables the development of various hypotheses related to that data and the perceived properties that are otherwise hard to determine (Kerren, Ebert, & Meyer, 2007). However, the increased research scope of visual research requires researchers to increase their scope of understanding visual ethics and the discussed article above provides ample help with this endeavour.

Using digital video as a research tool: Ethical issues for researchers (Bridgette Redder) Digital video has rapidly become entrenched in modern everyday life. From digital cinema to television to YouTube to live streaming channels to mobile apps like Snapchat to the open use of video for surveillance purposes in public domains, its ubiquitous influence has shaped and is shaping how the world is seen, known and felt. The rise of technological advancements in digital video has swiftly increased its availability and use by researchers because of more affordable cost and often minimal expertise required to use digital video as a research too. Latest smartphone video technology in 2019 (e.g. iPhone 11 Pro Max, 5G versions of Samsung’s Note 10 and Galaxy S10 and Huawei Mate 30 Pro) and accompanying editing apps now make video recording even more accessible without necessarily requiring specific video equipment – a further move in accessibility and democratisation of

Video ethics in educational research  299 videoing.12 As such, new possibilities for educational research have been afforded through: the recording, editing and analysing of video data; the use of video apps; and the availability of a wide array of different types of video recording devices, some which have the potential to ‘mix’ reality creating new and altered environments and visualisations in real time. It is the omnipresent nature of digital video technology in the early 21st century that means it has become taken-for-granted, such that its usage and implications of this are seldom debated much except when some parents and educators worry about the amount of time children and young people spend on digital devices and want to address censorship and cyber-bullying. The technology now enables anyone with a smartphone, iPad, tablet, etc., to create, upload, share and download videos. Video data can enhance and add unique value to qualitative educational research. However, digital video as a research tool often gives rise to ethical issues with challenges, that although not insurmountable, do require serious consideration and at times cautious navigation. Such ethical issues primarily concern data collection, representation, presentation and ownership and may include: • authenticity – there is potential for the original meaning and context of raw video data to be altered in the editing process resulting in misleading representations from the video data, compromising the integrity of the video data that are being reported and presented (Schuck & Kearney, 2006); • ‘highly subjective judgements’ concerning the selection of video footage or images from the raw digital video for data collection, analysis and presentation purposes (Schuck & Kearney, 2006, p. 461); • the use of video methods that cannot guarantee confidentiality, anonymity and privacy (Schuck & Kearney, 2006); • ownership of data sources such as digital video-based documentation that is participant generated (Schuck & Kearney, 2006), or video research projects which are supported with public funds, e.g. controversy exists surrounding whether or not ‘resources produced with public funds should be available to the public that underwrites them’ (Derry, Hickey, & Koschmann, 2007, p. 63); • first rights to intellectual property (Intellectual Property Issues in Cultural Heritage Project (IPinCH), 2013); • storage and archiving of the video data (IPinCH, 2013); • sharing of video data sources e.g. sharing with users within a research community who have limited knowledge surrounding the conditions and context related to the original collection of the video data (Derry et al., 2007); • ensuring the voices of children are represented without causing harm (Schuck & Kearney, 2006); • the difficulty of removing content from the internet once it has been disseminated (IPinCH, 2013).

300  Michael A. Peters et al The literature suggests ethical complexities surrounding the use of digital video as a research tool are alleviated by having honest and transparent discussions with participants regarding ownership and presentation of video data as part of the informed consent process. When using websites and images as (Schuck & Kearney, 2006, p. 453) point out, researchers need to safeguard against ‘dangers of invasion of privacy [and] child abuse … ’. Recognising the potential of digital video, they ‘urge researchers to use careful judgement, so that a potentially valuable educational research tool [digital video] is not ignored as a result of over-reaction’. While advocates argue for the benefits of using digital video as a research tool, particularly with the rise of mobile technologies, in generating understandings of how researchers might capture ‘new’ educational data in real and virtual time the ethics of adopting video into research remain unclear. Perhaps the dilemma for the researcher is not so much ethical as it is a moral one.

Visual children: a silent(ced) ethical dilemma (E. Jayne White) Perhaps the most contested and challenging domain of our work in the field of visual pedagogies lies in the contemplation of children. As objects of the researchers gaze, subjects in the classroom, members of social media and other digital platforms, or co-producers of image and/or film, children are inevitably implicated in what we produce, how we produce it and the claims that are made about what is produced. Such productions – whether they are Facebook uploads, films in popular culture or ‘hard core’ research in academic journals such as VJEP – bring with them significant tensions. On the one hand they provide an important means of granting voice to the youngest members of society; while on the other hand, they have the potential to compromise children’s safety. Considered against a rights discourse, children are entitled to have their voices seen and heard as a democratic route to participation and citizenship. Yet particular ethical dilemmas arise when we consider principles of consent (and – especially with the very young – assent) concerning the extent to which we are able to invite their perspectives and uphold their wishes accordingly; principles of ‘do no harm’ which take into consideration the unplanned use of visual material for potentially compromising purposes; and principles of anonymity and/or confidentiality – which cannot be assured when visual representations are central to our pedagogical interrogations. The situation becomes even more tenuous when we consider the location of these visual images/videos of children within social media where they are inevitably unleashed into cyberworlds of ‘big data’ and practices such as web-scraping in which there is little or no agency afforded to the community, let alone the child. As Berman, Powell and Herranz (2018) point out, the enduring nature of information on the internet means that any digital footprint cannot be easily erased – a video or image of a child will potentially accompany them through their entire life (and even beyond) – and any accompanying analysis cannot be guaranteed as the only way these visual

Video ethics in educational research  301 portrayals will be ‘read’ or manipulated, for that matter. Yet they also point out that ‘potential replacement of engagement with algorithms could have significant implications for children and may be counter to article 12 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child (United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCROC), 1989) which states that children have right to have a say on matters that affect them’ (p. 22). In Open Access journals, such as VJEP, we grapple with these vexing conditions in our promotion of visual pedagogies as a deep source of insight, revelation, retrospection and advocacy concerning all learners not least the children who orient our futures as a society. These processes call upon reflexivity (see previous sections) on the part of the researcher. We are now also seeing that researchers working with very young children are called into relational encounter too – since their ability to understand and interpret what constitutes ‘assent’ on the part of the child requires attunement with both the subject and those around them who know them well (White, 2020). I raised this tension in a video editorial (VJEP) three years ago in which I called for a robust discussion on this tension for young children particularly (White, 2017). The silence in response to my provocation was resounding. This seemed surprising given the rising usage of formal and informal uses of image and video concerning children in all of our lives. As a society AVP persists in promulgating a visual agenda for children, as parents, grandparents, artists, activists, researchers, newsmakers or film-producers, as a source of advocacy, perhaps even hope. We do this for a host of reasons – for many it is out of a deep desire to grant children presence, perhaps even ‘participatory voice’, in the world, while for others it is done as a source of pride (perhaps also as entertainment). Children, themselves, are often protagonists in their own visual exposure within these realms – not least in the form of homemade videos, face-book selfies, Instagram or illustrative portrayals that now proliferate social media spaces, to name but a few. The barriers between what counts as ‘research’ and what counts as ‘entertainment’ are blurring with these encounters, and with it, our grasp on traditional parameters for ethical engagement. Since it seems the proverbial horse has already bolted despite our persistent fears, it is pleasing, therefore, to see that Childwatch and Unicef have recently banded together to try to bring greater awareness to these issues concerning research with children (UNICEF, 2018). Instead of issuing a series of universal ‘shoulds’ and ‘should nots’ they offer a set of guidelines which provide checklists for the application of ethical principles in social media and research. This is important work in advancing research involving children while endorsing important persistent as well as new and evolving ethical principles in consideration of new contextual realities. It is our great hope at Association for Visual Pedagogies that we can contribute to this space with the same kinds of support for visual representation, production and research concerning children and their right to be seen as well as heard in these spaces, and our quest to promote visual modes of production for pedagogy – without condemnation and with our ethical curation of both

302  Michael A. Peters et al ‘innocent’ and ‘not-so-innocent’ voices accordingly. Thirty years out from UNCROC’s (1989) claims concerning the rights of the child, it seems that there is no more important agenda for us all.

Taking ethical photos of children for medical and research purposes (Andrew Gibbons) The practice of medical photography, including the photography of children, dates back to the mid-19th century (Roberts, 2016). The 21st century of medical photography for clinical and research practices incorporates the usual host of new techno-media possibilities including social media (Kling, 2018), 3D imagery (Kee, Kimble, & Stockton, 2015), and virtual and augmented reality. Clinicians and medical researchers have good reason to recognise the benefits of instant sharing of patient images for rapid and collegial diagnosis, measurement, teaching, grant applications, for different forms of sharing visual analyses, and for raising public awareness (Devakumar et al., 2013; Kling, 2018; Roberts, 2016). ‘Photographs are used with best intentions to advocate for “greater good”’; however photographs taken for medical practice or research can also contravene the rights of the child (Devakumar et al., 2013, p. 33). Hence this tradition of medical photography for clinical and research purposes, and its contemporary multi-modal evolutions, ‘have recently come under scrutiny, in large part because of the effective activism and scholarship around people born of indeterminate sex’ (Roberts, 2016, p. 341). The term ‘telemedicine’ defines the sharing of images to treat patients (Snyman, 2012). Snyman (2012) argued that, in the context of South Africa, ethical guidelines and standards had yet to catch up with this practice. While still arguably catching up with practice, ethical standards and guidelines, once overlooked (Devakumar et al., 2013), provide evidence of what may have been happening/happened, with the use of images, and what should happen. Cultural historians provide a new lens on the ethical dimensions of the tradition of medical photography and in particular draw lessons for ethical guidelines based on interpretation of harrowing images of children locked into medical contraptions or holding strenuous physical poses (Osten, 2010; Roberts, 2016). Analysis of the use of images in the internet age reveal new concerns regarding consent, experience, necessity and consequences (Devakumar et al., 2013; Kling, 2018; Roberts, 2016; Snyman, 2012). Open access publishing, digitalisation of images, the use of the internet and social media all impact on the ethical use of photographs of children in medical contexts (Devakumar et al., 2013; Kling, 2018; Snyman, 2012). In a paradigm of image proliferation, writers have voiced contemporary concerns about issues ranging from the lack of any reasonable justification for the use of photography (Devakumar et al., 2013) to the secondary use of photography without approval of child, parent, or photographer (Snyman, 2012).

Video ethics in educational research  303 According to Kling (2018) two essential concerns regarding photographic practices are the failure to provide an explanation of the purpose of the photography, and the implications and limits of consent. Parents and children are increasingly likely to be asked whether a photograph can be taken by a practitioner or researcher. This understanding, for both parent and child, impacts on the capacity to consent or object. That capacity is also affected by attending power relations. Put simply, will a parent worry that saying no to photography will impact on the quality of care? In addition, the stress associated with the medical condition impact on both parent and child in terms of making an informed decision. While the experience of the child patient before and during the use of photography in their clinical experience may be clearly recognised, less understanding is evident with the storage and later use of images for research and/or data gathering purposes. Research of the parent perspectives on the use of medical photography with a child during a hospital stay indicated that parents recognised the value of photography, and the importance of consent. Parents also recognised issues with dissemination. They were more comfortable with the idea of a photograph being used in a localised professional context, than in publications, or shared more widely with the medical profession through professional networks (Hacard et al., 2013). In other words, the more public, the less comfortable they were. These concerns for the use of photography are based on a view of the intimacy of the photograph for the patient, and the dignity and privacy of the experience (Devakumar et al., 2013). On the topic of consent, research with medical doctors and researchers indicated a general agreement for the need for informed consent when taking photographs but there were a number of problems in doing this, such as different concepts of consent, language and literacy barriers and the ability to understand the information. There was no consensus as to the form that the consent should take. (Devakumar et al., 2013, p. 27) Key concerns are consistent with general research ethics guidelines around consent and coercion. While doctors and researchers preferred written consent, they also recognised the importance of context in determining the way consent was established (Devakumar et al., 2013). However, the development of standards for consent have also been recognised as important for the ethical use of photography (Hacard et al., 2013). Ethical standards additionally require a critical understanding of the non-neutrality of the practice of photographing children for medical purposes, and that ‘cultural understandings of bodies are articulated through visualizing practices intended to ensure objectivity’ (Roberts, 2016, p. 332). In other words, ethical concerns arise where a medical practitioner or researcher fails to recognise their own cultural positioning and that of their patients in their clinical or research practice, and in the practice of photography more generally. That concern then raises the question as to

304  Michael A. Peters et al whether medical practitioners and researchers are sufficiently versed in cultural protocols regarding the use of images, and the exploitation of those images. These debates also present particular cultural images of the child, as vulnerable and open to exploitation, but also at the same time as a citizen with rights over their images and the images of the conditions which they present.

