Simply me?
In a Higher Education (HE) environment there’s always a need to be critical, especially when communicating and planning - I talk a bit more about that in my blog post 'What HE can learn from me and FE'. And there's certainly a time and place for both complexity and simplicity. Although generally I am a straight-talking, simplified and pragmatic and reflective person as that's my style and nature - I can't often think creatively when speaking verbally, and sometimes unable to think/envision in the abstract. Which comes useful as part of my learning technologist role when conveying and translating complex topics and matter and into more simplified terms/language. I think its ok to simplify the complex, where appropriate, as there’s often too much of it and results in convoluted communication and outputs. I find there’s a feel of stigma in HE that if it’s too simplistic, in theoretical and practical, then that can compromise intellectual/academic integrity. But in reality the majority of staff want simplicity, but often we make it unnecessarily complicated. Though I appreciate that you have to understand the complex in order to make it simplified - as I often agonise over. I personally need more time to understand complex information, especially when verbal. I often find it a challenge to process it in one go like that. But yes there is a place for complex conversations as education and technology enhanced learning is a complicated topic. I aim to be accessible in my language because I may lack words in my vocabulary but most importantly as an educator, I value plain English to ensure I am accessible to all audiences. If you lose people in your first sentence, then you've made it inaccessible for people to engage - think of universal design. Conversely, I feel that I am a detailed person and as a result I am quite meticulous and precise. But I do think people like this pragmatic aspect of me as often enough there's too much fluff and not enough meaningful stuff. I'm often told by my peers that I am good at generating and bouncing off ideas, to which I reply with saying "I'm never short of ideas", which are always valid but a lot of that is due to timing of them. As mentioned in a previous blog post 'Dared to lead' I'm probably too generous with that... Even if there is no requirement for ideas, I naturally just respond with a practical tone. Like recently on a forum I use for personal work, I expressed gratitude for a recorded example of active listening. Which I described more as a demonstration etc and the facilitators have since adapted their language to what I informally responded with.
When doing my Technology Enhanced Learning MSc (including other studies) I weren't a perfect student that immersed in reading like most. I did study and learn new and wider perspectives, but I was probably more focused on demonstrating my current knowledge and practice and achieving rather than the process of learning and development of knowledge from wider reading and research etc. Though the demonstrating and achievement aspect was the main reason I undertook the MSc, a strong 'proving' element. In my academic writing I was occasionally criticised for making simplistic claims or overgeneralising. In my defence, academic writing has never been something I've particularly enjoyed as there needs to be a conforming/specific style and referencing system behind it. Where am more accustomed to my honest, open and reflective style. I'm not particularly academic/research-minded, but more operational-minded. Though oddly many of my peers do identify me as scholarly – which is something I never considered about myself personally. Perhaps I am more simplistic in my style and my approach due to the residual poor educational beginnings? I wouldn't say I'm limited by it but am affected and influenced by it somewhat. In my MSc modules I did receive distinctions in the practical based assignments, recognised and praised for my practical application of complexity. This is my style and am proud of it. Though it’s healthy to have a balance of both pragmatic-focused and academic/research focused people. I’m very much a vocational type person and learn mostly and best whilst on the job and certainly learning by doing. I often get involved in project work to utilise and develop my expertise, and to learn alongside the work and team environment - experience making towards the things I want to do. A vehicle in the form of continuous professional development. But this also related to my 'slow learner' style and not being able to verbally articulate much of my intellectual academic intelligence as well as I could – but that may also be down to my imposter or the audience that I am with. Self-awareness, emotional intelligence and empathy however, I can express, communicate and support that much better.
A main concern I have is expressing my independent thinking and recalling and trusting my own knowledge and experience. I'll try not to be too hard on myself though as this may be a current side effect of suffering from cognitive overload, due to my new role, context and workload and updating my book. Perhaps some build up of recent personal family emotions and caring for a challenging kitten! That aside, however, I do feel intimidated sometimes when involved in what I feel are big intellectual conversations. But I have to challenge myself to engage in these types of conversations and be willing to accept I don't have the answers immediately. Like many, I can't recall 'all' of the knowledge at any one time, I often have revisit/revise and prepare as necessary. Plus I don’t always know the right questions to ask in some situations, but I do when I reflect and work asynchronously.
