This week, I saw David Gauntlett ’s status update on Facebook linking to the announcement of a 2-day Course on the Use of Creative Methods in Social Research, to be held on 10th and 11th December 2009 at City University in London, supported by the ESRC.

There is a low fee for post-graduate students and a good chance this will turn into a rather interdisciplinary event. I have attended a few workshops and conferences held or organised by David and they have all been not just very valuable but also great fun – so highly recommended to email the form and secure a place, all further details are here.

The very interesting looking conference Affective fabrics of digital cultures: feelings,technologies, politics is going to take place on 3-4 June 2010 at the University of Manchester. Plenary speakers are Una Chung (Sarah Lawrence College), Patricia Clough (Queens College, CUNY), Anne-Marie Fortier (Lancaster University), Melissa Gregg (The University of Sydney), Athina Karatzogianni (The University of Hull) and Luciana Parisi (Goldsmith, University of London). Organiser is – adored friend of mine – Adi Kuntsman (RICC, The University of Manchester). Details of the international 2-day conference are available here and below:
Bringing together contributions from the fields of sociology, media and cultural studies, arts, politics and science and technology studies, the conference will engage with the following Qs:

• How does affect work in on-line networks and digital assemblages? What are the affective regimes of on-line sociality?
• What kind of perceptions, sensations, affective movements and public feelings emerge in our highly mediated and digitalised environments?
• What is the cybertouch of war, violence, terror?
• What are the structures of feeling that operate in the digitalised everyday and computerised ordinary?
• How can we theorise psycho-political formations of nation, race, empire, population and generation in the age of digital reproduction, mediated visions and globalised communication technologies?
• How do digital cultures shape our political horizons of fear, anxiety, mourning, hate, hope?

Submission of abstracts for individual papers or round tables are invited, alternative presentation formats are welcome. Abstracts (300 words for individual papers, 500 words for round tables) are due by 1st Feb 2010, candidate notification by 15 Mar 2010. Selected papers will be considered for post-conference publication.

The evaluation grid below is based on a comparison between 2 ePortfolio systems I have selected on the EduTools website where further systems can be examined. The user I had in mind while working through the provided result (which has been heavily edited and reduced for my purposes) is a student with a work history who is about completing a first degree which s/he hopes will lead to a career change.

The user believes an ePortfolio accessible to prospective employers will provide an advantage in the current competitive market. S/he also thinks an ePortfolio that is sustainable and flexible may come in handy at a later stage when artefacts will be added in order to highlight CPD (Continued Professional Development). As s/he is playing with the thought to work for some time in sunny Spain s/he also looks for options that take into account different national requirements.

You find the complete PPT below and for download on Slideshare.

This short paper discusses ethical issues as embedded in a TV reality show format that provides the [ill-designed] imagined setting for a social psychology-informed research project looking at group dynamics and performance under stress. The core principles of informed consent, briefing and debriefing, backup, coercion and incentives are applied to the experiment.
You find the PDF below and for download on Slideshare where you can also get a presentation transcript. Creative Commons Licence applies, attribute please. And if you like it: quote, embed – and question it :)

Below are the findings of a quick research I have undertaken on [additional] financial resources available for disabled students in preparation for an essay which is going to discuss barriers and accessibilities in Higher Education. The differences among nations are considerable when it comes to eligibility for such funding – many funding bodies apply a medical model of disability (as opposed to a charity model or a social model for instance) that excludes multiple or temporary disabilities.

The summary is available on Slideshare.

This year’s annual conference of the Association of Internet Researchers (AoIR) Internet Research 10.0- Internet: Critical will be held 7-10 October 2009 in Milwaukee, WI, USA. I will be attending the preconference workshop on Multidisciplinary Internet Research which participants were asked to prepare for. The preparation covered a list of [early-stage] research questions, theoretical and methodological frameworks and key literature drawn upon in the reflection on interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary research design.

The workshop organisers have set up an already quite comprehensive wiki which is available on sociotech.net and contains my summary that is also available on Slideshare where you will be able to find a transcript of the 2-pages PDF. The wiki will be updated in due course, so keep watching if that field interests you.

The [UK] Assurance Agency (QAA) defines Personal Development Planning (PDP) as

a structured and supported process undertaken by an individual to reflect upon their own learning, performance and/or achievement and to plan for their personal, educational and career development.

Ideally, an ePortfolio would help a range of users to identity and manage learning progress: the learner her/himself, potential colleagues and employers, teachers/lecturers, administrators, course/programme managers in educational institutions. Below I have embedded the discussion which is also available on
Scribd

Professional Development Planning (PDP) is driven by a range of different reasons which are related to wider pedagogical, technical, and corporate discourses. The Lifelong Learning Agenda has become increasingly dominant and shaped the supportive use of ePortfolios which can provide evidence for skills and achievements. The electronic transfer of such data and increasingly mobile students and employees in a gloablised world are among the push factors recognised in nation’s driving forces at the stage when they started setting up their PDP frameworks. My summary of key drivers for the UK, the USA and Europe is also available for download on Slideshare.

