Heterotopia in Network-Connected Education
Heterotopia in Network-Connected Education
A Synthesis Paper
Dwight S. Alipio
Philippine Normal University – North Luzon
1
Heterotopia in Network-Connected Education
Table of Contents
Introduction ……………………………………………………………………………… 3
Review of Related Literature …………………………………………………………… 5
The ‘dark’ or ‘shadow’ side of Participation ………………………………….. 5
The ‘Tyranny’ of Participation ………………………………………………… 8
What You Learned ………………………………………………………………………. 10
Future Research Options ………………………………………………………………... 12
References ………………………………………………………………………………... 13
2
Heterotopia in Network-Connected Education
3
Introduction
The ideologies that encompass the theory and concept of networked learning (NL) have
shifted from a stronger focus on networked technologies to boost ties among students and
resources (Goodyear et al 2004) to a growing reliance on ‘collaboration as a major pattern of
interpersonal relationship within an educational setting' (McConnell 2001), and also networking
people and resources. Collaboration via participation in learning environments has come to be
regarded as a key feature of network learning from the standpoint of learning. ‘The promise of
interconnected communication and computation resources for collaborative work and communitybuilding is plausible (Mynatt et al 2002). The value placed on collaboration within NL seems to
have become universal, and it is recurrently regarded as undeniably favorable. Collaborative
learning, and maybe more explicitly participation in education, are inextricably intertwined to
liberatory methods of learning that, in the culture of Freire and other fundamental scholars, adhere
to a pedagogy of ‘emancipation' bolstered by discourse and rational thought. An incurious
perspective of participation and emancipatory frameworks, on the other hand, can give rise to a
utopian ideal that fails to recognize what some researchers have known to as the "dark side" of
critical pedagogy and participation (Reynolds 2000, Brookfield, 2006). Ellsworth (2004)
demonstrated that, upon careful scrutiny, 'emancipatory' educational approaches that integrate
participation and collaborative dialogue uncovered another depth: one which is not always
liberating and advantageous, as a more utopian viewpoint would claim, but instead an education
approach that can be observed as suppressing and fascistic. These authors contend that inadvertent
Heterotopia in Network-Connected Education
4
supremacy and control can occur in participatory learning, particularly when tutors and/or
participants act unreflectively.
In this paper, we expand on the review of the dark side of participation by examining how
participation without introspection has the possibility to be not only restrictive, but also to build
into a type of majority tyrannical rule. We do not mean to imply that collaboration and participation
are ineffectual or counterproductive ways of learning. On the contrary, we believe that
participation in learning is very efficacious from a pedagogical standpoint. Even so, participation
in learning would be neither straightforward nor uncomplicated, and it is asserted that we must
shift from an unrealistic utopian perspective of collaborative participation to one which recognizes
involvement, even when done analytically, is not without troubles and distress. It is also implied
that these issues add up to the opportunity for learning.
We explore the idea of digital environments with the potency to be heterotopia learning
spaces by drawing on Foucauldian notions of heterotopia spaces (Foucault, 1967). That is, areas
that can be characterized and portrayed by the system of relationships that exist within them, but
which remain ajar, ambiguous, and paradoxical places where dysfunction and discomfort can be
anticipated. On the other side, there are areas that take us out of ourselves, disrupt our presumptions
of ourselves, and permit us to envision and desire stuffs in new ways. They do not, even then, grant
any remedy or comfort, as Johnson (2006) discusses, and thus it is recommended that by
necessitating students to participate in such areas, we are imposing challenging needs or
demands on them and ourselves, requiring an extent of discernment and intersubjectivity on the
Heterotopia in Network-Connected Education
5
part of both students and staff. And as we demonstrate the possibility for participation tyranny
based on a shared belief in a utopian perspective of involvement that can spring up or overtake and
refuse to engage with the dark, or usually called, the shadow side of participation, i.e. that which
is not obviously evident or noticeable to either participants or staff. It also have gleaned that some
participants were marginalized as a result of their attunement to a rather utopian discussion of
community.
