The dark mirror of capital: on post-neoliberal formations and the future of education

Means, Alexander J.; Slater, Graham

doi:10.1080/01596306.2019.1569876

Cited by 10 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The fixation on technological solutions (Juan, 2021) may result in a technological “euphoria” and “collective hypnosis” (Prato & Sonkin, 2018, p. 3), Techno‐solutionism “is impervious to its own failures because its appeal is less premised on actual results and more on their charisma” (Juan, 2021, p. 4, referring to the work of Ames, ; also see Black, 2021). (Also see the discussion by Means and Slater (2019)).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 95%

The answer is (not only) technological: Considering student data privacy in learning analytics

Prinsloo

Slade

Khalil

2022

Brit J Educational Tech

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Evidence shows that appropriate use of technology in education has the potential to increase the effectiveness of, eg, teaching, learning and student support. There is also evidence that technology can introduce new problems and ethical issues, eg, student privacy. This article maps some limitations of technological approaches that ensure student data privacy in learning analytics from a critical data studies (CDS) perspective. In this conceptual article, we map the claims, grounds and warrants of technological solutions to maintaining student data privacy in learning analytics. Our findings suggest that many technological solutions are based on assumptions, such as that individuals have control over their data (‘data as commodity’), which can be exchanged under agreed conditions, or that individuals embrace their personal data privacy as a human right to be respected and protected. Regulating student data privacy in the context of learning analytics through technology mostly depends on institutional data governance, consent, data security and accountability. We consider alternative approaches to viewing (student) data privacy, such as contextual integrity; data privacy as ontological; group privacy; and indigenous understandings of privacy. Such perspectives destabilise many assumptions informing technological solutions, including privacy enhancing technology (PET). What is already known about this topic Various actors (including those in higher education) have access to and collect, use and analyse greater volumes of personal (student) data, with finer granularity, increasingly from multiplatforms and data sources. There is growing awareness and concern about individual (student) privacy. Privacy enhancing technologies (PETs) offer a range of solutions to individuals to protect their data privacy. What this paper adds A review of the assumption that technology provides adequate or complete solutions for ensuring individual data privacy. A mapping of five alternative understandings of personal data privacy and its implications for technological solutions. Consideration of implications for the protection of student privacy in learning analytics. Implications for practice and/or policy Student data privacy is not only a technological problem to be solved but should also be understood as a social problem. The use of PETs offers some solutions for data privacy in learning analytics. Strategies to protect student data privacy should include student agency, literacy and a whole‐system approach.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 95%

The answer is (not only) technological: Considering student data privacy in learning analytics

Prinsloo

Slade

Khalil

2022

Brit J Educational Tech

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…What I am suggesting is that it is in fact these same platforms themselves that are being elevated, while the content and users of these platforms are being effaced. What some call the “platformization” of education ( Hillman et al, 2020 ) entails its disappearance ( Means and Slater, 2019 ).…”

Section: “No Mere Means”mentioning

confidence: 99%

Educational futures after COVID-19: Big tech and pandemic profiteering versus education for democracy

Norris

2022

Policy Futures in Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To address the dramatic economic contraction brought on by the global pandemic, governments at all levels have taken on tremendous debt in order to provide economic stability and prevent a more dramatic collapse. It is likely that, as the initial phase of the pandemic passes, familiar neoliberal austerity claims about the necessity to trim education budgets will gain greater force and acceptance. However, I suggest that these neoliberal policies demand sacrifices of the wrong constituency: Given that Big Tech has amassed huge sums of money over the course of the pandemic, how is it morally justifiable that tech companies benefit from the pandemic while educational institutions shoulder the financial fallout of pandemic government spending? In this paper, I first outline how Big Tech profits from the education sector during the pandemic even as it undermines the democratic function of education in doing so. I then situate these more specific critiques within a broader consideration of the role technology plays in undermining a democratic society. In conclusion, I argue that a pandemic profiteering tax for Big Tech represents the best short-term solution to get ahead of the “austerity curve” and ensure that the COVID-19 crisis serves as an opportunity to deepen our commitments to promoting the democratic function education. Without such commitments, the pandemic will become the turning point at which Big Tech effectively coopts public education for its own ends, to the detriment of democracy. My underlying claim is that technology is in conflict with both democracy and education. This runs against the widespread notion that technology will help promote learning, and that technology helps inform and connect people and therefore helps promote democracy. In what follows I dispel such notions.

show abstract

“…Despite its particularities, the pandemic has intensified an already established sense of collective disorientation within an emerging post-neoliberal order (see Means & Slater 2019). In the political economic register, the pandemic has accelerated patterns of oligarchic plunder and systemic crisis within capitalism.…”

Section: The Political Economy Of Post-neoliberalism and The Cultural Politics Of Disorientationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Collective disorientation in the pandemic conjuncture

Means

Slater

2021

Cultural Studies

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The dark mirror of capital: on post-neoliberal formations and the future of education

Cited by 10 publications

References 19 publications

The answer is (not only) technological: Considering student data privacy in learning analytics

The answer is (not only) technological: Considering student data privacy in learning analytics

Educational futures after COVID-19: Big tech and pandemic profiteering versus education for democracy

Collective disorientation in the pandemic conjuncture

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About