Ethical considerations when applying virtual reality technology in research with children (Rene Novak) While applying traditional visual technologies such as photographs and videos to research with children give rise to several ethical considerations, employing virtual reality (VR) in this context incepts a whole range of additional ethical issues that beg investigating. As the technology has been disseminated to the general consumer only in the recent years and is still in rapid development (Darvasi, 2016), most of the ethical concerns regarding the technology are also fairly new and thus there has not yet been enough time available to subject the use of the technology with children to rigorous examination. Currently many opinions regarding the issue are being shared, however academic research articles examining ethical concerns for the use of VR specifically with children are scarce. Nevertheless, this contribution will endeavour to list and explain a number of important considerations that according to the consensus of various sources should be made when contemplating this endeavour. While the use of VR with children has yielded a number of positive outcomes when it was applied to help with autism, treat PTSD (Post-traumatic stress disorder) develop empathy, manage pain and becoming a transformative tool in education, it has a darker side to it as does most technology (Heidegger, 1996). Some argue that the most important consideration is the starting age at which a VR head mounted device can be used with children. Several sources agree that children below the age of 13 should not be using the devices at all (Kenwright, 2019; Southgate, Smith, & Scevak, 2017), as the limited data that is available warns about the effects of the technology on the young brain and eye development. To be able to understand the long-term effects of immersive technology exposure for children, longitudinal studies are required (Southgate et al., 2017). Short-term research has however shown that in comparison with adults who are able to regulate their feeling of presence in VR, children are a lot more susceptible to the sensorial impact of the stimuli generated by the technology, creating intense feelings of presence that cause children to mistake virtuality for reality and consequently make them susceptible to a much higher risk of manipulation (Madary & Metzinger, 2016). Further potential hazards of prolonged exposure to VR may include addiction, unnoticed psychological changes, mental illness and manipulation of agency (Darvasi, 2016).

Video ethics in educational research  305 The data about children, their privacy and consent are further ethical issues that arise with the use of VR, where data capturing can occur in unprecedented ways and can through monitoring biometrics include their physical movements, location, gaze and emotional states; opening up further opportunities for malicious application of mind control interfaces (Craig & Georgieva, 2018). As children using VR may be connected to interactive online social worlds, as online bullying and harassment migrate from social media, they can also become an issue. The connectivity to the internet might also enable hackers to alter viewed content. Regulating all content viewed by children is very important, due to the immense effect immersion has on young brains; some even suggesting it may have the potential to cause PTSD (Kenwright, 2019). On the other end of the spectrum, exposure to VR content may also cause desensitization through interaction with violent content causing a decrease of empathy in the real world. When using VR in research with children it is important to curate content, limit exposure and monitor responses and reactions (Darvasi, 2016). For further deliberation Southgate et al. (2017) offer a practical framework for asking ethical questions in VR, AR and MR research with children.

Final remarks (John O’Neill & Tina Besley) Through this collaborative writing exercise, we are in effect feeling our way towards what it might mean to exercise a practical ethic of care (toward researchers, research participants and, often, incidental others) concerning the very particular relationships that arise when moving image data, educational research and children are combined in the hope of revealing novel truths about contemporary pedagogy in formal, non-formal and informal settings. Fortunately, as we have shown, considered, thoughtful and empathetic ethical debates and their practical applications already occur in various areas that are closely related to the focus of this article. Arguably, we now know enough to be able to tread carefully yet confidently as researchers of the visual in our world, of visual cultures, of education, and as researchers who use visual methodologies in relation to both static and moving images. We can also articulate some of the key commonalities and differences between the use of moving image data in everyday life and scholarly research contexts, and ensure that research participants are positioned to give fully informed consent to what we ask of them. The history of static imagery records and visual imagery documentaries helps illuminate some of the intended and unintended consequences of treating adults and children as research ‘subjects’ or ‘objects’ as opposed to ‘participants’ or ‘co-researchers’. This, in turn, gives us pause for thought about the differences between analogue 19th and 20th century static and moving imagery that is purported to be an accurate and complete record of actual human behaviour; and 21st century digital and virtual reality recordings that may be ‘reality’ but are commonly portrayed as invented, imagined or manipulated human behaviour.

306  Michael A. Peters et al Moreover, in creating and publishing raw moving image data, we need to be aware of our relative inability to control how such data are used subsequently, and therefore the very limited undertakings that we can in all honesty give to children and adults about how their data will be protected in years to come ‘in the Cloud’. These latter considerations, in particular, require us as researchers to be reflexive about our impact both on the research encounter (i.e. as researchers and participants), and on those who view and read the results of our research (i.e. people with both good and bad intentions). Key considerations are: First, consider: why use video for the research? Is the individual or collective identity of those who appear in video data essential to the ‘truth’ of the phenomenon under investigation? (We suspect that in most instances it is individual and social behaviour that is of most research interest, not the identity of those involved.) Second, consent and anonymity: to what extent can we address and ensure this as we would in written research? For example, is it ok to use full images of people if they have given consent? Or, what are the minimum personally identifying features (e.g. eyes) that can be removed or disguised in order to provide the same level of anonymity to visual imagery research participants as any other qualitative data source. Third, given the ubiquity of smartphones, video apps and social media sites worldwide, how can a learned society such as the Association for Visual Pedagogies promote the development and distribution of pixellating freeware that enables scholars and practitioners, especially those in the Global South, to engage freely in pedagogical research using visual methodologies? Fourth, the researcher needs to consider cultural contexts including their own cultural positioning as well as the power relations involved. Some further innovations in educational research that equips research participants, be they children or adults, with cameras or videos takes the question of methodology several steps closer to embracing a ‘sympathetic’ or subjective viewpoint where the image, video or visuality is governed completely by the researched or ‘through their eyes’ so to speak, even though the research event might be structured by the researcher and by her questions. Indeed, this is in part the methodology of ‘Photovoice’ which uses static images rather than moving ones as a qualitative tool to document social reality through subject participation to promote empowerment, perspective and involvement. In 1992, Photovoice was developed by Caroline Wang, University of Michigan, and Mary Ann Burris, Program Officer for Women’s Health, Ford Foundation, Beijing, China to ‘empower the silenced rural women in Yunnan Province, China to influence the policies and programs affecting them’ (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photovoice). It built on feminist theory, and Freirean concepts in particular empowerment and critical consciousness, and used documentary photography (Kuratani & Lai, 2011; Wang & Burris, 1994, 1997). Primarily using a still camera image, Photovoice expresses the subject’s viewpoint highlighting various concerns of the research. The photo is taken

Video ethics in educational research  307 by the subject and then become the basis for careful discussion often in a group about the material which is also used to represent the voices of the subject(s). The resulting research is returned to the subject community for further discussion or indeed used in the process of a co-constructed or co-created final research as a basis for dialogue with various agencies or authorities. This research technique has been also used with children and is strongly influenced by the tradition of the public documentary and concepts of empowerment, participatory research, and practical ideology critique or political consciousness raising. Photovoice is research methodology that equips the subjects with research tools to record their subjectivity and their view has a myriad of uses in ‘participatory visual research’ that focuses on self-development, advocacy, life project, monitoring social situations and international representation. Often it is politically driven and aimed at social change and the motivation of subjects to take control of their own lives. It has been used in areas such as public and community health, social work, issues and activism, with minority and marginalised groups, and education-related fields (see Kuratani & Lai, 2011; https://participedia.net/method/5016). Photovoice uses static images, so the next move is to shift to the moving digital video, with the changes and ubiquity in digital video technologies, and to also shift the visual research methodology in broader directions. The ubiquity of the technology and ease of visual recording makes this an attractive option for researchers. Yet it can be problematic for children because such ease and simplicity of user-created content via the latest technologies can mean that children may reveal too much of themselves or at least reveal more than is necessary for the research or even reveal that which later becomes embarrassing, so at the sharing and discussion stage there is a need to build in controls for subjects where they can decide to wipe, clean or edit scenes that they have recorded. In some cases this new kind of visual research gives way to forms of activism and citizen photo journalism. But in all cases the ethical issues do not disappear.

Review one: Collective intelligence on ethics, video and children (Marek Tesar) The innovative and highly productive methodology of collective writing developed by Michael A. Peters has, over the past five years, been well used and appropriated in relation to multiple subjects and topics. In this instance, the collaborative approach utilises collective intelligence to traverse the territories of video (and visual) relations with ethics and children, where diverse scholars, mostly well-versed in educational philosophy or the practice of working with children, debate the subject of ethics, video and children from multiple angles. The contested narratives around ethics and children have long pointed to the idea of non-singularity of engagement with this topic, where the idea of one human voice should not be able to make a decision about such complex and often potentially explosive topics in both scholarly and lay domains. Hence, a collective approach to ideas, with clearly outlined methodologies, is not only methodologically robust, but also an ethical way to approach such

308  Michael A. Peters et al sensitive issues, upon which, as discussed in the article, the Video Journal of Education and Pedagogy is based. The collective article presents a multiplicity of engagements, discussing issues from informed consent to virtual reality, employing multiple paradigms, and powerful thinking about video culture, and medical discourses and their impact on education, ethics, the visual and the child. Similarly, this current work by Peters et al. provides an excellent review of ethics, and video and visual studies in education. I am particularly interested in and intrigued by the idea of axiology, and how it relates to this topic. In my reading of the article, axiology responds to the call for ethics and aesthetics being merged and considered in a mutual relationality between subjects; or subjects and objects. Seeing the concerns through the axiological lens can not only spur a rethinking of the philosophy of ethics in the video and visual practice of children, but also create an alternative reading of the practical context of the use of videos involving children. Stemming from E. Jayne White’s section about silent/silenced debate, the visual without an audio, the moving image, can be selected and dissected; cut and pasted just like in Deleuze’s Cinema 1 – The Movement Image. We are concerned about the subject, about the selection, the cutting and pasting. The frame moves, then stops, a re-framing and re-starting of the visual, recalibrating, and then the video moves to the next sequence of a child. Intersections of child, and the image of the child. Such is the view of the axiology of the problem – the weaving of ethics and aesthetics, and further thought processes that stem from this article. This collective piece also draws attention to subjects that often remain hidden under the surface; or are taken for granted and not discussed in scholarly work. We could potentially see some of the recurring issues that have been debated for a long time, like Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics which is, as visible through the debates in this article, relevant to visual and video pedagogies (e.g. through the virtue ethics). The final concern that perhaps is indirectly raised in this article is, who is here to be protected, and who are the ethics for? To protect children and their families, researchers or the institutions and funders of such studies? The collective intelligence of the authors of this collective bring to the table different philosophical, historical and political perspectives to ask questions relating to the production and circulation of knowledge around the ethics of video and children, and create a comprehensive, robust and wide-ranging discussion. And while there is a wonderful and eclectic mix of episteme and subversions, the question that still needs to be asked is whether in the future the collective will explore also Eastern ethics systems as well as Indigenous ideas about ethics to even further enhance and explore the complexities of relations among ethics, video, visuality and children.

