Jacks Blag

Web2.0 and the Culture of Tertiary Education.

Our final project for Enterprise 2.0 is to create a business proposal for implementing web2.0 in the QUT library. This is paralleling an actual project being performed by this faculty. Likewise, I know UQ is also currently looking at how to incorporate Web2.0 into their university systems. Web2.0 could be extremely valuable to an institution. A university very trade is knowledge and Ideas and one of  Web2.0′s key benefits is the capture and sharing of this knowledge. Also, students teaching each other is bloody cheap.

QUT library currently employs a little of the technology behind Web2.0. They are, however, using it all in a web1.0 capacity; that is in a centrally managed manner. A fundamental concept behind Web2.0 is that you have a service that becomes better the more people use it;  as more people contribute, create and link content. The QUT library is still centrally managed, A site, page or service is only as good as the staff member assigned to it.

The problem that must be overcome for Web2.0 to be successfully employed within in a university environment is one of culture and competition. Students in a university are in direct competition and their only tools are knowledge and understanding. Students in the same subject must compete within one-another to set themselves apart. Even if they are not being explicitly bell-curved, there is the assumption that one must still do something to separate themselves from their peers.

Layered over this is the extremely individualised focus of secondary and tertiary education in Australia. The education process is set-up as your responsibility for your education. I’m not suggesting that this is wrong, but the culture in education (even amongst friends) is on ‘Me’. The culture within highschool and then even more so in university is incredibly self-centred. Not only this (the culture at an undergrad level at least) is insular. As far as we are concerned, we are competing only against our immediate peers.

What we have is a two strong factors standing in the way of Web2.0 collaboration. Self-Centred individuals in perceived direct competition. Why would a student share a valuable resource, a valuable reference article, for a project if they are hoping to use this to set themselves apart. Knowledge, research, and understanding are central to success; what immediate benefit is can there be in a competitor raising the standard of the group with which they are being judged against.

Now, I am strongly of the opinion that competition alone is not enough to prevent collaboration. I have an example with which to illustrate this. I will use this as a vehicle to explore the major point of this post; culture. I sail competitively in a social environment. This is done at a club and national level. Like the university student I am in direct competition with my peers. Like the university student knowledge and understanding are critical to setting myself apart, they are the only path to success. Unlike the university however,  my sailing experiences are completely collaborative. People are eager and willing to share their knowledge, share what helps their success. I believe there are three very key factors that drive this difference.

Firstly. There is strong bonding between individuals; even amongst a group of unfamiliar sailors. We are in this boat (pun intended) together and thus share a strong affinity for our competitors. This is in stark contrast to the self-centred student, passing through university solely interested in their own goals.

Secondly. The group is not insular. A group of competitors are keenly aware that the group as a whole is part of a larger sailing world. There are always more talented more competitive groups. Although you may not be competing against them today, one day you may be. This is always in your mind. University, however, tends to get viewed by its participants as a closed group. If you are at the top of  the class then you cannot get higher. There is no grander competition and thus there is not sense in fostering a more competitive environment. This is of course hogwash, the grander competition is employment and life. I am talking about the prevailing culture. The culture of the university does not support a ‘common good’ or a view of arrogated success of the institution.

Finally, in sailing, enjoyment is almost entirely dependant on the competition itself. The closer the race the more enjoyable it is. Again, this is in stark contrast. The focus too is on self improvement, we push other to help push ourselves. University is a means to an end. A loop that an individual must pass through to move onto the next step. The prevailing culture does not derive satisfaction from competition, it is about reaching then end as easily as possible and in the highest final position. The culture of a university, at a student level, is not about self improvement. It is about getting the piece of paper you need to get a job. Somewhere along the line, the quest for knowledge has been replaced with a quest for marks and degrees. It is no longer about the process, but about the outcome.

These three factors drive against the concepts behind internal collaboration and Web2.0.

Now, I’d like to make an interesting observation. High school (and its has been a while), for most, is the direct precursor to University. One participate in them sequentially. In Queensland individuals are ranked in a school, like university. But then Schools are ranked against each other in the QCS ( Queensland Core Skills) exam. High-school has a very strong impetus for the cultural change towards supporting Web2.0 collaboration.

The very same principles apply in University. My Bach of Business and Information Technology will only be as good as the QUT paper it is printed on. But, sadly, the prevailing culture of the organisation does not place the responsibility of the reputation of the organisation in the hands of the individual. If it did; despite the direct competition, despite the lack of enjoyment derived the process, Web2.0 could flourish.

If the culture was reversed. It the focus was placed back on the quest knowledge for understanding and away from the end goal; the result. Then Web2.0 could be more favourably viewed by students as something they wish to actively contribute to.

Better yet, both cultural changes could be made.

In summary: The culture of a university is outcome based, not processes based. On top of this the student is self focused, they feel no responsibility or benefit in raising the standard of the whole. These two cultural factors stand heavily in the way of Web2.0.

In comment: I have been toying with this thesis for a while. But I have been reluctant to post it up because I plan to address it in my business proposal and did not want to give away my ideas. I then realised that I was proving my very own point.

2 Comments so far
Leave a comment