In my new Digital Curriculum Support and Developer role I am aiming to refine and improve my scholarship skills. However, in the meantime, I've identified the following short-term ideas that can help:
- Revisit my MSc work and other written pieces for a self-confidence booster on the critical thinking that I have done and are doing, as well as related blog posts in the blog where I share my perspective and independent thinking
- Explore less theory but review in greater depth and criticality. With emphasis on evidence informed pedagogy and educational theories
- Text-based - engage and read more critically, perhaps via reading groups that will motivate me to consolidate and share my findings with the wider group
- Verbal conversations – avoid pre-empting responses and embody active listening. But I am a natural reflector and need time to collect my thoughts on critical matters
- Access skills guides like this; University of York - Critical thinking and University of Cambridge - Reflective Practice Toolkit
I'm going to make a conscious effort to be a little more critical, but beyond the norm of identifying 'what's wrong with it' (which is not wholly being critical of something) to being creatively critical and supportive by my nature. Which leads me onto a rant...
Don't be a d**k!
Trying to be positive about this but I feel the urge to vent, in the tone of my 'A messy, maungy and incoherent rant' section in 'Dared to lead' blog post. Oh well, at least it shows reality of the rollercoaster that is life. Read with caution though, this may hurt/offend egomaniacs. The motivation for this sharing stems back to a conversation earlier this year with an external person whom I've not met, but we are aware of each other, and they obviously trusted me to seek advice from me. They had published a post on LinkedIn about their thoughts on hybrid delivery. To which they received toxic and confrontational comments, rather than dialogue, from people they don't know. In their post they didn't claim to hold the answer but just sharing their thoughts on such a topic. They then messaged me asking for how they should deal with it. In this event you may go through the thought processes of anger, denial and acceptance as well as ruminating over the validity of the comments - feeding the imposter syndrome. But it's HOW these comments are made that is the most dangerous thing. There is no need for bringing other folks down in this sense. It's a negative feeling and does make you second guess your knowledge/thoughts at times and doesn't relieve the ol' imposter.
I went on to say that I experienced something similar on Twitter a few weeks before this. I fell short of a 'simplistic' Tweet response and this person made an effort to find it and be 'dickish' to tag me in it. Linking in my recent quoted Tweet that I was in agreement with in a similar topic, for them to say they are confused with the contrasting responses. And later when I responded I asked for their input and they suggested I read the said literature and form my own understanding. However, the danger in that is I may also be criticised of how I interpret the literature. Therefore going round in a vicious circle. So it may be easier for them to express their interpretation as a conversation base. I recognise I needed to be more clearer in my response, and perhaps less simplistic on complex matters. But this is social media (often thought leadership), not an academic paper... A role in academia is to critique knowledge and research but when your writing up your own response you are encouraged to be cautious in your language... I get that if you put it on social media then you’re inviting a response, but still you can have proper table manners. There was no need for such a dickish behaviour from such a 'prolific' figure - bolshy online behaviour in the veil of 'constructive criticism' throwing their ego around. Being aware of theories and research doesn't mean you’re always right, it just gives you a better argument base. I think there's a clear difference between research/evidence informed and using research/evidence to discuss your practice. The former mainly inspires thinking and planning, whilst the latter mainly justifies and supports what you have done or are doing. I think that's fine and healthy to have a balance of both research/theory-informed and practical/anecdotal-informed sources. Research/theories are often published to put into practice, however not all of them translate well in reality. Just because 'research says' doesn't mean it should be applied. In an online learning context, there's lots of research in design and multimedia - but does this all need to be applied? No, as it may not suit the context, but we can draw on the research to inform the work. Likewise, like government do, research can be re-shaped how you want people to read it, I.e. sell it. It's research methods and ethics approvals that are a key in finding out our reliable and valid it is. I made similar comments in my blog post ‘Digital inauthenticity - the rising epidemic’. However, I do find some parts of academia/academics are abused by how some things are creatively discussed and written and in such convincing ways. When in fact that may not be the actual truth.