Review 2: Response-ability in video research with children (Sean Sturm) The problem of the ethics of using video in educational research involving children addressed in this article opens up two fields of inquiry: on the norms

Video ethics in educational research  309 of research ethics, in particular, what they preclude; and on the nature of the digital archive, in particular, how it can trouble our concept of research ethics. As to the first field: the norms of research ethics – the oft-stated tetrad of autonomy, justice, beneficence and non-maleficence – are usually couched in the language of compliance, not philosophy, in part, because ethics committees focus most often on the how, not the why, of research. With educational research involving video and children, this means that the committees tend to concern themselves with how its methods address issues of power (coercion, consent and the duty of care) and privacy (anonymity and confidentiality). And, in keeping with the normative assumption of research ethics that researchers and their subjects are rational agents, this means that they tend to assume that research participants are sovereign human beings – including children as minors (non-human animals are a different category) – who communicate primarily through speech. Several contributors to the article frame their legitimate concerns about the ethics of using video in educational research involving children in these humanist and logocentric terms. But what does this speciesist ethical imaginary preclude? As to the second field: the digital archive is usually understood in terms of how it differs from the textual archive, for example, as persistent and faithful (relative to printed matter); easily shareable and searchable (and thus risky); and both user-created (prosumerist) and automated (algorithmic). For ethics committees, this difference demands regulation to ensure the ‘data sovereignty’ of research participants (and researchers), lest they lose control of their words and so much more. Several contributors to the article frame the ethics of using video in educational research involving children in this way. But how does the digital archive trouble this textualist concept of research ethics? I – or the ‘we’ that is the digital (mediatised and haptic) assemblage creating this text with digits, eyes and keys; notions, notes and noises; tea, waxeyes and heavy early summer shrubs and skies – think otherwise. By way of an answer to the questions posed above, what seems lost in this article is (digital) video’s potential for co-creation, or ‘composition’ (Massumi, 2011, p. 12) that enjoins the more-than-human and the unspoken – and thus for problematising our speciesist ethical imaginary and textualist concept of research ethics. We look not to the ‘responsibilization’ (Rose, 1999) of research ethics – whereby the researcher takes on a burden of care for the risk to the research participant as a sovereign human being – but to its ‘responseability’ (Barad, 2012, p. 208): how it can open up new ‘techniques of existence’ (Massumi, 2011, p. 14). We see research ethics as ethical insofar as it allows us to evaluate ‘“what we do, [and] what we say, in relation to the ways of existing involved,” and in relation to the kinds of potentials and capacities that those ways of existing affirm’ (Hickey-Moody & Malins, 2008, p. 3, citing Deleuze, 1995, p. 100). Indeed, we would go further: research is ethical insofar as it allows ‘strengthens our response-abilities’ to other-than-human beings through other-than-textual means (after Haraway, 2016, p. 29) – which, of course, is risky, but not care-less. (For responseability at work, see Lorimer, 2013; De Freitas, 2015.)

310  Michael A. Peters et al

Notes 1 For the Video Journal of Education and Pedagogy, see: https://brill.com/view/ journals/vjep/vjep-overview.xml 2 See the Association for Visual Pedagogies website: https://visualpedagogies. com/ 3 http://editorscollective.org.nz/ 4 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00131857.2016.1240987 5 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/23265507.2018.1557072 6 The Video Journal of Education and Pedagogy (VJEP) was published by Springer from August 2016 until September 2018. Subsequently, AVP became the owners of the journal which is now being published by Brill Publishers, Leiden, Netherlands. Michael A. Peters was the founding Editor-in-Chief. In 2015, supported by eight founding Institutional Members and led by founding President, Tina Besley, the Association for Visual Pedagogies Inc (AVP) was incorporated as a new learned society to support the new Video Journal of Education and Pedagogy (VJEP) and to promote and advance the emerging field of visual pedagogies. 7 https://visualpedagogies.com/video-journal-of-education-and-pedagogy/ 8 https://brill.com/view/journals/vjep/vjep-overview.xml 9 https://brill.com/view/journals/vjep/1/1/article-p1_2.xml 10 https://brill.com/view/journals/vjep/1/1/article-p1_7.xml 11 https://brill.com/view/journals/vjep/2/1/article-p1_2.xml 12 See Humza Aamir (2019).

References Aamir, H. (2019). DxOMark rates the best smartphone cameras for 2019. Techspot. Retrieved from https://www.techspot.com/news/82986-dxomark-rates-bestsmartphone-cameras-2019.html Anderson, S. M., & Munoz Proto, C. (2016). Ethical requirements and responsibilities in video methodologies: Considering confidentiality and representation in social justice research. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 10(7), 377–389. doi:10.1111/spc3.12259 Barad, K. (2012). On touching: The inhuman that therefore I am. Differences, 23(3), 206–223. doi:10.1215/10407391- 1892943 Berman, G., Powell, J., & Herranz, M. G. (2018). Ethical considerations when using social media for evidence generation. Office of Research – Innocenti Discussion Paper (DP-2018-01), June 2018. Retrieved from https://www.uni-cef-irc.org/ publications/pdf/DP%202018%2001.pdf. Craig, E., & Georgieva, M. (2018. October 4). VR and AR: The ethical challenges ahead. Retrieved from https://er.educause.edu/blogs/2018/4/vr-and-ar-the-ethicalchallenges-ahead. Darvasi, P. (2016, August 17). Five ethical considerations for using virtual reality with children and adolescents. Retrieved from https://www.kqed.org/mindshift/46103/ five-ethical-considerations-for-using-virtual-reality-with-children-and-adolescents. Davies, C. A. (1999). Reflexive ethnography: A guide to researching selves and others. London: Routledge. De Freitas, E. (2015). Classroom video data and the time-image: An-archiving the student body. Deleuze Studies, 9(3), 318–336. doi:10.3366/dls.2015.0190 Deleuze, G. (1995). Negotiations, 1972–1990. New York: Columbia University Press. Derry, S. J., Hickey, D., Koschmann, T. (2007). Ethical concerns in video data collection. In S. J. Derry (Eds.), Guidelines for video research in education:

Video ethics in educational research  311 Recommendations from an expert panel (pp. 59–66). Chicago, IL: DRDC. https:// drdc.uchicago.edu/what/video-research-guidelines.pdf. Devakumar, D., Brotherton, H., Halbert, J., Clarke, A., Prost, A., & Hall, J. (2013). Taking ethical photos of children for medical and research purposes in low-resource settings: An exploratory qualitative study. BMC Medical Ethics, 14(1), 27– 35. doi:10.1186/1472-6939-14-27 Dingwall, R. (2012). How did we ever get into this mess? The rise of ethical regulation in the social sciences. In K. Love (Ed.), Studies in qualitative methodology (Vol. 12, pp. 3–26). Bingley: Emerald. Hacard, F., Maruani, A., Delaplace, M., Caille, A., Machet, L., Lorette, G., & Samimi, M. (2013). Patients’ acceptance of medical photography in a French adult and paediatric dermatology department: A questionnaire survey. British Journal of Dermatology, 169(2), 298–305. doi:10.1111/bjd.12345 Haraway, D. J. (2016). Staying with the trouble: Making kin in the Chthulucene. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Heidegger, M. (1996). The question concerning technology and other essays (W. Lovitt, Trans.). Manhattan, NY: Harper and Row. Hickey-Moody, A., & Malins, P. (2008). Introduction: Gilles Deleuze and four movements in social thought. In A. Hickey-Moody, & P. Malins (Eds.), Deleuzian encounters: Studies in contemporary social issues (pp. 1–24). London, UK: Palgrave McMillan. Intellectual Property Issues in Cultural Heritage Project (IPinCH). (2013). Using video in research and documentation: Ethical & IP issues to consider. Retrieved from https://www.sfu.ca/ipinch/sites/default/files/resources/fact_sheets/ipinch_ videofactsheet_final.pdf. Kee, E. G., Kimble, R. M., & Stockton, K. A. (2015). 3D photography is a reliable burn wound area assessment tool compared to digital planimetry in very young children. Burns, 41(6), 1286–1290. doi:10.1016/j.burns.2015.01.020 Kenwright, B. (2019, January 14). Virtual reality: Ethical challenges and dangers. Retrieved from https://technolo-gyandsociety.org/virtual-reality-ethicalchallenges-and-dangers/. Kerren, A., Ebert, A., & Meyer, J. (2007). Human-centered visualization environments: GI-Dagstuhl Research Seminar, Dagstuhl Castle, Germany, March 5–8, 2006, Revised lectures. Vol. 4417. New York: Springer. Kling, S. (2018). Is publishing children’s medical information and photographs ethical? Current Allergy & Clinical Immunology, 31(1), 41–44. Kuratani, D.L., & Lai, E. (2011). TEAM lab - Photovoice literature review. Retrieved from https://cpb-us-e1.wpmucdn.com/sites.usc.edu/dist/0/198/ files/2018/08/Photovoice-Literature-Review-FINAL-22ltfmn.pdf. Lorimer, J. (2013). More-than-human visual analysis: Witnessing and evoking affect in human-nonhuman interactions. In J. Ringrose & B. Coleman (Eds.), Deleuze and research methodologies (pp. 61–78). Edinburgh, UK: Edinburgh University Press. Madary, M., & Metzinger, T. K. (2016). Recommendations for good scientific practice and the consumers of VR-technology. Frontiers in Robotics and AI, 3, 3. doi:10.3389/frobt.2016.00003 Massumi, B. (2011). Semblance and event: Activist philosophy and the occurrent arts. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Murris, K., & Menning, S., (2019). Introduction to the Special Issue. Video Journal of Education and Pedagogy, 3, 1. Retrieved from https://brill.com/view/journals/ vjep/4/1/article-p1_1.xml

312  Michael A. Peters et al Murris, K., and Soern, F. (2019) (Eds.) Videography and decolonizing childhood. The Video Journal of Education and Pedagogy, 4(1), https://brill.com/view/journals/vjep/4/1/vjep.4.issue-1.xml?language=en Okely, J., & Callaway, H. (Eds.). (1992). Anthropology and autobiography. London: Routledge. Osten, P. (2010). Photographing disabled children in imperial and Weimar Germany. Cultural and Social History, 7(4), 511–531. doi:10.2752/1478004 10X12797967061082 Peters, M. A., Besley, T., & Arndt, S. (2019). Experimenting with academic subjectivity: Collective writing, peer production and collective intelligence. Open Review of Educational Research, 6(1), 26–40. doi:10.1080/23265507.2018.1557072 Peters, M. A., Besley, T., Jandrić, P., & Bajić, M. (2016a). Editorial interview. Video Journal of Education and Pedagogy, 1, 1. Retrieved from https://brill.com/view/ journals/vjep/1/1/article-p1_2.xml. Peters, M. A., Jandric, P., Irwin, R., Locke, K., Devine, N., Heraud, R., … Benade, L. (2016b). Toward a philosophy of academic publishing. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 48(14), 1401–1425. doi:10.1080/00131857.2016.1240987 Roberts, C. (2016). Tanner’s Puberty Scale: Exploring the historical entanglements of children, scientific photography and sex. Sexualities, 19(3), 328–346. doi:10.1177/1363460715593477 Rose, N. (1999). Powers of freedom: Reframing political thought. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. Schuck, S., & Kearney, M. (2006). Using digital video as a research tool: Ethical issues for researchers. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 15(4), 447–463. Snyman, P. (2012). Who allowed the speaker to use my patient’s photo? South African Journal of Child Health, 6(4), 102–105. doi:10.7196/sajch.457 Southgate, E., Smith, S. P., & Scevak, J. (2017). Asking ethical questions in research using immersive virtual and augmented reality technologies with children and youth. Paper presented at 2017 IEEE Virtual Reality (VR), Los Angeles, CA, 18–22 March. doi:10.1109/VR.2017.789222. UNICEF. (2018). Ethical research involving children. Retrieved from https:// childethics.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/ERIC-compendium-approveddigital-web.pdf. United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCROC). (1989). Convention on the rights of the child. Retrieved from https://www.ohchr.org/ Documents/ProfessionalInterest/crc.pdf. Wang, C., & Burris, M. A. (1994). Empowerment through Photo Novella: Portraits of participation. Health Education Quarterly, 21(2), 171–186. doi:10.1177/109019819402100204 Wang, C., & Burris, M. A. (1997). Photovoice: Concept, methodology, and use for participatory needs assessment. Health Education & Behavior, 24(3), 369–387. hdl:2027.42/67790. doi:10.1177/109019819702400309 White, E. J. (2017). Video ethics and young children: An editorial. Video Journal of Education and Pedagogy, 2, 2. Retrieved from https://brill.com/view/journals/ vjep/2/1/article-p1_2.xml. White, E. J. (2020). Seeing’ the very young child in and through visual methodologies. In E.J. White (Ed.), ‘Seeing’ the world through children’s eyes: A handbook of Visual methodologies and approaches to early learning. Leiden: Brill.

