This is my first post on the website.
I am using this virtual space as a log for my thoughts as it relates to teaching, research, and writing. In particular, these are ideas that are not (quite) formalized into published writings. Rather, these posts serve as inscriptions of possibilities. I am trying to show my work in progress with all its complexities and deficiencies. This is about my own thinking and writing process which includes working out these ideas in a public way.
I begin with my PhD thesis as a prompt and direction for further research. I had titled the dissertation, Designing technotheologies: Ethics, pedagogies, and spiritualities in maker actor-networks. The following is the abstract:
The purpose of this study was to understand how religion and spirituality matter in the consumer use, design, and engineering of media and technology. Specifically, the research questions were: 1) What role do ethics and values perform in maker and hacker networks? 2) How are ethics and values integrated and manifested throughout the design process in maker or hacker networks? 3) What are the routines, rituals, and subjective well-being of participants in the maker or hacker design process? The research setting was the designers in the maker community in Vancouver and technologists associated with Code for the Kingdom in Seattle. All designers and technologists in Vancouver and Seattle have independent projects at various levels of collaboration. I recruited seven participants affiliated with the Vancouver maker community for in-depth analysis of their design process. In Seattle, I recruited two hackers who participated in Code for the Kingdom, a Christian organization that hosts hackathons for altruistic and religious purposes. Their focus on innovation, design methodologies, and critical making allowed me to discern their values and ethics through their design process. These participants have different perspectives on religion and spirituality, which make their technotheological networks complex. Case studies facilitated in-depth examination of makers and hackers as the main actors of our inquiry. The use of video in dialogue with ethnographic inquiry allowed for nuance, discerning complexities, and giving form to expression in designing technotheologies. Conceptually, the research is framed by actor-network theory (ANT) and value sensitive design (VSD), enabling the study of how participants discover, design artifacts, make meaning, develop values, and maintain a sense of the good life and well-being, emotional and spiritual. Findings indicate that among the makers and hackers, technotheological networks articulate specific values alongside technological creations, practices, and personal ways of being. In their own unique ways, these makers and hackers inquire into the materialized morality and design phases of ethically responsible decision making processes. Conversely, the non-human actors express their own values within technotheological networks. My role as a techno-theologian helped facilitate competing value claims by positing a normative focus and by temporarily opening black boxes.
Where now?
It has been several years since the completion of my thesis, yet I am still fascinating by the same themes that was researching as a PhD student. I maintain that discerning education/curriculum as designing technotheologies is an important concept that can be actualized in many different ways. How? Perhaps my research can take on a few discrete areas of research.
Curriculum studies
I continue to draw richly from this field of education. In particular, I gravitated towards the works of Bill PInar (currere, educational experience as lived), Ted Aoki (bridging, teaching as indwelling), and Dwayne Huebner (temporality, religious and theological metaphors of education). Within this space, I think I began to articulate my own viewpoint, of 1) curriculum as technotheology, and 2) curriculum as metaphysics. In particular, with the direction of Stephen Petrina (my PhD supervisor), I’ve been mining the etymological depths of curriculum to determine a taxonomy of curriculum as the following:
- course of study (cursus studiorum) – standard educational interpretation
- race, autobiography (currere) – from Bill Pinar
- extension of mind (curriculum mentis) – I have a co-authored chapter with Stephen Petrina about this issue, called Hacking Minds, in the book, Hacking Education in a digital age.
- chariot, circus, infrastructure (curriculum artis) – I have a book chapter about technotheological curricular spaces that speaks on this issue, in the book, Provoking curriculum encounters across educational experience.
Maker education
I remain invested in this area of education from both a theoretical and practical perspective. There are so many variety of makers, and unique processes of making. I think most broadly, I appreciate the idea of agency as espoused by Clapp et al. in Maker-centered learning. Other ideas worth exploring include making as it relates to project based learning and iterative thinking. These conceptual frameworks can be fleshed out with research into STEM policies, gaming practices, lego (building and constructionist ethics), and digital making.
Making media
Related to maker education is the making of media (or digital artifacts). Since most of my time is directed towards teaching, I’ve been gradually transforming my assignments from solely written ones and offering multimodal assignments. In particular, I’ve witnessed how the option for a variety of assignments have allowed my students to express themselves in creative ways. In particular, I have tried outlining ways (via a rubric) for the creation of podcasts, infographics, and videos. Unlike a typical paper, these mediums tend to veer towards summarization so a potential research project is how these processes of making media can actually help my students grow in their understand and application of knowledge.
Philosophy, theology, and technology studies
The convergence between these three areas have been very synergistic for my own development. I have always enjoyed reading devotionally, and since my theology degrees, I have ventured increasingly more into robust theological pieces. Clearly there are interesting parallels between philosophy and theology, resulting in some challenging conversations. Science and Technology Studies (STS), can be seen as a subset of this conversation between philosophy and theology. In particular, Steve has introduced me to Bruno Latour and Actor Network Theory (ANT). Latour is quite prolific, writing in such diverse areas as theology, technology, philosophy, etc. I like his ANT framework, and his book, ‘An Inquiry into modes of existence‘ (AIME) demonstrates how a published book project can be intertwined with some interesting philosophical modes, while utilizing the social media platforms in better ways.
Design pedagogy
Part of my PhD work was looking into design based research (DBR). I was especially interested in the design thinking process following the design cycle: empathize, define, ideate, prototype, test. Much like my current work with ‘making media,’ this has become quite central in my teaching. Design thinking as part of a design pedagogy and a consideration for designing learning/teaching spaces is another area that I want to invest more time for research. I’ve been enjoying reading about the Stanford’s d.school and their focus on creativity for learning. Additionally, I am hoping to re-design some classroom spaces to create a design lab for teaching and learning.
Value sensitive design in education
I think this is where I have landed. Incorporating all the other elements from curriculum studies, maker ed, making media, and design pedagogy has resulted in this latest possibility of research. I really like value sensitive design as a framework for designing educational technologies. In my brief look into VSD, there have been techno-spiritual concerns which is very much where I am situating my own research trajectory. Overall, this exercise in writing out my research musings has been quite helpful and I hope to continue to do so in this space.