Review of Related Literature
The ‘dark’ or ‘shadow’ side of Participation
The concept of a "dark side" to participation is affiliated with Brookfield's work, who came
up with the concept. Giving attention to the dark side, according to Brookfield, frequently entails
defying or challenging widely accepted interpretations as to what is proceeding on in educational
settings. In his 1994 study, he claims that by knowing to interrogate broadly believed assumptions
as ‘common sense,' to take alternative status on social and political systems, and to give heed to
‘hegemonic dimensions of... practice and theory,' participants felt a sense of independence and
inclusivity (2006: 204 – 205). Conversely, it became clear during his phenomenographic research
that they also felt strong sense of isolation not just inside but even outside of their educational
environment. Brookfield outlined five themes that epitomize the "dark side" of critical reflection:
impostorship (feeling unworthy to participate in critical thinking), roadrunning (incremental
struggles with new modes of thought), community (support for those engaged in the critical
Heterotopia in Network-Connected Education
6
process), as well as "cultural suicide" and a sense of "lost innocence" as a result of the myriad of
new ideas that replaces old certainties, as well as the eventual feeling of alienation and exclusion
inside the subject's established communities, whose cultural values appear unaffected by critical
thought.
Michael Reynolds expands on Brookfield's concept of the "dark side of critical pedagogy,"
using this to explain the repercussions that await those who participate in the process of critical
analysis. This process, he writes, can be "disturbing, emotionally and mentally... an origin of
disturbance at home and in the workplace," putting one's job or even life in danger (2006: 178).
This, according to Reynolds, exemplifies Brookfield's concept of the "dark side" of reflexivity and
participation. However, it is worthwhile to examine how we use the term "dark side": then again,
a dark side may imply the existence of a light (enlightened) side. Brookfield's use of such a term,
rather than referencing a binary politics about what is "positive" and "negative" in teaching and
learning, implies a much more subtle interpretation of instructional interplay.
This presupposes that paying much attention to the dark side frequently entails defying or
challenging widely known interpretations of what is proceeding on in educational settings. This
implies that the "dark side" is more than just what is "bad" or needs to be eradicated in participatory
learning. Instead, consider the dark side to be the non - conscious or shadow side: that which we
are completely ignorant of at the moment, but which sustains into and structures the forms of
communication that are feasible in any given area at any given point in time.
Heterotopia in Network-Connected Education
7
By re-framing the concept of the "dark side" as the "shadow side," it is possible to account
for such role of power dynamics in participatory learning quite sufficiently. While Reynolds and
Brookfield demonstrate well the potential for human beings to encounter the dark side of critical
pedagogy, they do not concentrate on the micro social structures and frequently unchallenged
suppositions or generalization integrated in participatory strategies. For this, we turn on Cooke and
Kothari's concept of "participation as the new tyranny," which suggests that, without reflexivity
on the operations of participation instituted, it is easy to find examples of participation that are
perceived as anything else but liberatory by some people involved and become (however
unknowingly) perceived as an oppressive or unreasonable exercise of supremacy by others.
As a result, we use the term shadow side not to imply that certain modes of interaction and
discourse are inherently harmful, but to reflect the fact that education does not occur in separable
areas distinct from daily life; rather, the educational area is constructed by the unconscious, the
messy, and the evolving aspects of mental and social life. As a result, the shadow side pertains to
what is concealed, stifled, or disregarded as ‘irrelevant' in learning experiences.
An important element of critical reflection is to be attentive to the shadow side of learning, not in
order to eliminate it but in order to recognise that learning is not necessarily always a comfortable
process, and that participation does not simply ‘happen’. An crucial component of critical analysis
is paying attention to the shadow side of education, not to abolish it, but to recognize that studying
is not always a cozy activity, and that participation does not just ‘happen.'