There's an element in being cautious of how you word things on social media, but you also want to maintain your authentic self. Inevitably, the more you put out there, the more you open yourself up on your believed knowledge, and are open to being criticised by others believed knowledge. If you work in education, practice what you preach by being inclusive and supportive. However, I find that those that say they are inclusive often aren't - hence the need they have to tell people. If you are with your students do so with your colleagues! Anyway, I proudly ended my last reply to the person about encouraging them to be exemplary in their expertise and being supportive rather than being antagonistic. My nature is often simplified, accessible and practical - which may not be to everyone's taste. I mostly talk and write in an honest manner about my experiences and I'd sooner be caught out for my honesty than lying. I aim to speak my truths, plus I'm not a politician, so I aim to answer questions and participate and contribute as honest as possible, rather than rudely ignoring questions. But yes I can be at human fault of misinterpreting communication and situations and exaggeration - again, we're human. I welcome others perspectives where appropriate, but mainly listen when they are given in a respectful, empowering and encouraging tone, not antagonistic. There's a requirement of kindness in here too. Yes it can be said to get a thicker skin. But should I and others have to change themselves against the will of rude people? No. And would the opposition give their children/nephews/nieces or event friends etc that advice? Most likely not. If those that preach about the power of the #bekind movement but don't actually practice being kind themselves, do it! They might feel good about themselves.
I told the person that some folks are known for challenging and voicing their opinions unapologetically - which is generally ok as we need people to disagree, challenge thinking and question evidence etc. Especially when it's required to support whatever it needs to support, satisfy/comfort certain needs or to be taken more seriously on the subject. Plus knowing where to end debates to avoid unnecessary time wasting and productivity. Again, it's HOW this is communicated that is the issue here. I see those kinds of people treating their networks like a battle field or just pushing their agenda onto others posts, especially if others posts are getting traction. I also see people use their platforms to moan, disagree (for the sake of showing 'edge'/to be different) and drive attention to their profile and activity to their posts. Be wary of those individuals who are, rightly, passionate about their topics, however I think they get that confused/mixed up with venting anger and frustration. Their posts could be fuelled by anger and could be actually hollow - we have all fell victim to persuasive language! We know this feeling when we get on our soap box, it just fires out of us. Which leaves them with little solid base for actual educational argument. Just getting something off their chest or classic trolling for reactions and comments in an effort to promote their identity. After all, we know persuasive/convincing writing is often underpinned by subtle agendas. And if that person knows the 'gift of the gab' they can be very convincing, without having the knowledge and facts themselves. They can also have a way of making you feel like they are about you personally, when they're most likely not, but leave you feeling like you have/are doing something wrong - well you could argue that's what I am doing here, but this is based on factual observation and I'm not genuinely being evil about it. Conversely, I see some making vague and veiled research-type posts asking who's doing 'good' (very subjective) things in digital education and online learning etc. I don't see them sharing helpful advice or practice from their 'expertise'. Some people are open to be educated and receive their wisdom. But their ignorant, arrogant and narrow-minded ways shut those down because they are not brave enough to live by their supposed values of sharing/exchanging knowledge and practice. Back on track - maybe they don't share detail because unless they are shaping up a blog post in the background to be shared later? Perhaps they have fear of getting the same critical attacks. Whether if that is to sharpen their critique and polish their bloated egos or just for pure downsize people (bullying). Or purely to just convince people - isn't that the goal of knowledge for some? I've never known anyone say they love a know it all... Just like in the workplace when you are encouraged to learn, you do and apply, practise and share it with others. To then be downsized by current 'experts' who are quick to point out in unsupportive and demotivating manner that they know more than you. Supportive and empowering learning cultures are important and can have long-term negative effects on individuals and the organisation. Tame/calm your egos! Either they enjoy provoking and trolling people or it's their personality to unnecessarily antagonise others. Can you be defined as an academic/educator if you project such behaviour? These types of people are no different from typical 'keyboard warriors' venting their anger and being critical without providing recommendations from their expertise and experience themselves. Focused on antagonising and calling out others is too easy to do. Rather than saying what they are going to do about it - what's their call to action? They are often quick to say what's wrong but don't share their own recommendations or practice for fear of same judgement. As the saying goes, reap what you sow! They need to channel all of that ferocious energy into encouraging others and positive causes, not the opposite effect. I do think these types of confrontation have always been there, but I do feel that it has heightened since the pandemic. And the rise of the inexperienced/unqualified/armchair digital/online learning and teaching experts.