Video ethics in educational research  313 White, E. J., & Odegaard, E. (2019). Ocular becomings in dangerous times [Editorial]. Video Journal of Education and Pedagogy, 3(2), 1–10. Retrieved from https://brill.com/view/journals/vjep/vjep-overview.xml. Wiles, R., Prosser, J., Bagnoli, A., Clark, A., Davies, K., Holland, S., & Renold, E. (2008). ESRC National Centre for Research Methods review paper: Visual ethics: Ethical issues in visual research. Retrieved from http://eprints.ncrm. ac.uk/421/1/MethodsReviewPaperNCRM-011.pdf.

Endnote Exploring the philosophy of collective writing Michael A. Peters, Marek Tesar, Liz Jackson, Tina Besley, Petar Jandrić, Sonja Arndt and Sean Sturm This collection represents the development of the philosophy, methodology and philosophy of collective writing as it informs members of the Editors Collective (EC) who also edit, write, review and contribute to Educational Philosophy and Theory (EPAT) and also now to PESA Agora (Editor: Tina Besley; https://pesaagora.com/) and Access (Editor: Nina Hood; https:// pesaagora.com/access-journal/), two ‘journals’ recently developed by PESA members of EC. In my thinking as the editor of EPAT for over twenty years, I have been concerned with the narrowness of the status of the academic article and the conventions that tightly structure it as a product of industrial culture. Not much has changed in the form of the academic article in the last twenty-five years. If anything, the conventions have hardened and solidified. I have been interested in experimenting with the journal and the academic article, which in the humanities and social sciences still tends to emulate the old model of the lonely scholar operating on their own – an individual author responsible for ‘research’ who publishes an article of six to seven thousand words with abstract, keywords, introduction, analysis or argument, often methodology, results and conclusion. Copyright is generally signed over to a publisher, and the article, once published after blind peer review, ends up in a journal that then becomes the basis for tenure or promotion in a ‘publish or perish’ culture. It’s a system that drains every last drop of creativity from academic writing forced to focus on the phenomenon of pure information or data. After the digitisation of publishing that occurred in the 1990s academic journals began to offer new possibilities for publishing formats, different distributive forms of collaboration, new multiple forms of collective authorship and also new forms of open review. This collection, under the EPAT series Editor’s Choice, draws on a self-selected group of members of the Editors Collective (EC) (NZ), a network of editors, reviewers and authors who established an organisation to further the aims of innovation in academic publishing on the academic side rather than the production side. The innovation has helped to develop closer relationships between contributing authors, sometimes with well over twenty scholars involved. This process of ‘collective writing’ formally began with ‘Towards a Philosophy of Academic Publishing’ (2016), and, since that time, the EC has experimented with a variety of different forms from ‘thought surveys’ to structured thematic

Endnote  315 contributions varying in length. The philosophy of collective writing draws on the features of a new mode of academic publishing that emphasises the metaphysics of peer production and review along with aspects of openness, collaboration, co-creation and co-social innovation, and collegiality that becomes a praxis of self-reflection of the subjectivity of writing (sometimes called self-writing). We can distinguish different types of academic collective writing from a ‘serialised individualism’ that encourages diversity without knowledge of other contributions to more structured and thematic forms of collective witing that encourages multiple forms of collaborative authorship at all levels – that is, in terms of contributions, theme structure, overall step-by-step development (editing, review, amendment) including the author’s reflection, and the selection and mix of contributing authors (both within and outside the EC). We have only begun to experiment with these variations, much like an interpretation of a Bach fugue or toccata. The art of CW in the future may be like The Art of Fugue, the culmination of Bach’s experimentation with monothematic instrumental works exploring the contrapuntal possibilities in a single musical theme, or like the highly self-reflexive postmodern novel that talks about itself, the authorial experience and the political issues it is addressed to but attuned to collective intentionality even in the light of fundamental difference.

PESA Agora, collective publishing and public knowledge cultures Tina Besley and Michael A. Peters For some time now we have attempted to develop a theory of public knowledge cultures in order to chart a new understanding of the pervasiveness of information in Western society and its status as a code for new social knowledge ecologies (Peters & Besley, 2006). In particular we argue for a concept of the ‘cultural knowledge economy’ with its multiple interpretations. At that time we argued for a notion of ‘knowledge cultures’ rather than ‘knowledge economy’ as a way of acknowledging the false split between knowledge economy and knowledge society. Knowledge cultures are based on shared practices; they embody culturally preferred ways of doing things, often developed over many generations, and they point to the culture-bound nature of symbolic functions and also the way in which cultures have developed different repertoires of representational and non-representational forms of knowing. Simplified in the extreme, the argument is that knowledge creation, production and dissemination requires the cultural exchange of ideas, and such exchanges, in turn, depend upon certain cultural conditions, including trust, reciprocal rights and responsibilities between different knowledge partners, institutional routines, regimes and strategies. There is no one prescription or formula that fits all learners, institutions, societies or knowledge traditions. We also understood that knowledge cultures are often formed around journals where members form a collective publishing effort as editors, reviewers, authors and readers who can share a collaborative ethics

316  Michael A. Peters et al and basic commitments to advancing knowledge conveyed as journal articles in a discipline. We started with the idea that knowledge cultures based around a journal generates shared norms and commitments to a publishing ethos that we describe in terms of ‘public knowledge cultures’. This has been one of the bases for Educational Philosophy and Theory (EPAT) and for over twenty years, the editorial team has worked together successfully to democratise the journal and to develop a collective mentality. We understood that EPAT took a while to build a public knowledge culture, but it remained a subscription-based journal that made needed financial returns to the Philosophy of Education Society (PESA), funds that are based on the academic labour of the editorial team, reviewers and, of course, authors. In line with our broader commitment to public knowledge and with the Open Access movement, we wanted to develop a new Open Access journal that in a small way might be considered as the future of the academic journal. Michael and I had a conversation one sunny day in April 2019 as we strolled to our favourite coffee shop called Sculptured in Time (after a Tarkovsky film – see Marla Morris’s Column at https://pesaagora. com/columns/filmmaker-andrei-tarkovsky-and-painter-chris-sedgwick/), just off campus at Beijing Normal University, about setting up a new kind of journal that offered an Open Access arm to our publishing PESA efforts. We took the idea to a PESA Exec meeting in July 2019 which agreed to establish it; then held meetings with web developers, PreFlight and further refined it by the next PESA Exec meeting in February 2020 (our last in-person meeting in Melbourne before Covid-19 upended things). Just over a year from our initial conversation, PESA Agora (pesaagora.com) was launched in July 2020, described on the website as follows: PESA Agora provides a public space for comments on issues and concerns related to the philosophy of education, the wider fields of education, and culture in our contemporary world. PESA Agora is an Open Access meeting place for people interested in the intersections of education, philosophy, teaching, learning, technology, indigenous philosophies, identity issues, and the environment, in effect it is the future of the academic journal (https://pesaagora.com/about-pesa-agora/; emphasis in original). The concept for PESA Agora is derived from the ancient Agora of Athens, an open marketplace for the polis or citizens to trade goods and gathering place to speak in public about the artistic, spiritual and political life of the city-state. The Agora served as an early model for both the Academy and the dialogues, therefore we have set up PESA Agora as a public space for sharing ideas. The project has been a team effort of PESA members. PESA Agora features include: • Ideas: brief notes of 500–1000 words or less • Columns: short essays with a limit of 3000 words, written in a journalistic rather than formal academic style

Endnote  317 Educational Philosophy and Theory (EPAT) Editorials: a selection from our journal • Notices: news about people, books, events, CFPs and conferences • Podcasts and videos: these appear on the PESA Agora YouTube Channel • Our re-launched journal, titled ACCESS: Contemporary Issues in Education as of Volume 40, which is peer reviewed and Open Access. In addition we have made available the searchable, digital archives of all 39 previous issues of ACCESS: Critical Perspectives on Communication, Cultural and Policy Studies, which was established in 1982 and provides an international forum where current educational concerns and trends – theoretical, empirical and practical – can be expressed and critical discussion promoted. •

So with being online for almost five months at the time of writing, we thank everyone who has contributed to this collective effort and firmly believe that PESA Agora is fulfilling its mission and looks forward to a bright future space as a collective in public knowledge cultures.

Towards the future of philosophy and methodology of collective writing Marek Tesar Collective writing, and its philosophies and methodologies, has been an increasingly generative form of engagement with critical thoughts and ideas that the philosophy of education ponders, and it has produced a number of well-read articles, papers and writing experiments. And, perhaps not surprisingly, in 2020 – the year of the pandemic – it was Covid-19 that has taken over many of the narratives and much of the thinking (see, for instance, Peters et al., 2020a; Jandrić et al., 2020; Tesar, 2020). One of these papers – ‘Philosophy of Education in a New Key’ (Peters et al., 2020b) – has, early on in the year, presented us with a key challenge, addressing (and asking questions) of the Philosophy of Education in a New Key. The process of forming the ‘collective’ to facilitate and produce collective writing has been critical to the way this philosophical methodology operates, and a ‘New Key’ has clearly been demonstrated. There is a collective responsibility of the formed collective. There are ideas of intentionality, of collective narrative, collective group decisions and collective leadership of the issues and the subsequent responsibility for these philosophical directions. In 2020, as we think through the issues around Philosophy of Education in a New Key (see, e.g., Papastephanou et al., 2020; Hung et al., 2020), what has become increasingly important is the sense of collective responsibility towards an issue or collective experience, or based upon the geographical location. The work has demonstrated to us that there is not only an appetite, but also a real need, for the new forms of pedagogy and philosophy

318  Michael A. Peters et al informing the collective work. The collection in this book demonstrates the urgency within which the philosophical collectives have taken up philosophical thoughts and theories and added them as relevant to the concerns of everyday, educational lives. We, perhaps, have yet fully to see what constitutes the importance of collective writing; however, both Educational Philosophy and Theory and the Philosophy of Education Society of Australasia have demonstrated not only internal capacity but also leadership in this space. This collective intentionality and responsibility for our educational, philosophical and theoretical futures are perhaps particularly visible through these collective writings and endeavours. No longer is it only an individual, lonely, estranged philosopher in his/her office. Instead, there is a collective that collaborates and addresses issues that matter to us all. It is only in years to come that we will see and understand the real impact of these activities, which we have found so useful and productive over the past five years.

