I was struck by this expression of John Davitt’s, at the recent Naace Conference. This and a couple of other expressions make interesting potential starting points for discussion. To be honest, I am not exactly sure what it means, and Davitt’s assertion that you will know it when you see it (see, for example, his PowerPoint presentation) is not completely reassuring.
It seems to be bound up with his observation that we seem to think in very black and white terms about technology. You can see this in any number of discussions, such as:
- Will ebook readers replace printed books?
- Are bloggers ‘better’ than journalists?
- Does the use of technology reduce workload or increase it?
In each case, both sides are correct, arguably.
Davitt seems to be suggesting that we should not reject old technology when new technology comes along. He said that we should live in both the digital and analogue worlds at the point where they meet. He also stated that the questions are in the future, and the answers are in the past.
To my mind, there is an element of soundbite-ness about all this. The statements sound profound but when you try to work out what they actually mean, they suddenly take on a very nebulous quality.
Perhaps that’s the whole point: this apparent absence of solidity (unless it is only my memory and note-taking that are at fault) makes it possible to start discussions and lines of thinking which are relevant and important to your own circumstances. What I take from it is that instead of being fixated on technology, an approach which is almost bound to ensure that you dismiss anything 'old', perhaps we should concentrate on human nature. After all, human nature doesn't change, as any reading of a decent play (Richard the Third, for example) will tell you.
Is any of this important or, indeed, relevant? I think it is. Davitt said that we started talking about personalisation before we acknowledged differences. I don't think that is actually true, but it's an interesting and useful point: before we get carried away with new ideas (or ideas which appear to be new), or new technology, perhaps we should focus on the human aspects instead.
For example, an area in which I think we have got ourselves muddled is in discussions of cyberbullying and e-safety. Does the prefix ‘cyber’ or the prefix ‘e’ add anything of value to the debate? It seems to me that there is a good chance they do the precise opposite, ie distract us from the real issues. These are bullying and child safety. When you take the prefixes away, the terms start to be of obvious concern to everybody in and associated with the school, not just the person in charge of ICT.
And this is itself an area in which the term 'subtlety and nuance' might be applied. Children are not necessarily totally safe or totally unsafe. And the bullied are not necessarily not sometimes bullies themselves.
Wordle summary:
This is reflection #12 in a series of 25 reflections on the Naace 2009 Conference.
Subscribe to article summaries