[-empyre-] Engineering the University pas de deux

[Hamilton, Kevin]

Hi Johannes 

Thanks for the questions on format and approach. I'll respond below -

On 3/10/15 9:38 AM, "Johannes Birringer" <Johannes.Birringer at brunel.ac.uk>
wrote:

>----------empyre- soft-skinned space----------------------
>
>(where does the subject title come from, who engineers the university?
>was this meant to imply capital or current postgraduate students? -


"Engineering the University" is a phrase we've enjoyed here for how it
plays on a few things:

- Reform of education or research institutions today often comes with
distinctively technological or systematic language. We hear a great deal
about "solving" the problems of debt, labor, accessibility, inclusion in
universities, where many of us are actually hungry for a wider and deeper
understanding of problems, rather than neat resolution through new
regimes. Where some of us initially complained that the
institution-as-machine approach is to blame for inadequate address, we've
also started to wonder about just giving into that, and bringing along a
robust understanding of sociotechnical systems to that process. To
approach universities as systems doesn't mean we have to resort to any of
the models offered by Silicon Valley or 60s cyberneticists. There might be
other, especially when we draw from some of the most exciting approaches
to technology design and history going on in STS, DH etc.

- We also enjoy the play in how, read with a comma ("Engineering, The
University,") those of us in higher ed and its ancillary spaces might
claim a more central, rather than peripheral, role in the processes that
lead to the re-engineering of the planet. Especially here at Illinois,
we're just blocks away from those who daily approach finance, water,
transportation, food and other basic aspects of planetary life as
engineering problems. And they have the funds to act on it. So we're
asking questions about what we might do with our proximity to such work,
even in the Humanities




>"deepest critiques
>of the modern research university have originated from graduate students,
>given their role as laborers in labs or classrooms. // In particular,
>those
>engaged in the study of technology, media, or science are often confronted
>with the potential of their growing knowledge bases for application
>outside the academy, in commercial, governmental, or activist spaces" //
>how does this second sentence follow from the first?)


In brief, the question of whether to remain in the academy or go into
industry, activism, government etc has long faced those whose skills are
obviously marketable across those areas. (PhD students in Computer Science
leaving their degrees in process to go to Google, for example.) If job
markets and comparative salaries have been one driver of these decisions,
so have critiques of the institution itself. Plenty of folks see what
their work can "do" outside the academy compared to within and choose to
leave, and if those with clear technical skills were the most obvious to
do this, we're seeing more portability for humanities-based skills now as
well. There may be reasons of critique and reform that drive folks out to
create alternatives.


>I am actually interested in how you came up with this interesting
>partnering model
>- and are all the pas de deux happen in the University of Illinois,
>Urbana-Champaign? -  can you proceed slowly enough so that the discussion
>can
>open out to others, and are you not also, to an extent, mimicking a
>student-mentor
> (as they say in The Guardian, 'my hero') model that can be scrutinized
>as well, though
>I have of course fond memories of those who inspired me.  (I am asking as
>I just read
>Edward Prutzer introducing/hosting Chad Wellmon almost with a book review
>of Chad Wellmon's
>forthcoming book?)

The pairing approach here actually doesn't grow out of anything we're
already doing at Illinois. Rather, it is motivated by a desire to nurture
some hospitality toward newcomers - both toward the newcomers to empyre
(our guests) and the newcomers to our Illinois conversation (empyre).
There are some concentric and non-overlapping circles of conversations
here - everyone's new to someone - and that requires I believe some
additional structure in order to extend welcome. In my experience,
inviting new folks to Empyre only to ask them to explain themselves at
length as their first mode of address feels less welcoming, like pushing
someone into the spotlight where they can be seen but not see. I thought a
conversation might be more human.

It's also admittedly a structure for which I have the "lurkers" in mind -
the many on empyre who (like myself, I admit) follow best they can from
day to day but can't wrestle time away to interject or post, or don't wish
to.

I've asked our guest/hosts (the students) to serve much the way moderators
do on a stage, and to ask questions that educate new audiences to the
context while also opening things up to the interviewed.

It's all a bit of an experiment I admit, and one I hope addresses some of
the dynamics of access about which we're actually discussing. But perhaps
it's not working for you or others. We'll continue to do our best to try
and keep things open - I thought last week the other contributions folded
in nicely.

Thankful for your prompt,

Kevin Hamilton