Page 171 - Education in a Digital World

158 So Where Now?

need to take place across all levels of educational technology interest and activity. In
particular, much of what has been just outlined relates to enhancing the agency of
currently less-powerful individuals and local groups of educational technology
‘receivers’ at the expense of more dominant groups and interests. Of course,
engineering any such recalibration of agency within society is a difficult task. As
Wallerstein (1986, p.335) notes, as “any structural analysis implies that an individual,
a group is caught in some web not of their own making and out of their control”.
As such, any attempt to achieve the types of change being suggested here would
require sustained interventions with those individuals and groups who are weak in
terms of their ability to exercise power, as well as sustained interventions with those
individuals and groups who are stronger. As such, for any re-alignments to occur
then action is required at all levels. As Mohan and Stokke (2000, p.249) concur,
care must be taken not to “view ‘the local’ in isolation from broader economic and
political structures”. So what aspects of top-down and bottom-up change would be
required to support the construction of more appropriate and fitting arrangements
for educational technology around the world? In the few remaining pages of this
chapter we can consider four areas of possible change – from the recasting of the
role of the state, to reimagining the role of the academic research community.

Re-orienting State Involvement in Educational Technology

Perhaps the most immediate area for change is enhancing the role that nation-states
play in engaging actively with educational technology. As described in Chapter 4,
while states continue to devote considerable amounts of time and resourcing
towards educational technology, this takes place on an ultimately uncommitted
basis. Beyond the symbolic policy statements and directing of funding, most nation
states remain noticeably un-involved in educational technology arrangements
‘on the ground’. As Leonard Waks (2011) argues, states have little impetus to get
involved in the use of technology in education, beyond ensuring the maintenance
of state control and state legitimacy. Yet it could be argued (perhaps naïvely)
that nation states have a duty to remain involved actively at all stages of educational
technology implementation and use. In particular, it would seem desirable that
nation states continue to work on behalf of disadvantaged and peripheral popula-
tions long after the policy statements have been announced and the funding dis-
pensed. As Divya McMillin (2007, p.190) reasons, “the nation-state is a crucial
entity to ensure basic human rights, when it works as it is supposed to”.
So how could nation states (assuming that they are working as they are supposed to)
work more effectively as long-term systems of support and social welfare where
educational technology is concerned? One possible role is the nation state acting to
mediate and adapt ‘incoming’ forms of educational technology. We have seen
throughout this book that the local context is key to educational technology initiatives
being implemented effectively. It is here, then, that national governments can be seen
to have a vital role to play as local interpreters and ‘cleansers’ of incoming global