Today we have the privilege to publish a blog post by Juha Suoranta, Marko Teräs & Hanna Teräs from the CARDE research group.
Introduction
During the initial phases of our research project, Speculative Social Science Fiction of Digitalization in Higher Education (Suoranta et al., 2022), we realized that people who utilized digital systems did not have the opportunity to voice their opinions about these systems (Teräs, Teräs, & Suoranta, 2022; Teräs et al., 2020). Instead, their role was limited to accepting digitalization, attempting to learn how to use it, and adjusting to it as best as possible.
However, it has been convincingly argued that technology is not simply instrumental but is deeply intertwined with the human condition. As such, it does not exist outside of its users’ worldviews, assumptions, and experiences (Jandrić & Knox, 2022).
Methodology: Future Workshops
To address this issue, we chose a method—future workshops—that gives participants a say in their own cases (see Suoranta & Teräs, 2023). We held two workshops during the fall semester of 2023 with 21 participants at Tampere University.
The small groups interpreted various digital experiences in the work of academic and professional staff. Due to the diverse composition of the groups, multiple perspectives on the phenomenon emerged and collided like a prism. The seemingly simple activity revealed that, in the everyday reality of the university, there are very limited arenas for conversations like this, where academics, information systems developers, and middle management can sit together as colleagues and share the challenges of digitalization they face in their respective roles. This illustrated the multifaceted nature of digitalization and enabled multiple layers of interpretation of how it translates into different parts of the university’s organizational fabric.
Collective Interpretation and Visioning
This interpretation was not left solely to the researchers. The groups themselves actively negotiated, made meaning and interpreted the phenomenon’s complexity, each group finally arriving at a description of problematic realities and even dystopic future perceptions concerning the digitalization of higher education. The groups’ stories were presented to the entire workshop, followed by discussion and further interpretation. The role of the researchers at this stage was to document everything, yet still from the perspective of equal participants rather than from a place of authority.
The outcomes of the problem and imagination phases that followed were not just the researchers’ interpretations. They were the collective interpretations of the participants, crystallized into a jointly formulated vision of a desirable digital future for higher education and the organization they represent. Unlike in a more traditional research setting, this approach did not involve data collection at the workshop, followed by interpretation by the researchers. Instead, we interpreted the outcomes with the workshop participants and created a shared vision of a desired future as short vignettes. These future visions painted a picture of digitalization that was sustainable, supported human interaction and communities, and benefited all people. Universities were envisioned as cultural and scientific institutions that enable dialogue, thinking, and being, channeling the outcomes for the benefit of the entire society.
The Realization Phase: Moving Toward Implementation
The second workshop comprised the realization phase (Jungk & Müllert, 1987). The group was smaller this time, but all participants had also attended the first workshop. The descriptions or vignettes drafted in the previous workshop were used as the basis for brainstorming steps and measures to be implemented to move toward the desired future. The results of this interpretive cycle were developed into The Digitalization Guidelines for the Tampere Higher Education Community. The interpretative process that led to these guidelines was again carried out as a collaborative effort, with researchers and participants contributing equally.
Development of the Digitalization Guidelines
Participants brainstormed individually and in groups to invent concrete ideas and suggestions that might lead to realizing their imaginations. The results of this phase were then thematically analyzed and categorized—again as a group effort rather than a researcher-led activity. Finally, the most recurring themes were worked into five key principles that formed the Digitalization Guidelines. In summary, the five guidelines are:
- Principle of Human-Centricity: Focus on user experience and interpersonal interactions, prioritizing user-friendliness over economic and procedural efficiency. Address teaching and research needs while serving humanity’s well-being and enhancing the quality of education and research.
- Principle of Sustainability: Focus on sustainability and quality criteria in digital development and use. Align technology compatibility with the overall digital architecture, leverage economies of scale for teaching and research, and use the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals as a guiding framework.
- Principle of Justice: Establish systematic ways for teaching and research personnel to meaningfully participate in digitalization planning and evaluation. Prioritize value rationality over instrumental rationality and emphasize ethics in digital tools, including artificial intelligence.
- Principle of Understanding: Base digitalization on a broad understanding of its effects. Ensure transparency in acquiring and using digital tools and allocate time for goal and value discussions to enhance staff awareness of digitalization aims and their impact on the university.
- Principle of Systematic Approach: Base digitalization on careful planning and explicit alignment with organizational strategy. Consider hidden and extra work caused by digitalization (e.g., learning new systems) and include it in work plans. Ensure digitalization enhances work efficiency without creating new burdens.
Conclusion
Throughout our research, we observed a need for more consistency in policies and practices related to digitalization. This inconsistency can often lead to poor decision-making, incompetence, and frustration. Therefore, we emphasized the necessity of clear guidelines, explicit goals, and comprehensive plans to implement and develop digitalization effectively. Thus, the guidelines emphasize the systematic and sustainable development of digitalization as part of the varied activities of higher education.
Our hope and aim with these guidelines were to influence the university’s digitalization policy. We also wanted to emphasize that digitalization’s first and foremost purpose is to support the work done at the university—i.e., research, teaching, and societal interaction. Additionally, we pointed out that the phenomenon called ‘digitalization’ and its manifestations are ubiquitous, permeating all aspects of the university and other social institutions. Everyone, from students to staff, must deal with digitalization in one way or another.
Read the full Principles for Digitalization of Higher Education (PDF)
References
Jandrić, P., & Knox, J. (2022). The postdigital turn: Philosophy, education, research. Policy Futures in Education, 20(7), 780–795. https://doi.org/10.1177/14782103211062713
Suoranta, J., Teräs, M. (2023). Future Workshops as Postdigital Research Method. In: Jandrić, P., MacKenzie, A., Knox, J. (Eds), Constructing Postdigital Research. Postdigital Science and Education. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-35411-3_16
Suoranta, J., Teräs, M., Teräs, H. et al. Speculative Social Science Fiction of Digitalization in Higher Education: From What Is to What Could Be. Postdigit Sci Educ 4, 224–236 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s42438-021-00260-6
Teräs, H., Teräs, M., & Suoranta, J. (2022). The life and times of university teachers in the era of digitalization: A tragedy. Learning, Media, and Technology. DOI: 10.1080/17439884.2022.2048393
Teräs, M., Suoranta, J., Teräs, H., & Curcher, M. (2020). Post-Covid-19 Education and Education Technology ‘Solutionism’: a Seller’s Market. Postdigital Science and Education 2, 863–878. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42438-020-00164-x