Collective writing as praxis Petar Jandrić Collective writing is a well-known genre in literature; collective authorship is commonplace in natural sciences. Yet it is fair to say that the practice of collective writing, as applied to philosophy and to social sciences in general, is a proverbial gap in knowledge development that was first seriously approached by Michael Peters and (t)his community. During past years the community has written numerous collectively authored articles, creating a large body of work that now extends beyond people we know and their friends. In works such as Knowledge Socialism: The Rise of Peer Production: Collegiality, Collaboration, and Collective Intelligence (Peters et al., 2020c) the community has also extensively theorised these efforts. Representing a small fraction of this work, The Methodology and Philosophy of Collective Writing again pushes traditional limits through its unique collective editing process. But these activities have built much more than a large collection of articles and books – in the process, the community has organically built a new praxis of collective knowledge work. Epistemology of this praxis starts with Michael Peters’s numerous writings about various aspects of knowledge development and dissemination (Peters & Besley, 2006; Peters, 2012a, 2012b; Peters & Roberts, 2012; Peters, 2013; Peters & Heraud, 2015; Peters & Jandrić, 2018a; Peters & Besley, 2019; Peters, Jandrić, & McLaren, 2020a; Peters, McLaren, & Jandrić, 2020b). The community has applied Peters’s ideas in messy and unpredictable directions characteristic for our postdigital times (Jandrić et al., 2018); over the years, these practices have fed back to epistemologies developed by Peters and others. This is why, in our recent chapter, we wrote that ‘[i] t is not and will never be Peters’ work, while, at the same time, it is and will always be Peters’ work’ (Gibbons et al., 2020, p. 15). Collective writing has a messy character: writing and reading this theory, we all permanently hover

Endnote  319 between ‘the Reflective Self’ and the ‘Social Machine’ (Peters and Jandrić, 2018b, p. 300). In this sense, Peters can be described as primus inter pares in our collective community. Development of our theories may be messy, yet the practical aspect of collective writing (now also editing, and who knows what else in the future) is even messier. Sometime in the near future, categorisation of these practices could be useful in helping us make at least some sense of our various approaches to anonymity, peer review and other issues, exercised over the years. However, between episteme and techne of collective writing sits an important and oft-neglected concept of phronesis. In the Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle describes phronesis as practical wisdom, sometimes translated as ‘mindfulness’, which concerns the ability to reflect upon our episteme and techne, and which is guided by the moral principles of what consists a good life. Collective work started by Michael Peters has messy epistemologies and even messier practices, yet its phronesis is already crystal clear. Our collective work is always for development of ideas, and never for their suppression; always at the side of social justice and the oppressed, and never at the side of the oppressor; always for financial sustainability, and never for financialisation of knowledge; always for the benefit of humankind as a whole, and never for the benefit of some people over others. With Michael Peters, the often dry and impersonal models of mainstream knowledge development and dissemination have acquired a human face – which is an amalgam of all our faces, and which works for the benefit of all our faces. It is this unique phronesis that provides episteme and techne of collective writing and editing with a unique ability to swim against mainstream research streams, and with a real potential to develop an own mainstream research stream in times to come.

The problem of collective writing Sean Sturm The concept of collective writing has, or rather, constitutes a problem. This is a good thing – because to occupy ourselves with a problem is to learn its possibilities, to be endless apprentices to its teaching (Deleuze, 1994). It is not a new problem; it is as old as writing itself. But it can be made new again if we ask the right questions. When we write collectively, we ask: What collective? The writers who press the keys to find out what they think and trade thoughts with each other? The writers along with their lines of writing and non-writing forebears? Or the apparatus of humans, computers, concepts, ‘data,’ living and dead things, human and more-than-human, that we might call a writing ecology and that is brought into being in the tangle of affects, percepts and concepts that writing brings into existence (see Morton, 2010)? And when we write collectively, do we not also ask: What writing? Writing as text – or encoding – or ‘composition’? (Wyatt et al., 2011). Writing as expository or expressive? Writing as finished (writ) or always unfinished

320  Michael A. Peters et al (writerly)? Writing as like non-collective writing, but with someone – or something – else? Or writing as the writing-into-existence of a – or the – collective? Now that the work of describing for ourselves the malfunction of the scholarly apparatus that is collective writing is underway – signalled by the language of education, research, review, science, knowledge, publishing, journals, universities, culture, works, authors and peers, not to mention technology and digitisation, in this collection1 – maybe we can learn to write in ways that keep open the questions that writing poses. Maybe we can let human writers merge with more-than-human writers such that collective existences emerge. Maybe we can take this way of thinking as a prompt (or plea?) to talk less with ourselves and more with others, so to speak, to take writing to be ecological (Deleuze, 2000).

Collective writing as education Liz Jackson Many of the collective pieces featured in this collection remark on the educative potential of collective writing. In ‘Collective Writing: An Inquiry into Praxis’ (Jandrić et al., 2017, Chapter 3 here), the personal, relational experience of collective writing is a major focus. Collective writing is experienced distinctively from individual single authorship in academia, as authors contend, as it requires a dynamic process of self-other relation in the first instance. In this case, peer review and self-regulation, seeing oneself in relation to others, is essential. This is in contrast with the author’s experience in single-authored works, where one need not bother to think of how they relate to others in the field, their readers and their reviewers, until the formal peer review process begins. Then, the relationship may not be one of warmth or camaraderie. As another article included here, ‘Is Peer Review in Academic Publishing Still Working?’, the regular processes of traditional academic peer review are ordinarily experienced as part of a competitive, individualistic game of publishing. Some authors may feel humiliated by review comments, which may be produced in double-anonymous contexts by hasty, irritable, competitive reviewers, who may not be thinking about the best interests of the field or the author but view the whole process with annoyance and impatience. Thus, open peer review may be favoured, which encourages a deeper, more relational and positive engagement and dialogue between author and reviewer, effectively restructuring the review process as a process of collective writing. Collective writing is then educational in a first sense, as a kind of education about the self, with knowledge about oneself, and their views and aims in scholarship re-seen and reviewed through contending with the other: in this case, the open and collaborative other, who has related aims (at least including the achievement of the collaborative project itself), but different means and perspectives. In relation, collective writing is educational, as it requires a new kind of openness to others through the act of collaboration. Openness is

Endnote  321 also a theme of many pieces in this collection and highlighted in many of the further works of Michael A. Peters (i.e., Chapters 4, 5, 6, 9). Collective writing requires openness as its purposes could not be achieved if the author was uninterested or disinterested in understanding other people’s perspectives. This understanding involved is not minimal and polite, but must be much deeper and more substantial to make the process of collective writing possible. This makes collective writing different from a dialogue. This openness requires willingness to be taught by the other through processes of ordinary communication involved with the collaborative writing process. In collective writing it is a kind of a priori understanding that the other has something to contribute to one’s own understanding and knowledge, which is yet to be seen. These are just a few aspects of collective writing that make it deeply educational. Appreciation for the educative impact of collective writing should inform new developments in academic publishing that pride (or at least more positively recognise) alternatives to the age-old single solitary peer-review article as a standard-bearer for success and achievement in academia.

Powers of the collective: what are we doing? Sonja Arndt Is the notion of the collective more significant now than ever, gripped as we are by a global pandemic, and isolated by illness, lockdown or worse? If the answer is yes, then in terms of writing is this perhaps merely forcing us to recognise what has always been the case – sidelined in the history of human writing practices by the individualistic demands of Euro-Western cultural and political ideals? And if the answer is yes, does this mean there is a collective responsibility, for what is written, and how that is done, for now and in the future? To what extent is there thought given to considering the purpose of the writing, beyond increasing citations, impact factors, rankings and potential promotions? What are we doing? Robinson’s (1995) claim that writing ‘is among the greatest inventions in human history’ sees a significant purpose in writing, as indeed ‘the greatest invention, since it made history possible’ (p. 7). Questioning the purpose of writing and such claims as to its value pushes us to question what constitutes writing. It elevates diverse ancient scripts as not just ‘dead letters … esoteric curiosities’ (p. 7) to sit alongside writing today, as communicative narratives, multimodal meaning making, semiotic systems. It elevates, then, the question of what it is that is being created, and what will be left behind. What is the history being made possible by the Editors Collective? The contents of this collection reveal and remind us of the power of the collective: on the one hand as an antidote to isolation, an enactment of virtual connectedness, collegial thinking, and advancement of thinking. That is one of the histories that our writing makes possible. On the other hand, this collection illustrates the power of the collective in its shared attempts to disrupt the ferocity and narrowness of individualistic writing. It responds

322  Michael A. Peters et al to the strictures of so called ‘academic rigour’, inhibiting control, pressures to produce homogenised, rankings-raising scripts, reviewed and judged by the norms of what is seen as necessary for being a proper academic (Arndt, Mika, Bengtsen & Nørgård (2020). It evidences critiques and examinations of potential opennesses, questions the publics, elevates cultural relevances, and their silencing through marginalisations of Indigeneity, amongst many others. The power of the collective is demonstrated in its ability to build on deviations from restrictive norms, that aim to imagine, argue for and create academic and scholarly spaces where all academics feel they have a space, and where, as Arndt et al., (2020) urge, there is not only an acceptance of, but a common, respectful expectation of ‘“re-critiquing”, “re-voking” and “re-conceiving”’ both the sense, purpose and appreciation of the writing and of the institution as a whole.

Note 1 In a word frequency search that I did with nVivo, the ten most frequent word stems were education, research, review, science, knowledge, opening, publishing, journals and university (with the exception of opening, all humanist institutions); then came collectivity, writing, technology and the digital (with the exception of collectivity, all technologies); then, culture, works, authors, development, peers and society (with the exception of development, all humanist institutions again). In problematising the concept of collective writing, I chose to focus on opening the idea of collectivity in writing to development.

References Arndt, S., Mika, C., Bengtsen, S.S., & Nørgård, R.T. (2020, in press). Spaces of life: Transgressions in conceptualising the World Class University. In M. Hyvönen, T. Besley, M. Peters & S. Rider (Eds.), World class universities: A contested concept. Springer. Deleuze, G. (1994). Difference and repetition (P. Patton, Trans.). New York, NY: Columbia University Press. Deleuze, G. (2000). The three ecologies (I. Pindar & P. Sutton, Trans.). New Brunswick, NJ: Athlone Press. Gibbons, A., Tesar, M., Arndt, S., Kupferman, D.W., Badenhorst, D., Jackson, L., Jandrić, P., & Peters, M. A. (2020). The highway robber’s road to knowledge socialism: A collective work on collective work. In M. A. Peters, T. Besley, P. Jandrić, & X. Zhu (Eds.), Knowledge socialism: The rise of peer production: Collegiality, collaboration, and collective intelligence (pp. 301–325). Singapore: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-981-13-8126-3_15. Hung, R., Zhengmei, P., Kato, M., Nishihira, T., Okabe, M., Di, X., Kwak, D-J., Hwang, K., Tschong, K., Chien, C.-H., Peters, M. A., & Tesar, M. (2020). Philosophy of education in a new key: East Asia (A collective project of the PESA executive). Educational Philosophy and Theory. doi:10.1080/00131857.2020.1772028 Jandrić, P., Devine, N., Jackson, L., Peters, M.A., Lăzăroiu, G., Mihăilă, R., Locke, K., Heraud, R., Gibbons, A., Grierson, E. and Forster, D.J. (2017). Collective writing: An inquiry into praxis. Knowledge Cultures 5(1), 85–109. doi:10.22381/ KC5120177