The above can certainly put you off from sharing openly, which admittedly has made me more cautious and anxious. Maybe I should start sharing my blog posts on my socials more. But I am quite hesitant of putting them out there and people negatively criticising things that don't need to be. Yes we all have opinions, but we are also all on our own individual (and often educational) journeys. And it regrettably does make me feel anxious and not want to get unnecessary negative comeback. What happened to curious questions of interest and encouragement? Conversations and debates are very different things, and I think some people go straight to debate without considering the conversation skills attributes first. All I see is calling out and evidence finding - which is needed on some things, but not anecdotal reflections. Not everything needs academic rigor. Attackers should find similarities in themselves and use it as an opportunity to change their approach more considerately. As often it doesn't bring good out of both parties. Anyway, it shouldn't be like this and make you feel like you have to pre-empt a reaction or filter your thoughts in such a clinical way. If you do carry on sharing openly, reemphasise it's just your thoughts and that you welcome other views, if they are respectful and positive in having dialogue. If these negative comments are received, you can respond to the post and describe how it has helped shape/refocus your thoughts, and perhaps look to closing it from further responses. Acknowledging them positively to avoid getting sucked into their outbursts. Or perhaps put a disclaimer on bottom of posts saying you'd welcome comments but in a positive manner. Perhaps you could say this is not an academic piece and there will be knowledge and factual gaps. They can be pointed out, but in an appropriate and constructive manner. I have preference to positive and developmental language. But in an ideal world, you really shouldn't have to do this though.
The same applies to seasonal conferences. Often the same names and ordain personalities take up space. Where I'd much prefer to hear and encourage those with quieter voices to be seen and heard. As I feel many are put off due to the fear of being teared apart by these types of critics. As you can talk about stuff you enjoy doing, that has gone well. what you have learned as a result etc. Not everything has to be evidence/research-based, unless the event requires it. As like I said earlier, information and data can re-shaped by the author to suit any occasion - reminiscent of government facts and figures... So for once, consider silencing your egos and enjoy sharing and learning from one and other without feeling you have to be a judge. Bring back the joy of listening and being inspired by others. After all, that's what you hope to get from an event.
Yes not everyone will agree with others views and opinions and that's healthy. There's always room for healthy debate and challenging should be in an approachable, constructive and inclusive way. I do think much of my own success comes from me being approachable, proactive, responsive, helpful and timely . However, its counterintuitive and counterproductive to dickishly attack others knowledge and practice. I strongly believe that this not the best way to make the change they are hoping to make in their attacks. Some are not inspired or motivated by such approaches. If I observe this I will unapologetically and diplomatically call out those that do. I'm a educationist and lifelong learner and strongly believe that these are not appropriate or safe environments to nurture knowledge and skills development.
Through a similar lens, I saw a post recently where it stated that it's not particularly good to operate in a bubble that has similar likeminded people. I think this is fine as long as the group does good for good, empowers members to positively challenge/critique and don’t become too insular. This got me thinking about a scenario - if someone wanted to join a meeting or group with established/credible professionals to share their views etc. Depending on the 'terms of reference' of that group, would that person be welcomed with open arms or will the group question their credibility? To what extent are these people inclusive of others expertise?
Ok, wrapping up this blog post on a couple of reinforcing messages. 1) I saw an image of signage shared by JoyFE that says the following:
Ok, wrapping up this blog post on a couple of reinforcing messages. 1) I saw an image of signage shared by JoyFE that says the following:
Please take responsibility for the energy you bring into this space.
Your words matter. Our patients and our teams matter.
Take a slow, deep breath and make sure your energy is in check before entering.
Thank you.
Indiana University Health
2) Eloquently and succinctly put by Kate Jones:
