Citizenship education, truth and learning : some thoughts on professional deliberation

Through consideration of a classroom context observed as part of a PGCE student teacher’s professional development, reading as a learning activity is considered. It is proposed that ‘learning to read’ engages pupils in a critical social-cultural-political project. Through further analysis of a pupil response identified as ‘wrong’, learning in citizenship education is considered through the prism of realist and constructivist perspectives. Finally, current educational ‘good practice’ is identified as offering more than just ‘things to do in the classroom’; aspects are shown to be concordant with elements of constructivist thinking, thinking which potentially offers professionals a prism through which to examine practise. In short, this paper does not propose that teachers ‘become’ constructivist in orientation; rather it offers, as an example, how adopting various theoretical positions from which to deconstruct education can and does provide for alternative perspectives both on educational policy and personal-professional viewpoints

Unfit for practical purpose: critically examining the claims to validity of marketing management discourse

This paper critically evaluates the dominant discourse of academic marketing management which is held to be capable of structuring practice. In addressing this issue and the concerns of the marketing as practice track, this paper draws on critical theory, discourse analysis, and social constructionism. The latter involved carrying out two groups of in depth interviews with marketing managers. The latter’s practice talk is taken as the object of inquiry. As theoretical structures facilitating investigation, the Habermasian notion of validity claims and the critical framework of Minger’s (2000) are utilised, in order to discover what marketers say they do, as opposed to what the dominant discourse says they should do. Minger’s identifies four different features of a critical approach. In terms of a critique of rhetoric, findings demonstrate that normative marketing is based on a poorly reasoned argument about the nature of managerial action, where little or no reference is made to the mental models that people in organisations work within. Secondly, a critique of the tradition of marketing management demonstrates that the boundaries of the right approach have been set by a powerful group who use the dominant discourse in a fashion that furthers their own ends. Thirdly, a critique of authority illustrates that the dominant discourse is seen as the one way to conceptualise marketing, whereas practitioners actually exhibit a range of alternative perspectives. Finally, a critique of objectivity shows that marketing management is not a pre-programmed, transferable technology, but is largely constituted by human agency. As a result of these findings, this paper contends that the dominant academic marketing orthodoxy does not meet the Habermasian claim to validity and is unfit for practical purpose. It is additionally argued that the orthodoxy is damaging, as it contributes to an impoverished understanding of marketing management practice

Concluding dialogue

This is a chapter in a book with the overall description: This is a critical time in design. Concepts and practices of design are changing in response to historical developments in the modes of industrial design production and consumption. Indeed, the imperative of more sustainable development requires profound reconsideration of design today. Theoretical foundations and professional definitions are at stake, with consequences for institutions such as museums and universities as well as for future practitioners. This is ‘critical’ on many levels, from the urgent need to address societal and environmental issues to the reflexivity required to think and do design differently

Introductions

This is the introduction to the book with the overall description: This is a critical time in design. Concepts and practices of design are changing in response to historical developments in the modes of industrial design production and consumption. Indeed, the imperative of more sustainable development requires profound reconsideration of design today. Theoretical foundations and professional definitions are at stake, with consequences for institutions such as museums and universities as well as for future practitioners. This is ‘critical’ on many levels, from the urgent need to address societal and environmental issues to the reflexivity required to think and do design differently

Criticality meets sustainability: Constructing critical practices in design research for sustainability

Sustainability requires a wider awareness of the changing conditions for design today – rather than focused solely on preserving nature or conserving energy, per se, this opens up for challenging assumptions about relations between design and society and for constructing new forms of critical practice. Tracing tendencies in conceptual and (post)critical design, this paper argues for further developing the critical discourse within design today and design research as an important arena for extending the ideological and artifactual production of such discourse to users and stakeholders. In relation to my own experiences within the Static! and Switch! design research programs, these perspective are anchored in conceptual, operational, and practical examples of critical practices applied in the area of energy awareness

Difficult forms: critical practices of design and research

As a kind of 'criticism from within', conceptual and critical design inquire into what design is about – how the market operates, what is considered 'good design', and how the design and development of technology typically works. Tracing relations of conceptual and critical design to (post-)critical architecture and anti-design, we discuss a series of issues related to the operational and intellectual basis for 'critical practice', and how these might open up for a new kind of development of the conceptual and theoretical frameworks of design. Rather than prescribing a practice on the basis of theoretical considerations, these critical practices seem to build an intellectual basis for design on the basis of its own modes of operation, a kind of theoretical development that happens through, and from within, design practice and not by means of external descriptions or analyses of its practices and products

Collaborative design : managing task interdependencies and multiple perspectives

This paper focuses on two characteristics of collaborative design with respect to cooperative work: the importance of work interdependencies linked to the nature of design problems; and the fundamental function of design cooperative work arrangement which is the confrontation and combination of perspectives. These two intrinsic characteristics of the design work stress specific cooperative processes: coordination processes in order to manage task interdependencies, establishment of common ground and negotiation mechanisms in order to manage the integration of multiple perspectives in design

The Space of Reception: Framing Autonomy and Collaboration

In this paper we analyse the ideas implicit in the style of exhibition favoured by contemporary galleries and museums, and argue that unless the audience is empowered to ascribe meaning and significance to artwork through critical dialogue, the power not only of the audience is undermined but also of art. We argue that galleries and museums preside over an experience economy devoid of art, unless (i) indeterminacy is understood, (ii) the critical rather than coercive nature of art is facilitated, and (iii) the conditions for inter-subjectivity are met

A manifesto for Web Science

A clarion call for a new research agenda has been sounded, notably by Berners-Lee et al (2006a 2006b) and Hendler et al (2008) for a ‘science of decentralised information systems’ to ‘discover’ generative mechanisms, and synthesise knowledge and technology to push both forwards. Computer Science alone - focussing as it does on the engineering/technology of the web - could not deliver the ambitions of this new agenda. Equally, other disciplines implicated in Web Science might use the web to support their research, or be interested in virtual life, but they lacked a coherent or unifying mandate for engaging with the web. By calling for Web Science these pioneers opened up a new space. But this is uncharted terrain. As a technology the web is still new. While it has grown rapidly and unexpectedly we are only just beginning to think about the web as a phenomena to be studied. The proponents of Web Science had the vision to see that this new approach had to include disciplines beyond their own; it had to be greater than the sum of the parts of individual disciplines. This is a radical call to leave disciplinary silos and work collaboratively to produce something bigger and better. Moreover, it takes in the founding principles of the web and a desire for a web that is pro-human: this is a call for a science that is capable of insight and intervention to create a better world. Our paper aims to take up this challenge and suggests how we might map the Web Science terrain. We come at this from a slightly different direction to the web science pioneers and want to demonstrate how social science can, and indeed must, contribute to developing Web Science. This paper will explore the contribution of social theory and sociological concepts that shape how we engage with the web. We focus on four key aspects which seem to be central to this understanding. Firstly co-constitution, the fact that the web both shapes and is shaped by humans/society. Secondly the importance of heterogeneous networks of multiple and diverse actors (including technologies themselves) that make the web as we know it. Thirdly the significance of performativity, that the web is an unfolding, enacted practice, as people interact with http to build ‘the web’ moment by moment. Finally, drawing these ideas together we see the web we have now as an immutable mobile or temporarily stabilised network. We use these ideas to map what web science could be and to suggest how we might use sociology to understand the web. Our aim is to provoke and stimulate debate and to move beyond superficial popular psychology and sociology (which envisages engineering human behaviour) and to challenge some of the ways in which social science has engaged with technology and technical actors. To facilitate this, and taking our lead from Donna Harroway, the paper sets out a radical manifesto for web science