Endnote  323 Jandrić, P., Hayes, D., Truelove, I., Levinson, P., Mayo, P., Ryberg, T., … & Jackson, L. (2020). Teaching in the age of Covid-19. Postdigital Science and Education, 2(3), 1069-1230. doi:10.1007/s42438-020-00169-6 Jandrić, P., Knox, J., Besley, T., Ryberg, T., Suoranta, J., & Hayes, S. (2018). Postdigital science and education. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 50(10), 893899. doi:10.1080/00131857.2018.1454000. Morton, T. (2010). Ecology as text, text as ecology. Oxford Literary Review, 32(1), 1–17. doi:10.3366/olr.2010.0002 Papastephanou, M., Zembylas, M., Bostad, I., Oral, S. B., Drousioti, K., Kouppanou, A., Strand, T., Wain, K., Peters, M. A., & Tesar, M. (2020). Philosophy of education in a new key: Education for justice now. Educational Philosophy and Theory. doi:10.1080/00131857.2020.1793539 Peters, M. A. (2012a). Bio-informational capitalism. Thesis Eleven, 110(1), 98–111. doi:10.1177%2F0725513612444562. Peters, M. A. (2012b). Postmodern educational capitalism, global information systems and new media networks. Policy Futures in Education, 10(1), 23–29. doi:10.2304%2Fpfie.2012.10.1.23 Peters, M. A. (2013). Education, science and knowledge capitalism: Creativity and the promise of openness. New York, NY: Peter Lang. Peters, M. A., & Besley, T. (2006). Building knowledge cultures: Education and development in the age of knowledge capitalism. Lanham, MA: Rowman & Littlefield. Peters, M. A., & Besley, T. (2019). Critical philosophy of the postdigital. Postdigital Science and Education, 1(1), 29–42. doi:10.1007/s42438-018-0004-9 Peters, M. A., & Heraud, R. (2015). Toward a political theory of social innovation: Collective intelligence and the co-creation of social goods. Journal of SelfGovernance and Management Economics, 3(3), 7–23. Peters, M. A., & Jandrić, P. (2018a). Peer production and collective intelligence as the basis for the public digital university. Educational Philosophy & Theory, 50(13), 1271–1284. doi:10.1080/00131857.2017.1421940 Peters, M. A., & Jandrić, P. (2018b). The digital university: A dialogue and manifesto. New York, NY: Peter Lang. Peters, M. A., & Roberts, P. (2012). The virtues of openness: Education, science and scholarship in a digital age. Boulder, CO: Paradigm. Peters, M. A., Arndt, S., Tesar, M., Jackson, L., Hung, R., Mika, C., Ozolins, J., Teschers, C., Orchard, J., Buchanan, R., Madjar, A., Novak, R., Besley, T., Sturm, S., Roberts, P., & Gibbons, A. (2020d). Philosophy of education in a new key: A collective project of the PESA executive. Educational Philosophy & Theory. doi:10. 1080/00131857.2020.1759194 Peters, M. A., Besley, T., Jandrić, P., & Zhu, X. (Eds.). (2020e). Knowledge socialism: The rise of peer production: Collegiality, collaboration, and collective intelligence. Singapore: Springer. Peters, M. A., Jandrić, P., & McLaren, P. (2020a). Viral modernity? Epidemics, infodemics, and the ‘bioinformational’ paradigm. Educational Philosophy & Theory. doi :10.1080/00131857.2020.1744226. Peters, M. A., McLaren, P., & Jandrić, P. (2020b). A viral theory of post-truth. Educational Philosophy and Theory. doi:10.1080/00131857.2020.1750090. Peters, M. A., Rizvi, F., McCulloch, G., Gibbs, P., Gorur, R., Hong, M., Hwang, Y., Zipin, L., Brennan, M., Robertson, S., Quay, J., Malbon, J., Taglietti, D., Barnett, R., Chengbing, W., McLaren, P., Apple, R., Papastephanou, M., Burbules, N., Jackson, L., Jalote, P., Kalantzis, M., Cope, B., Fataar, A., Conroy, J., Misiaszek,

324  Michael A. Peters et al G., Biesta, G., Jandrić, P., Choo, S. S., Apple, M., Stone, L., Tierney, R., Tesar, M., Nesley, T., & Misiaszek, L. (2020c). Reimagining the new pedagogical possibilities for universities post-COVID-19: An EPAT collective project. Educational Philosophy & Theory. doi:10.1080/00131857.2020.1777655 Robinson, A. (1995). The story of writing. London, UK: Thames & Hudson. Tesar, M. (2020). Towards a post-COVID-19 ‘New normality?’: Physical and social distancing, the move to online and higher education. Policy Futures in Education, 18(4), 556-559. doi:10.1177/1478210320935671 Wyatt, J., Gale, K., Gannon, S., & Davies, B. (2011). Deleuze and collaborative writing: An immanent plane of composition. New York, NY: Peter Lang.

Index

Page numbers in italic indicate figures and n indicate notes. Abelson, Hal 104 academia.edu 22 academic publishing 9, 21, 23, 24–25; ecology of 15, 29; economy of 20; ecosystem of 7, 22; electronic 12; mainstream 164; online 111; pedagogy of 286; and peer review 154–170; philosophy of 3–34, 286; proliferation of 160 academic research 12, 154–155; rise of Chinese cultural contexts of 25 access 16; see also free access; open access; pay-­per-­view access; universal access to knowledge access to information, democratic 201 accountability, neoliberal impulse to 56–57 addiction, post digital 201–202 Addleton Academic Press 82 Adkins & Jokinen, ‘Gender, living and labour in the fourth shift’ 162–163 Agamben, Giorgio 100–101, 118n1, 234 agency, traditional narratives of 199 AI 137, 253–255 Akker, Robin van den 178 algorithms 10–11, 197 Alpers, Anthony 226 Al-­Ruhāwī, Ishāq ibn Alī, Ethics of the Physician 26 Althusser, Louis, Reading Capital 81 altmetrics 4, 14, 28–29, 284 anarchism, political theory of 113 anarchy, epistemological 114 Anaru, Sue 238, 239 Anderson & Munoz Proto, ‘Ethical requirements and responsibilities in video methodologies’ 297 Anderson, Ross 107

anonymity 306; and peer review 157–160 Anscombe, Elizabeth 168 APCs 27–28, 31 Aristotle 100, 247; Nicomachean Ethics 287, 308, 319 Arndt et al., ‘Spaces of life’ 322 Aronson, J. L. 246–247 article processing charges see APCs artificial intelligence see AI arXiv database of preprints 26 Association for Visual Pedagogies 292, 295, 301–302, 306 authenticity 299 author: as individualised genius 43; lead 8; modern concept and philosophy of 58; subjectivity of 48, 50 authorship: collective 59; concept of 39–41, 50; mass 59; rights of 18 autoethnography 231 automation 12 automatism 64 autonomy 111, 309 axiology 308 Bach, J. S., The Art of Fugue 315 Backman, J. 224 Bacon, Francis 126 Bakhtin, M. M. 224 Barthes, Roland 58, 284; The Death of the Author 39–41 Baudrillard, Jean 223 Bauman, Zygmunt, and liquid modernity 23 Bauwens, Michel 104 Bayne & Jandrić, ‘From anthropocentric humanism to critical post-­humanism in digital education’ 244

326  Index Becker, Gary, and human capital 78, 111 Beckett, Samuel 40 being-­in-­the-­world 100 Bell, Daniel 78 Belt and Road Initiative see BRI beneficence 309 Benkler & Nissenbaum, ‘Commons-­ based peer production and virtue’ 148–149 Benkler, Yochai 46–47, 114 Bennett, Segerberg & Walker, ‘Organization in the crowd’ 46 Berger, Arthur Asa 242 Berger, John, Ways of Seeing 242–244 Berman, Powell & Herranz, ‘Ethical considerations when using social media for evidence generation’ 300–301 Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works (1886) 19 Besley, Tina 39, 80, 86, 188 Beveridge, William 112 Biagioli, M. 155 bibliometrics 14 Bieringa, Jan 231 Bieringa, Luit 231 big data 137; nefarious uses of 196 biology, synthetic 137 biomedicine 136 biotechnology 135–136 blogging 8, 95 body, the: multivoiced 210; rise of 222 Bolter & Grusin, Remediation 95 Bourdieu, Pierre 84 Bowie, David 70 Boyle, Robert, and ‘invisible college’ 149 Breton, André, Exquisite Corpse 64 BRI 260–287; and future of education in China 279–281; and new missions in teacher education 272–274; strategy 262–263 bricolage 33 Brighouse, Susanne 39 Brill 295 Brooks, Neil 178 Broude & Garrard, Feminism and art history 227 Bruni, L. E. 244 Brynjolfsson & McFee, The Second Machine Age 136 Buber, Martin 221 Budapest-­Bethesda-­Berlin Statements 14

Bultmann, Rudolf 100 Burke, S., The Death and Return of the Author 41 Burri, R. V. 224 Burris, Mary Ann 306 Burton-­Jones, Alan, Knowledge capitalism 80 Cahn, Edgar 112 camera obscura 221 capital, human see human capital capitalism 17; algorithmic 87, 110; cognitive 43, 85, 103, 106, 110–111, 118; industrial 109; mercantile 109; post-­Fordist 104; third 110; Western 109; see also knowledge capitalism cartoons, political 234 CCD 265, 278 CD 261, 276, 278; interpretations of 263 change 12; see also organisational change children: contemplation of 300; and participatory voice 301; photos for medical and research purposes 302–304; and rights 300 Chinese Dream see CD Christensen, Clayton 11 CI 86, 111; on ethics, video and children 307–308; and knowledge making 212n2; philosophy of 49–50 citation 14, 60 citizen science 45–46, 135, 141, 143; and ecological democracy 127–130; principles of 142 Citizens Create Knowledge (GEWISS) 44–45 Cixous, Hélène, and voice of other 21 cOAlition S 125–126, 135 co-­authoring, advantages and disadvantages 60 co-­creation 114 co-­creativity 102 code, interaction with 11 cognitive capitalism see capitalism, cognitive cognitive mapping 177 cognitive science 136 Coleridge, Samuel Taylor 43 collaboration: benefits of 57–58; discussing in 56 collaborative writing see collective writing collaboration 7–8, 108, 112–118 collective intelligence see CI collective, powers of 321–322

Index  327 collective subject 48 collective writing: benefits of 73; challenges of 73; different from co-­writing 67; as education 320–321; future of philosophy and methodology of 317–318; pedagogy of 260–287; as praxis 55–76, 318– 319; problem of 319–320; process of 5, 56; as transversal 284–285 collectivity, academic 15 Collins & Evans, ‘The third wave of science studies’ 133 Comer & Schwartz, ‘The problem of humiliation in peer review’ 162 commodity space 12 commons: intellectual 98; theory of 113; see also Creative Commons communication 9–10, 243; learning as 96; by letter 9–10; mass media 95; speed of 10 Community of Common Destiny see CCD community of inquiry 144 competition, for funding and prestige 25 consent 302–303, 306; principles of 300; see also informed consent Conservation Biology 129 Convention on Biological Diversity 20 convergence culture 95 convergence science 134, 136 convergent realism 246 cooperation 262–266 Coote, Anna 112 co-­production 102, 111, 112–113 copyright 18–19; and new media 41–48 Copyright Act (1710) 19, 41 Copyright Act (1994 NZ) 21 Covid-­19 pandemic 317, 321 Coyne, R. 248 Craw, Janita 239 Creative Commons 43, 104 creative economy 85, 104, 109 creativity: as new development paradigm 102–104; and openness 101–104 critical media literacy 17 critique, contemporary forms of 10 cross-­fertilisation 195 crowd organisation 46 crowdsourcing 144 cultural shaping 243 cultural turn 227 cultures: rhizomic 117; user-­generated 106; see also knowledge cultures

customisation, mass 114, 115 cyber-­physical systems 12, 136 Dale, Hēmi 231–232 Darnton, Robert 156 Darwin, Charles 8 Dasein 100 databases, online 13 David, Paul A., ‘The economic logic of “open science”’ 150 Davies, C. A. 296 Debord, Guy 225 deep intelligence 253; definition of 255n1 Deleuze, Gilles 81, 110, 117, 285; Cinema 1 – The Movement Image 308 Deleuze & Guattari, Capitalism and Schizophrenia 110 democracy 106; accountability relationship with science 144; Athenian 25; and universal access to knowledge 4, 15–17; see also ecological democracy Deng Xiaoping 268 Denton, Andrew 240 Derrida, Jacques 41, 208–209, 233, 237, 284; The Politics of Friendship 16; ‘Structure, Sign and Play in the Discourse of the Human Sciences’ 175; and trace in text 21 Devakumar et al., ‘Taking ethical photos of children for medical and research purposes’ 303 De Villo, S. 179 Dewey, John 82, 143, 106, 144 dialogue: postdigital 193; valences of 192–193 digital: indirect, unseen, absent 192; storytelling 59; technologies 6–7; ways of seeing 242–245 digital archive, nature of 309 digital publishing, advent of 10, 18 digital reason, epoch of 4 digital video, as research tool 298–300 digitisation 101; definition of 14; of production 110; of publishing 18 Dillon et al., ‘Moving from citizen to civic science’ 129 discourse, open 118 discrimination 169 disruption, technological 4, 10–13, 29–30, 62–63, 136–137 dissemination, possibilities for 10 dissidence, thought as truest form of 23 distance, challenge of 73

