Page 174 - Education in a Digital World

So Where Now? 161

As this argument implies, such moves beyond the market could perhaps be achieved
through the increased involvement of transnational corporations in open-source and
community-led actions. It could well be, for instance, that the imperatives of what
Nissenbaum (2004, p.201) terms the “commercial marketplace and supporting
institution of private property” could be reduced if companies were encouraged to
view the field of educational technology not as a site of immediate profit-making,
but as a site to exercise genuine corporate social responsibility. This would shift the
basis for making decisions away from concerns of what profits can be gleaned from
educational technology ‘customers’. Instead, firms would be motivated by the
longer-term societal and educational consequences of their activities. Although
idealistic, these suggestions certainly begin to address the need for those in non-
profit positions to work with industry and corporate actors. As Michael Apple
(2007) argues, those seeking to engineer fairer forms of education provision should
give serious consideration to the possibility of finding spaces where it is possible to
use rather than reject dominant organisations such as IT corporations. From this
perspective, we should at least consider the possibility of thinking strategically about
the possibilities of interrupting the dominant priorities and practices of commercial
IT firms and steering them towards social democratic educational goals.

Expanding the Publics of Educational Technology

Aside from the sustained re-engagement of state, private and commercial interests,
there is also a clear need to involve more closely all of the potential ‘publics’ of
education and technology – first by raising mutual awareness, and then by increasing
dialogue and debate. These concerns are linked to the interest being shown elsewhere
in the fields of ‘critical participative democracy’ and ‘participatory politics’. These
areas are concerned with enhancing citizens’ participation in making decisions that
affect their lives, especially with regard to public policy (Barber 2003). In this
respect, these fields of work start from an acknowledgement that dialogue amongst
citizens is essential for the democratic improvement of any area of society (Price
2009). As such, it would seem sensible – if not desirable – that any expert decisions
about educational technology should take place within the context of broader
public deliberation and scrutiny leading to the production of more robust and
legitimate decisions. This would require the genuine inclusion of the perspectives
and interests of disinterested ‘lay-citizens’ at all stages of educational technology
implementation.
Encouraging wider debate and engagement amongst non-expert groups about
educational technology is no easy task. At present, education and technology is
simply not a topic that many people talk openly about, let alone get impassioned or
angry over. However, there are a number of participative democratic mechanisms
that may be used to increase the range of people who are able to contribute to the
expert debates that shape educational technology. This is particularly important with
regard to the ‘political’ phases of debates about education and technology, as distinct