Heterotopia in Network-Connected Education
8
The ‘Tyranny’ of Participation
Cooke and Kothari (2001) dwell on participatory development within disadvantaged
impoverished regions, in which the vast objective is to maximize the engagement of economically
or socially marginalized folks in making decisions over their own lives, and to demonstrate how
activities and mechanisms of participation (such as knowledge sharing and discussing power
dynamics) can help to achieve this. Their interpretation vividly demonstrates how troublesome a
simplistic and seemingly utopian model of participation can be in exercise. Cooke and Kothari, in
particular, exemplify the regularity to wherein there is often an ubiquitous naivety regarding the
intricacies of power and control relations in participation. They describe tyranny as “the
illegitimate and/or unjust exercise of power” (2001), and they classify 3 types this can take in
practice: tyranny of decision making and control – where existing legitimate decision making
methods are overridden; tyranny of the group, where the group dynamic leads to participatory
decisions that reinforce the interests of the powerful; and tyranny of methodology.
Tyranny is thus not always brought out by one person intentionally wielding power above
others. Rather, it is the result of often subconscious forces by which power is enforced in
educational settings: that is, it is the 'ideal' of participation itself, when this is acknowledged in
rather rigid and myopic ways that have the possibilities to be tyrannical. In this context, tyranny is
associated with the concept of utopia.
Heterotopia in Network-Connected Education
9
However, as Cornwall (2004) comments in ‘Participation; From Tyranny to
Transformation?:
‘For no matter how equitable the intentions that inform the creation of an arena for
participation might be, existing relationships cannot be simply left at its boundary, rather
the traces of these relationships and of previous experiences in other spaces continue to
exert and influence on what is said, and what is sayable, within any given space’ (p80)
She claims, after Foucault, that ‘space’ is fundamental in any exercise of power. As
Cornwall also points out spaces are defined by those invited in to them as well as those doing the
inviting and someone who is voluble and assertive in one setting may be silenced in another. She
goes on to comment that having the ability to exercise one’s voice requires ‘more than having the
nerve and skills to speak’ or even ensuring everyone has an opportunity to speak and asserting the
need to listen. Not least because;
‘Resisting discursive closure, reframing what counts as knowledge and articulating
alternatives, especially in the face of incommensurate knowledge systems, requires more
than simply seeking to allow everyone to speak and asserting the need to listen’ (p84).
Earlier in this paper, an extremely naive community framework that we refer to as 'utopian'
is discussed. We are not using this word to disregard extremely optimistic ideologies; rather, we
Heterotopia in Network-Connected Education
10
begin to see that appreciating those ideals is the only way to connect with the shadow side of
participatory learning. When accosted in this manner, participation thus becomes utopian
initiative, displaying a concept under which all participants should be seen to adhere. One such
utopian perception is thus performative, in the sense that a group identity emerges through deeds,
behaviors, and speech acts that institute a belief in these common values: inability to do so results
in rejection from the group. This is concisely its limitation: utopia is always oriented toward the
formation of an ideal future or society, and thus is always emblazoned with its own collapse,
because that future is, by meaning, yet to be realized. Since utopia has always been in a distinct
(spatiotemporal) spot which is yet to be obtained, utopian thinking could be seen as exposing
anxieties of what is sorely missing in the current situation: in other words, it denotes both a group's
hopes and fears. A detailed scrutiny of utopian ideas may then unveil the shadow or hidden side
of a community or group, illuminating what that society cannot admit of itself as.
What You Learned
Dealing with a system that is composed of many components or subcomponents is
prevalent in scientific disciplines. The majority of us study system elements and their facets by
segmenting and classifying them, resulting in a boundless specialization tendency. From this, I
have gleaned that a synthesis, or I would say a grand synthesis, allows the extraction and
agglomeration of divergent findings into an unified understanding of the issue as a whole at a
certain point during the progression of a scientific field. Synthesis really enables us to assess and
validate hypotheses, gain a better understanding of core aspects, and plan future research projects.