328  Index Dobson, A. 141 Doxc, E. 178 Drucker, P. 78 Dryzek, J. S. 141 Eagleton, Terry 178–179 eBooks 11, 13–14 EC 49–51, 55, 58, 64, 72, 86, 154, 155, 281, 293, 314, 321; mission of 3 Eckersley, R. 141 ecological democracy 141; and citizen science 127–130 economics: of forgetting 83; of knowledge see knowledge economy economy: creative see creative economy; of learning see learning economy ecopolitics 141 Eco, Umberto 242 ECSA 142 Edinburgh Royal Society 25, 155 Editors Collective see EC education: environmental 201; and image and text 235–236; as intercultural communication 276– 277; open 93, 117; philosophy of 64; postdigital 196–204; privatisation of 85, 104; rhizomic 117; visual studies in 293–295 Educational Philosophy and Theory see EPAT educational praxis, post-­digital 202–203 efficiency, fiscal 10 Elsevier 25, 156 Eluard, Paul 64 empathy 102 Enfield, Nick 139 engineering: genetic see genetic engineering Enlightenment 9, 15–16; philosophies 118; values 4 EPAT 8, 23–24, 38–39, 55, 86, 164, 176, 188, 210, 211, 314, 316–318 epistemology 25; reinvention of 244 Epstein, M. 179, 252 equity 25 European Citizen Science Association see ECSA European Commission, ‘Citizen Science for Europe’ 128, 135 Evans & Hall, Visual culture 227 exchange 262–266; educational 269 exclusivity 98, 158 Facebook 8, 17, 22, 31, 95; and children’s visual exposure 301

Fawns, T. 204–206 female, the, as muse or object of desire 227 femininity, juvenile 206 Feyerabend, Paul 114 Finch Report 93 Fine, E. H. 227 Fitzpatrick, Kathleen 25, 154–155 flash poetry 14 Flexible Learning Environment 57 Florida, Richard 109; The Rise of the Creative Class 111 fluid containers, philosophy of 181–185 FOCAC 270 Fordism 103 formalisation 110 Forum on China-­Africa Cooperation see FOCAC Foucault, Michel 12, 39, 43, 58, 101; The Birth of Biopolitics 110, 115; on power 160–161; ‘What Is an Author?’ 40–41 free access 7 freedom of information 117–118; to publish 118 Freire, Paulo 197–198, 285; A Pedagogy for Liberation 74 Freud, Sigmund 221 friendship 72; as basis for writing 61–62, 64 Funtowicz & Ravetz: ‘The good, the true and the post-­modern’ 134; ‘Post-­normal science’ 139–140 gaze, the 222 gender discrimination 169 gene editing 137 genetic engineering 136 geoengineering 137 gesture 234 Gibbons, A. 178 Gibson, William, Zero History 201 Ginsparg, Paul 26 globalisation 262–266; as connectivity 102; of learning and education 93 global science, emergence of 124–126 Gluckman, Peter 137–138 Goethe 43 Google 17, 101 Google Docs 64, 67 Google Scholar 22, 284 Gorodi, Suzie 236, 241 Gramsci, Antonio 7 Great Recession 109, 116 Grebowicz, Margret, Whale Song 193

Index  329 Grierson, Elizabeth 257–258 growth 78 Guattari, Félix 48, 49 Gutenberg 13 Habermas, Jürgen, The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere 115 Haklay, Muki 128, 134–135 Han & Ye, ‘China’s education policy-­ making’ 279 Haraway, D. J. 157–158, 235 Hardt, Michael 110, 115 Harris & Nochlin, Women artists 1550–1950 227 Hartmann, Nicolai 100 Harvard, open access initiative 94 Haustein, Stefanie 6 Hayes, Sarah 188, 192–193 Hayhoe, Ruth 278 Hegel, G. W. F. 23, 71 Heidegger, Martin 43, 100–101, 118n1, 133, 156, 224, 248 Heim, M., Metaphysics of Virtual Reality 247–249 Henderson, Louise 226–227 Heraud, Richard 5, 55, 258 Hergueux et al., Cooperation in a peer production economy 47 hermeneutics 223 HEWCC 278–279 Higher Education with Chinese Characteristics see HEWCC Hirsch, Elizabeth 100 Holloway, J. 191 Homer 224 homo collaborans 8, 44 homo economicus 7, 44 hooks, bell, Teaching Community 108 Howkins, John 109 human capital 78, 85; concept of 7 humanities, postdigital 194–196 Hume, David 109 Hurrell, J. 236 Husserl, E. 100, 245–246 Hutchinson, Lonnie 237 hybridity 175 Hypatia 159 hypertext 14 ICT 96, 136 identity: online 205; postdigital 204– 208; theories of 205–206; traditional narratives of 199 Idris, K. 20

image: moving 223–225, 233–241, 250–253; philosophy of 222; power of 10; theory of 226; value of 254 imagery, sociocultural and political importance of 234 images, of female as muse 227 immediacy 10 Indigeneity, marginalisations of 322 Indigenous knowledge 17 individualisation 114 individualism, in academic life 56–57 Industry 4.0, 136 information and communications technology see ICT information, freedom of 117–118 information technology 135–136 informed consent 300, 303 infrastructuralism, Chinese 261 Innes, H. 223 innovation 12, 78, 98, 286; continuous endogenous 111; social 11, 86; technological 11 Instagram 301 Institute for Public Policy Research 112 intellectual integrity 10 intellectual property see IP intelligence see collective intelligence see deep intelligence interactivity 14 interconnectivity 93, 261; increased 4 internationalisation 266–276; of Chinese and Russian higher education institutions 268–269; of higher education 274–276 internet 16–17, 18, 101, 106 Internet of Things see IoT interpretation 243 intersubjectivity, new experiments in 48 intertextuality 49, 58 IoT 136, 137 IP 9, 17, 30; definition of 18; first rights to 299; laws 19–21 Irwin, R. 8 Jackson, Liz 38 Jackson & Stewart, ‘Lifting the publishing curtain’ 163 Jameson, F. 177 Jandrić, Petar 8, 55, 86, 188 Jandrić et al., ‘Postdigital Science and Education’ 188, 197, 204, 205, 210 Jaszi, Peter 42 Jay, M., Downcast Eyes 224 Jenkins, Henry, Convergence culture 95 Jinha, A. E. 5

330  Index Jones & Abes, Identity development of college students 205 Journal des sçavans 5 journal knowledge 23; ecosystems 14; geographical distribution of 4, 21–25 journals 8; three ages of 4, 9–10; video 230–232 Journal of Scholarly Publishing 22 journal system 5; global 6 Judson, Horace 149 Junco, R. 205 Kant, Immanuel, Critique of Pure Reason 16 Kaplan, Benjamin, An Unhurried View of Copyright 41–42 Karpińska, A. 140 Kellner & Kim, ‘YouTube, politics and pedagogy’ 95–96 Kelly, Kevin 129–130 Khanna, P. 271 Kirby, A. 179 Kissinger, Henry, On China 262–263 Klimt, Gustav 221; ‘Philosophy’ 220–221 Kling, S. 303 knowledge 22–25; mathematisation of 110; monopolisation of 85, 104; propositional 114; as social 285; spectator theories of 222; see also Indigenous knowledge; journal knowledge; scientific knowledge; traditional knowledge knowledge capitalism 78, 80, 84, 86–87, 98, 109–110 Knowledge Cultures 81–83, 94, 315–316 knowledge ecologies 9, 12; concept of 8 knowledge economy 22–23, 78, 85, 104, 111; cultural 315; global 115– 116; interpretations and genealogy of 79; open 85, 104; three forms of 109 knowledge ecosystem 25; global 4, 5–9 knowledge environments, portal-­based 116 knowledge production 8, 22, 285– 286; and CI 212n2; open 111; in postdigital humanities 194–196 knowledge socialism 81, 83–87, 98 knowledge space 12 knowledges, subjugated 40 knowledge systems, peer-­to-­peer 116 Knox, Jeremy 188 König, Ariane 141

Kranich, Nancy, The Information Commons 113 Kristeva, J. 49; and idea of revolt 23 Kropotkin, Peter 8 Kuhn, Thomas, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions 132–133 Kurzweil, Ray 107 Kuusela, H. 44; ‘Writing Together’ 42 labour: academic 20–21, 21, 162–164; creative 85, 98, 106, 108, 111; digital 85; estranged 108; immaterial 43, 103, 111; neoliberal 154; of reviewing 162–164; theory of 19, 63 Laerhoven & Ostrom, ‘Traditions and Trends in the Study of the Commons’ 113 Lakatos, Imre 132 Landry, Charles 109 Larivière, Vincent 6 Latour, Bruno 133 Laudan, Larry 132 League of European Research Universities see LERU learned societies 10 learning 96; analytics 199; flexible 96; personalised 114; resituating 4 learning-­by-­doing 96, 111 learning economy 83, 85, 104, 109 learning exchanges, new experiments in 48 Leberecht, Tim, ‘Radical Openness Workshop’ 108 Le Prince, Louis 221 LERU, ‘Citizen Science at Universities’ 46 Lessig, Larry 42, 104, 242 letters, scholarly 10 Lever Press 14 Lévi-­Strauss, Claude 242 Lévy, Pierre 49–50, 86, 256n5; Collective intelligence 12 liberal individualism 8 liberalism, political philosophy of 15 linguistics 223; reinvention of 244 linguistic turn 224–225, 227 Li Jun 278 Lin, Justin Yifu 271 Lippard, L. 227 literacy, postdigital 200 Li Xiaoying, ‘Cornerstones of Chinese Education Going Global’ 276–277 Locke, Kirsten 225 Loos, Adolf 221 Lotman, J. 243

Index  331 Lundvall, Bengt-­Åke 109 Luther, Martin 16 Lyotard, Jean-­François 42–43, 125, 133; The Postmodern Condition 81 machine learning 137 Machlup, Fritz, distribution studies 78 Magna Carta 26 Major, René 208 Malevich, K. 251 Mallarmé, Stéphane 40 Mangen, A. 29 Māori science and education, postdigital 207–208 mapping: cognitive see cognitive mapping Marburg, University of 100–101 Marshall Plan 264, 271 Marxism 83; poststructuralist 81 Marx, Karl 81, 84, 103, 287 mass authorship 59 mass customisation 114, 115 Massive Open Online Courses see MOOCs mass media 95 mass production 12 Maunsell, Robert, A Grammar of the New Zealand Language 19 McCahon, Colin 226 McHale, Brian 175 McLaren, Peter 201 McLuhan, M. 10, 223 meaning 102 meaning-­making 201 mediation 243 memes, internet 8 mentorship 163 meta-­cognition 111 Mills, C. Wright, Sociological Imagination 202 misogyny 16, 17 MIT: OpenCourseWare 94; OpenWetWare project 150 Mitchell, W. J. T. 228–229 Mladenović, B. 133 mobility 93 moderation: of collective writing process 56, 69–72; mechanics of 71 modernity, liquid 23 Modersohn-­Becker, Paula 229 modifiability 242 Mongeon, Philippe 6 MOOCs 8 Moraru, Christian 178 Moriarty, S. 242

movement, as central to human experience 251 moving image: as bridge between human and ‘other’ 250; philosophy of 223–225, 250–253; as text 233–241; value of 254 multiliteracies 200 Musk, Elon 255n1 Nano, Bio, Information, Cognitive see NBIC nanoelectronics 136 nanoscience 136 nanotechnology 135–137 National Science Foundation see NSF Natorp, Paul 100 NBIC technologies 135–136 Nead, Lynda 227 Negri, Antonio 103, 106, 110, 115 Negroponte, Nicholas 201, 209 neoliberalism 80, 85, 104 New Economic Foundation, manifesto for co-­production 112–113 new knowledge ecologies 4, 5–9 New Public Management 80 newspapers, printed 16 Nietzsche 43, 221; Thus Spake Zarathustra 250 Nikolai, Jennifer 240 Ning, W. 177–178 Noddings, Nel, ethics of care 21 nomophobia 201–202 non-­maleficence 309 NSF 134, 135 nude, female 227 Nupedia 27 OA 7, 10, 22, 30–31, 43, 64, 66; funded by authors 7; Gold 15, 18, 30; Green 18; online 28; paid by third party 7; rise of 4, 14–15; standards 14 OA journals, peer-­reviewed 27–28 OA publishing 125, 150–151 OECD 109; The Knowledge-­Based Economy 78 oekonomika 112 Okely & Callaway, Anthropology and autobiography 296 Oldenburg, Henry 3, 5, 29, 155 O’Neill, S. 243 online presence, of scholars 24 open access see OA open, concept of 100 open government, doctrine of 118

