Shedroff (2009) argued that in current design practice, the main focus should be on creating environments that encourage relationships with individuals, experiences that connect on an emotional and value level

The challenge includes not only the validation of the information but also the generation of ideas and thoughts that the organized institutional social setting of the past might readily provide,

actic of creating autonomous space as a form of resistance’

Occupy revitalises hope in the power of ideas through the power of doing,

the central issue of ‘the idea of the university’, the meaning and purpose of higher education, is reinvented at the level of curriculum development as a democratic, horizontal pedagogical process

‘education’ cannot be separated from ‘life’ in institutions, and that thinking about education cannot be separat ed from the spaces and times in which we produce knowledge – which, in this formulation, are potentially everywhere and always.

Given the extent to which the language of man a gerialism has overwhelmed the discourse of higher education, this is no mean achievement

living knowledge

a moral code: ‘social ethics’ rather than ‘business ethics’ (161), grounded in what Merrifield describes as the Other of abstract labour, ‘the nature and capacities of concrete people’ (21).

patial learning landscapes within which teaching is set: at the geographical level of the classroom , the campus and beyond; but also as a horizontal space within which collaborations can multiply. And, in a learning environment that is saturated with digitalised educational technologies how are students made aware of the politics of machinic production.

time is no longer simply a measure of work, but a rhythm which corresponds to the ‘beat or pulse of human life’ (Ne ary and Rikowski 2000). Living labour.

use value is converted into exchange value in a process dominated by both the violence of abstraction and resistance to abstraction,

The supreme good is time - space: this is what ensures the survival of being, the energy that being contains and has at its disposal’

tudent research and research - like activity at all levels of undergraduate programmes, for the production of new knowledge and not simply as a pedagogical device

t is therefore likely that any really promising occupation of the curriculum, which app ropriated it to communalise, defetishise and decommodify education, would constitute a direct threat to the logics of capital and give rise to political struggle.

less metaphorically – the alienation and exhaustion that come from the intensification, exploitation and ab straction of academic labour.

“occupy” our classrooms, “occupy” the curriculum, and then collect stories about what we have done (Bigelow 2011)

So what might it mean to ‘occupy’ a curriculum?

‘We are always in occupation’

It can only exist when enacted within particular social relations and material environments , spaces and times

a confirmation of the unde fined and indefinable multiplicity of things, and gets lost in classifications, descriptions, and segmentations’, curricula may be regarded as violent abstractions in their own right

t may be said of a natural space modified in order to serve the needs and possibilities of a group that it has been appropriated by that group. Property in the sense of possession is at best a necessary precondition, and most often merely an epiphenomenon, of “appropriative” activity, the highest expression of which is the work of art

attempts to occupy the university curriculum, not as a programme of education but as the production of critical knowledge, may also constitute ‘a new pedagogy of space and time’. We will describe this occupation of

will remain a permanent crisis unless it is understood in a more holistic materialist way.

Occupy points to the centrality of space and time as practical concepts through which it is possible to reconfigure revolutionary activity. By dealing with the concept (Occupy) at this fundamen tal level of space and time through a critical engagement with Henri Lefebvre’s notion of ‘a

‘reconfigure the common experience of the sensible’ and ‘create a new landscape of the visible , sayable and doable’

They also asserted that because it was primarily an idea or collectivised sense of agency, it could never be ‘evicted’ from social relations.

The logics and languages of Occupy resonate with these projects, being experimental, emerge nt, focused on journeys rather than destinations, valorising the critical attitude, positioned outside of hegemonic discourses and practices, and radically hopeful (Cote et al . 2007: 14)

primary function of both formal and informal education is to produce docile neoliberal consumer - citizen subjects,

the Occupy movement is explicitly pedagogical

does Occupy open new possibilities for reclaiming higher education from capitalist logics; for creating new forms of teaching, learning and critical inquiry that enable the production of autonomous subjectivities and liber ating relationships within, but more importantly beyond, formally ‘occupied’ territories and environments?

Do the core principles and diverse practices of Occupy, as well as its weaknesses and contradictions, suggest a new ‘pedagogy of space and time’ (Lefebvre 2008: 354) that can inform the increasing struggles against all forms o f dehumanisation in contemporary society, including, but not solely, those which have their origins in the violence of capitalist abstraction?

critical pract ical reflexivity is more than simply intellectual or theoretical knowledge production; that it is embodied, affective, intersubjective and collective;

a critique of the politics of space and time into the institutions and idea of education itself.

as educators who are seeking to ‘occupy’ spaces of higher educat ion inside and outside of the institutions in which we work.

‘deviant or diverted spaces, though initially subordinate, show distinct evidence of a true prod uctive capacity’ (2008: 383), and in doing so reveal the breaking points of everyday life

groups take up residence in spaces whose pre - existing form, having been designed for some other purpose, is inappropriate to the needs of their would - be communal life

Our purpose is to re - appropriate (‘detonate’), ‘occupy’, these moments of space - time through ‘a new pedagogy of space and time’, which can be characterised as the production of critical knowledge in everyday life.

Researchers, educators, policymakers, and other education stakeholders hope and anticipate that openness and open scholarship will generate positive outcomes for education and scholarship. Given the emerging nature of open practices, educators and scholars are finding themselves in a position in which they can shape and/or be shaped by openness. The intention of this paper is (a) to identify the assumptions of the open scholarship movement and (b) to highlight challenges associated with the movement’s aspirations of broadening access to education and knowledge.