These reflections relate to some work in the post-graduate eLearning professional course we started doing on the course wiki. We have been trying to collate the various policy drivers which push the debate in the UK, US and Europe as well as other countries towards the adoption of ePortfolio systems. The work has been marked by some restrictions imposed by the Moodle set-up which currently does not allow students to start new subjects in the forums and which meant to jump straight into wiki authoring without first debating with peers. This is based on the rather rigid sticking to the timetable – which may change in due course and the Moodle upgrade next week, as announced today.

So basically, it was pretty straightforward, gathering the data, doing a bit of research on the current state of affairs. I got stuck at some point when I reflected on my role (imagined or real) in relation to the Framework for Personal Professional Development.

We were asked to consider the completed template as

• (i) evidence of our department in the technology competency area (because it is about ePortfolios)
• (ii) whether it could also be evidence of our proactivity (because you have created it collaboratively)? and
• (iii) which areas of the framework we would personally consider the most relevant.

Clearly, different weight is given to the varying aspects in different situations. Imagine an unemployed person who is studying the course, someone who is a researcher – or someone who is retired and just studying out of interest. Why ‘the department’ was mentioned is equally unclear – but it made me think about the imagined audiences the course authors must have had in mind – and how I apply the terms ‘eLearning’ and ‘professional’ to myself: I rather de-contextualise them and see them less tightly and exclusively linked to the field of education and educators.

The framework does seem to offer a fairly holistic range of significant aspects – but the column proactivity raises questions. Just because you engage in a collaborative task after being prompted to do so, it does not provide evidence for your proactivity. At least not in the age of web 2.0. So going further, I start questioning the framework – what sort of people had the developers/architects in mind when they designed it?

Clearly not those who shape the practices and policies that set the standards for technologies, research and communication. Let’s say, I am a researcher who is interested in informal learning and how engaging in affinity spaces (c.f. Henry Jenkins for instance) contributes to some of the skills and competencies mentioned in the framework. Would I be able to make use of pieces of work not generated within the context of the course? Would these pieces be validated by this particular framework? Subsequently, would I review my decision to argue that technology-related competencies are the most relevant ones in favour of communication-related skills or would I perhaps argue that a combination of skills depending on the audience/recipient is most important – at a certain point in time, in a certain cultural context. Now, this would mean to face relativism as a dilemma – but on the other hand, not questioning the framework itself would mean to comply with an absolutist approach in this case.

Here are my 1-sentence definitions and notions around accessibility:

How would you define ‘accessibility’?
Access marked by non-barriers in technical, social and navigational terms as well as the absence of dangers, difficulties and fears.

Who do you think is responsible for accessibility?
All stakeholders, including society as a whole; more precisely, the engineers/architects of knowledge (educators/lecturers/researchers), management, designers, administrators, learners, regulators, quality assurance auditors, financing bodies, marketing agencies, publishers.

What do you understand by accessibility in an educational context?
Infrastructure, hardware, software, applications and content that is accessible without barriers due to physical, technical, design-related restrictions or settings which prevent learners from accessing the spaces in question.

What do you understand by accessibility in the context of online learning?
Online Learning spaces that offer access to web-based learning content which also take into account that individual settings and requirements differ and restrictions can be imposed by hardware, software, applications, corporate settings as well as country settings.

Why is accessibility a concern today in your context or country?
Predominantly, due to EU/UK/German legislation and subsequent changes of social practices and discourses, i.e. social, technical, financial as well as legal/policy-related factors changed and developed towards a new attitude.

And some reflections on the application of the concept:
Even though, this course is all about accessibility, I just notice it is actually more restrictive than any other OU courses I have studied so far. It asks me to post material on my blog, i.e. publish material to the public, and hence interfere with my personal notion of what should be published on my blog and what remains private. I am also asked to work according to a schedule that does not allow any flexibility – supposed, I want to gain some marks for online collaboration and wiki-authoring which means I can neither work ahead nor fall behind. Usually, the key advantage of online education is exactly this kind of flexibility in cases of commitments other than studies, such as work load, conferences, travel etc.

On top of this, a limited range of only a few weeks’ study material is accessible in the learning space, making it impossible to skim through all the material and grasp the wider ideas. So it goes, bite by bite – independent learning in an online course? We need to develop this further, I feel, preferably in a collaborative manner between disabled students and non-disabled students, educators, administrators and managing staff – as well as the web designers. However, so far I wasn’t asked to provide any feedback – here, my blog comes in handy and I feel I can give myself a voice.

If accessibility is supposed to be more than ‘just’ a legal obligation, but a lived practice, I would also suggest to make transcripts available in addition to video material to be watched by learners. Not only because some students might be visually impaired but also because non-disabled students may not be equipped with the technological gadgets or run older computers etc. Can assistive technology actually stiffle learners and impose new restrictions due to technological limitations, resulting in new and additional problems, hence, make it actually less accessible than in hardcopy/conventional formats?