332  Index Open Knowledge Foundation 104–105 openness 93; concepts of 85, 94, 100–101, 117–118; and creativity 101–104; and ethics of science 148; to experience 102, 119n3, 151; organisational 118; to the other 321; philosophy of 43, 261; psychology of 111; radical 85, 104–108, 113; university 97; virtues of 104 Openness 3.0, 84–85 Openness 4.0, 84 open peer review see OPR Open Review of Educational Research 93, 170 Open School 105 open science 134, 135, 148; emergence of 150; governance 152; as new participatory model 126–127 open science economy 109 Open University 93, 94, 97, 105 Open University 3.0, 85 Operaismo 110 opinion, free expression of 118 OPR 31–33, 149, 152n1, 158–159; examples of 31–33, 165–170, 210–212, 307–309 oracy 10 O’Reilly, Tim 197 organisational change 11 Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development see OECD originality 8 Ostrom, Elinor 112 O’Sullivan, Victoria 239 othering, refusal of 226–229 ownership 17–21; concept of 4; of digital video data sources 299–300; legal rights of 18–19 Ozoliņš, John 5, 55 Parekowhai, Michael 238 Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property (1883) 19 Parker & Pollock, Old mistresses 227 partnership 195 Patent Act (1860) 19 Patterson, S. W. 225 pay-­per-­view access 7; and peer review 7 paywalls 126 pedagogies, ocular 222 pedagogy: effective 286; new experiments in 48; of the senses 222; visual 244 peer collaboration 102

peer production 46–47, 49, 144; commons-­based 114, 148–149; of symbolic public goods 48 peer review 15, 19, 23, 25–28, 31, 285, 320; in academic publishing 154–170; and anonymity 157–160; conceptualising 154–156; double-­ anonymous 158–160; educational value of 156–157; as form of pedagogy 156–157; future of 164; inequities in process 165; labour of 162–164; open see OPR; origins of 25–26; post-­publication 26; purpose of 25; system of 4, 5, 149 Peirce, Charles 27, 82, 106, 143, 144, 242 performance, and collective writing 68, 72 performance philosophy 107 performativity 43 performer-­academic, isolated individualism of 56 Perry, G. 229 Perry, Walter 97 personalisation 93, 114–115; policy of 113 personality, theory of 119n3 PESA 5, 38, 60, 86, 318; 2016 conference 8 PESA Access 314, 317 PESA Agora 314, 315–317 Petersen & Wilson, Women artists 227 Peters & Gietzen, ‘Knowledge socialism and universities’ 84 Peters & Jandrić, The Digital University 43, 44 Peters, Michael 7–8, 38, 42–43, 47, 179–180, 196, 225, 267, 281–282, 285, 295, 307, 318–319, 321; ‘Education, Creativity and the Economy of Passions’ 44; ‘Forms of Knowledge Economy’ 109; interview with Pierre Lévy 50; Knowledge, science and knowledge capitalism 81–82; ‘Radical Openness’ 85 Pettibone, Vohland & Ziegler, ‘Understanding the (inter)disciplinary and institutional diversity of citizen science’ 44–45 Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society 3, 5, 9, 25, 149, 155 Philosophy of Education Society of Australasia see PESA philosophy, linguistic 223

Index  333 photography, medical, of children 302–304 Photovoice 306–307 phronesis 287, 319 pictorial turn 225, 227 Pink, Daniel, A Whole New Mind 102 plagiarism 18 Plan S 125–126, 135 Plato 224, 233; and ‘ideal forms’ 247 playfulness 175 Plumwood, V. 141 pluralism: epistemological 127; ontological 127 PNS 125, 127, 134, 137–139, 141–142 Policy Futures in Education 83 political science 136 Pollock, Griselda 227 Pollock, Rufus 104 Polyani, Karl, ‘The republic of science’ 152 Pontille & Torny, ‘The blind shall see!’ 158 Popper, Karl 106, 118 Porat, M., The information economy 78 postdigital: as community of praxis 203; critical 190–191; critical and ethical 200–201; defintions of 190; as jargon 194; and schooling 198–199; theorisations of 191–192; uneven nature of 212n1 postdigital identity theory, need for 204–206 postdigital science 189–190, 208 Postdigital Science and Education 188, 189 postmodernism: end of 175, 177–180; lifecycle of 175; question of what comes after 176 post-­normal science see PNS post-­trust 137 post-­truth 137–139, 175; and issues of trust 145n8; politics 140 power 309; relationships 70–71, 160–162, 303; soft 269 presence, metaphysics of 224 press, freedom 118 pressure to publish 24 printing, advent of 19 privacy 309 production: digitisation of 110; scholarly 10 productivity 78 Protestant Reformation 16 psychoanalysis 223; as traumatic event 208–209

psychology, post-­digital 206 P2P Foundation 104–105 public goods 48, 86; symbolic 48 publishing: modes of 8; sustainability of 14; see also academic publishing; digital publishing publishing companies/houses 161; competition between 11–12; large 10, 14, 22, 156, 164 PubPeer 26 qualitative research, ethical dilemmas and reflexivity in 296–297 questioning: as aspect of review process 156; the purpose of writing 321 Rancière, Jacques, The ignorant schoolmaster 70 Ransdell, Joseph 27 Rath, J. 231 Ravetz, Jerome 141 reading 12, 284 recursion 129 Reed-­Elsevier 6 reflexivity 301; ethical dimensions to 296–297; postdigital 193–194; in qualitative research 296–297 relationships, reviewer/editor 160–162 relativism 175 remediation 95, 243 research: commodification of 156; resituating 4 research ethics, norms of 308–309 Research Gate 22 Resnik, David, The ethics of science 148 Retraction Watch 26 reviewers, gender proportion of 159 rhizomes of signification 8 rhizomic structures 117 rights 17–21; concept of 4; moral, and collective authorship 21 Rilke, R. M., eighth Duino Elegy 100 Roach, Jay, Meet the Parents 114 Roberts, Peter 5, 55, 104 Robinson, A. 321 robotics 137; in education 253–256 Romer, P., endogenous growth theory 78 Rorty, R. 223–224 Rose, D. C., ‘Avoiding a Post-­truth World’ 140 Rose, Mark 42 Royal Society 25, 126; Knowledge, networks and nations 6; Science as an Open Enterprise 105–106, 152

334  Index Russell, Bertrand 16 Ryberg, Thomas 188 Samuelson, Pamela 42 Saussure, Ferdinand 242 Scheler, Max 100 scholarly communications: global ecosystem of 5–9; letters 10; political economy of 7 scholarly conversations, value of 285 Scholarly Kitchen 14 scholarly production 10 scholarly publishing see academic publishing scholarly research, globalisation of 23 scholars: early career 162–164; independent 163–164 scholarship: in age of video journal 230–232; equity in 285; in isolation 163–164; perceptions of 22 schooling, and the postdigital 198–199 science: accountability relationship with democracy 144; commodification of 156; ethics of 148; exclusivity of 158; history of 129–130; normal 132; revolutionary 132; see also citizen science; cognitive science; convergence science; global science; open science; post-­digital science; PNS; small science; sustainability science; wiki science Science Europe 135; Plan S 125 science gateways, global 116 science-­in-­transition 127 Science 2.0, 134, 148; emergence of 150–151 Scientific American 150 scientific knowledge, geographical distribution of 6 SciStarter 143 self-­evaluation, community 149 self, fragmentary 175 selfhood, gendered 206 self-­regulation 320 self-­representations, postdigitally networked 206–207 semiology 242–243; reinvention of 244 semiosphere, digital 244 semiotics 223; media 243; reinvention of 244; theory of 242; visual 243 shaping: cultural see cultural shaping shareability 242 Shor, Ira, A Pedagogy for Liberation 74 Silva, Jason 107–108 small science 149

smartphone addiction, postdigital 201–202 Smith, Adam 109 socialism: knowledge see knowledge socialism social justice 201 social networking 95 social production 114 sociolinguistics, critical 208 sociology 136 sociotechnical turn 144 spatialization 93 speech, freedom of 118 Springer 6, 156 Stationers’ Company 19 Statute of Anne see Copyright Act (1710) Stewart et al., ‘Antipodean theory for educational research’ 258 Stiegler, B. 234 Stobart, J. C. 97 Strickland, Donna 47 structures: rhizomic see rhizomic structures Sturm, Sean 82 subject: collective see collective subject subjectivity 59; academic 48, 211–212 Suroanta, Juha 188 Surowiecki, James, The Wisdom of Crowds 46 Surrealism 40 sustainability science 127 Sustainability Science: Key Issues 141 sustainable development 201 synergy 195 Tapscot, Don 108 Taylor & Francis 6, 93, 156 technics 234 techno-­development 133 technology(ies) 5; disruptive 10–13, 29–30, 62–63, 136–113; peer-­to-­ peer 105; of the self 12–13; of sign systems 12–13; social benefits 11; see also digital technologies techno-­nationalism 133–134 techno-­science 133 TED Global 106–107 telemedicine 302 Tenniel, John 233 Tesar, Marek 38, 83 text: concept of 223; digital 13–14; electronic 11; layered 231; and the moving image 233–241; non-­English 24; in postdigital humanities 195

Index  335 textuality, concept of 223 thinking, with others 56 threshold, semiotic 243 Thucydides Trap 272 time, challenge of 73 Torres et al., ‘Identity development theories in student affairs’ 205 Toth, Josh 178 traditional knowledge, definition of 20 transcendentalism 100 transparency, political 106 transversality, principle of 48 truth, optical theories of 222 Tuvel, R. 159 Tuwhare, Hone 235 Twitter 8, 22, 31, 95 UASR 268 Umwelt 243 UN, Creative Economy Report (2008) 102–103 UNESCO 20 United Nations see UN universal access to knowledge 4, 15–17 universities, and the public good 115 university: liberal humanist idea of 79; as locus of knowledge creation 98; resituating 4 University Alliance of the Silk Road see UASR values, global 201 verisimilitude, authenticities of 247 Vermeulen, Timotheus 178 video 10; digital 298–300; educational research using 294; ethics in educational research 292; games 14; immersive 245–249; research 230; sharing of data sources 299; storage and archiving of data 299 Video Journal of Education and Pedagogy 164; see also VJEP virtual reality see VR visibility, challenge of 73 visual culture, in popular media 294 visual research, ethical issues in 297–298 VJEP 230–232, 292, 295–296 VR 245–249, 252; technology, in research with children 304–305 Waldrop, M. Mitchell 150 Wales, Jimmy 104 Wals, Arjen E. J. 141

Wang, Caroline 306 Wartofsky, Mark 224 Watson & Floridi, ‘Crowdsourced science’ 45, 143 webcomics 14 Web of Science 6, 28 web search functionality 14 Web 2.0, 93–95, 106, 111, 116, 127, 150–151 Web 3.0, 101, 127 Web 4.0, 101 Westra, A., Washday at the Pā 231–232 White, E. Jayne 295–296 Wikileaks 118 Wikimedia Commons Foundation 203 Wikipedia 27, 47, 104, 164 wiki science 148 Wikiversity 202–203 Wiles et al., ‘Visual ethics’ 297–298 Wiley-­Blackwell 6, 156 Wilson, A. 41 WIPO 19, 20 Wittgenstein, Karl 221 Wittgenstein, Ludwig 42–43, 82, 84, 202, 221–222, 225; and chaos 23; Philosophical Investigations 220 Wittgenstein, Margaret Stonborough 221 Woodmansee, M. 43; ‘On the Author Effect: Recovering Collectivity’ 42 Wordsworth, William 43 World Bank 109 world brain, emergence of 111 World Intellectual Property Organization see WIPO World Wide Web 96 writer, as author 284 writing 12, 284; reflection on one’s own 68; see also collective writing xenophobia 16, 17 Xi Jingping 263, 270, 272, 279 Young, Edward, Conjectures on Original Composition 43 Young, Michael 97 YouTube 95–96 Yujie, Luo 262 Zhao et al., ‘Identity construction on Facebook’ 205 Zhu, Xudong 86 Zolfaghari et al., ‘Internationalization of higher education’ 267 Zooniverse 45, 143