Heterotopia in Network-Connected Education
11
Evidently, when a discipline realizes in synthesis, it can make significant, often epoch-making
headway, resulting in increased understanding of the system under study.
This synthesis paper has considerably made me realize the importance of integration of
established knowledge and research findings relevant to an issue. Through the integration process,
I have gleaned that the goal of synthesis is to significantly boost the generality, relevance, and
enforceability of those study results and to gain new knowledge. I also have realized that a
synthesis is elevated as a solution to the issue of 'information overload,' producing knowledge that
advance our understanding and awareness of problems and distill noteworthy evidence for
decision-making.
However, despite the fact that synthesis efforts are becoming more prominent in the
science and policy landscape, we know very little about the effects such initiatives and
interventions have on studies, policy, and practice, as well as the assertions and
generalizations that encompass how they will spur to reform. Because of this, I have realized the
need for a framework for analyzing the theoretical, strategic, instrumental, and network-based
policy implications of research synthesis.
Finally, I have apprehended that a synthesis has diverse impacts on research, policy, and
practice, including developing new understandings of issues, forming new networks, and making
a contribution to policy and practice adjustments. These effects have been observed in a variety of
settings, synthesis methods, assumptions, and operational processes. This then implies that there
Heterotopia in Network-Connected Education
12
is no one-size-fits-all approach to designing research synthesis or a synthesis paper for impact, but
rather the approach must be tailored to the context of intended use.
Future Research Options
Through the lens of learner practices within sociotechnical assemblages, I would like to
investigate the implications of learners' and educators' appropriation of Social Networking Sites
(SNS) for informal open, networked, and connected learning. In addition, I'd like to investigate the
effects of an advocacy approach in open, networked, and connected learning; the mutuality of
openness and closure; time-space online; connective and dis-connective practices, and
heterotopias.
I also want to evaluate heterotopias, or unsettling fragmentary places, in open practice
through two student vignettes, one in a social context and the other in a research context. Finally,
while heterotopias are important for open, networked, and connected learning, they can be difficult
to achieve, which is why I believe disconnective practice can be beneficial. Given that networks
crave connection while resisting our scrutiny, I believe that learners must be able to practice both
disconnection and connection, as well as be able and prepared to question the logic of SNS and
institutional systems.
Heterotopia in Network-Connected Education
13
References
Brookfield, S (2006) Tales from the Dark Side: a phenomenography of adult critical reflection,
International Journal of Lifelong Education 13 (3), 203-218
Cooke, B. and Kothari, U. (2001) Participation: The New Tyranny? London: Zed Books.
Cornwall, A. (2004) Spaces for transformation? Reflections on issues of power and difference in
participation in development, in Hicky, S and Mohna, G. (eds) Participation; From Tyranny
to Transformation, London, Zed books.
Ellsworth E. (2004) Why doesn't this feel empowering? Working through the repressive myths of
critical pedagogy, Harvard Educational Review 59 pp. 297–324.
Foucault, M (1986) ‘Of Other Spaces,’ Diacritics 16, 22-27.
Goodyear, P., Banks, S., Hodgson, V., & McConnell, D. (Eds.). (2004). Advances in research on
networked learning. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Johnson, P. (2006) ‘Unravelling Foucault’s “Different Spaces”’, History of the Human Sciences
19 (4), 75 - 90.
McConnell, D. (2001) Guest Editorial: Networked Learning. Journal of Computer Assisted
Learning Vol 15 (3) 177 – 178
Heterotopia in Network-Connected Education
14
Mynatt, D.M., O’Day, V.L, Adler, A, & Ito, M. (2002) Networked communities: something old,
something new, something borrowed… Computer Supported Cooperative Work: The
Journal Collaborative Computing 7, pp. 123-156.
Reynolds, M. (2000) Grasping the Nettle: Possibilities and Pitfalls of a Critical Management
Pedagogy, British Journal of Management, 10 (2), 171-184.