Through a critique of technology use in education, an understanding of educational technology narratives and their unfulfilled potential, and an appreciation of the negotiated implementation of technology use, we hope that this paper helps spark a conversation for a more critical, equitable, and effective future for education and open scholarship.

Instead, as we see individuals, institutions, and organizations embrace openness, we have observed a parallel lack of critique of open educational practices. We find that such critiques are largely absent from the educational technology field, as members of the field tend to focus on the promises of educational technologies, rarely pausing to critique its assumptions.

Still, although we may have an early understanding of why individuals may not engage in open practices, we have not paused to examine potential unintended consequences of embracing activities associated with open scholarship.

we should consider the possibility that scholars engage in open scholarly practices for a variety of reasons that may not be entirely noble (Veletsianos, 2012).

The tendency to connect with similar or like-minded individuals online as offline, what Thelwall (2009) calls homophily, means that social media may not foster diverse spaces for knowledge exchange and negotiation, leading instead to “echo chambers,” a situation in which we share knowledge and perspectives with individuals who already share the same views as ourselves.

Social stratification and exclusion in online environments and networks is possible, especially if scholars do not understand the cultural norms of networked participation.

Friedman however also noted that there is no guarantee that technologies will be used for the benefit of humanity, as he argues that the disempowered live in a flat world,

implicit social contracts of active, personal curation and direct citation within academic Twitter.

Though all participants were institutionally-affiliated and well aware of the prestige of academic ranks, journal titles, and institutional brands, these were not interpreted as intersecting meaningfully with capacity to contribute to the networked conversation. In fact, profiles that emphasized institutional status were understood by a number of participants as signaling their lack of interest in participatory engagement.

Participants were most likely to assess accounts as credible and likely to make a contribution if they were followed by users the participant already knew and respected. Professional and personal commonalities were also central to perceptions of others’ capacity to contribute, but less visible in assessments of credibility.

It was capacity for contribution to this larger conversation that counted most in participants’ assessments of others’ influence.

Academia’s complex prestige hierarchy is reliant on gatekeeping and competition. Forms of influence based in open participatory practices are by definition illegible – and even illegitimate – within that system.

In the academy, reputations and influence measures speak to status and standing. They circulate signals of capacity and credibility by boiling down complex indicators: the journals we publish in, the school(s) we’re affiliated with, our citation counts and h-indexes, our last grants, our ranks in the academic hierarchy. These proxies for quality combine prestige, metrics, and recognizability into a mercurial mix that can be circulated and understood across disciplines and ideological lines, but never quite reduced to its component parts.

As more and more academics take to Twitter and other networked platforms to connect and share their work and ideas, a new sphere of influence is opening. And it is beginning to infiltrate academia itself.

Rather than limit our educational interventions to “engaging” or “developing” youth who are assumed to be in some way deficient, we might instead consider that the lack lies in the stories, identities, activities, and organizational roles that are open and available to them. Put differently, the “problem” may not be that young people are disengaged, but that there are critical disconnects between the social, cultural, and institutional worlds of youth and adults. Too often, young people are given the message that the issues they care about are trivial, lack broader relevance, and/or are beyond their grasp and therefore require officially recognized expertise to address. Very rarely are they invited to participate in activities of consequence that make a real difference in the adult-facing world, even though they may be engaged in meaningful and consequential forms of organizing and production in their digitally networked lives and peer communication.

“connected civics,” where young people can experience civic agency in a way that is embedded in meaningful social relationships, tied to deeply held interests and affinities, and powered by their various modes of creative expression and cultural production. We have dissected the properties of narratives, practices, and infrastructures that constitute “consequential connections” that tie together these more conventionally disconnected spheres. As a dimension of participatory politics, connected civics offers a powerful mode of learning and civic agency because it engages young people through deeply held identities and compelling cultural narratives, is driven by shared practices and purpose, and is grounded in a robust but accessible networked infrastructure. Further, by drawing together interests, agency, and civic opportunity, it infuses each sphere with the power of the other, making civics compelling—sometimes fun—and socially connected, and making social activity and cultural production reach for a higher calling.

“the logic of connective action” that mobilizes through “personal action frames” and distributed social networks and differs from collective action centered on organizationally brokered groups and actions. The narratives and practices of connected civics draw their power from personal investments and interests supported by social media and affinity networks. At the same time, building consequential connections to civic opportunities and agency also involves tying these networks and interests to durable infrastructures and existing institutions, constituting what Bennett and Segerberg have described as hybrid forms that sit between connective and collective action networks.

Whether it involves a campaign orchestrated through a tight-knit affinity network or lightweight circulation of a political meme among peers on a social media site, participatory politics are enabled by the accessibility of media production, circulation, and communication.

By highlighting the role of identity, interest, and affinity across the range of cases we consider here, our aim is not to elide these differences but to offer a concept of learning that is sufficiently expansive to embrace the broad range of activities we are seeing among young people who are connecting the cultural and the political in transformative ways.

We draw from Jim Gee's (2005) term “affinity spaces,” which he uses to describe online places where people interact around a common passion and/or set of commitments, but broaden our focus to civic and political action and wider networks. We use the term affinity network to signal contexts that can span multiple sites and platforms but hold at their center joint interests, activities, and identities.

Importantly, though, among the key learning tasks within connected civics is understanding shared experience and what it takes to “take turns accepting losses in the public sphere” while acknowledging and honoring “the losses that others have accepted” (Allen, 2012, p. 1). This means not mistaking interest for entitlement to be a part of something, but rather recognizing affinity as a point of access through which to pursue thoughtful collaboration.

This view of civic learning as “connected” brings together peer culture, personal interests and identities, and opportunities for young people to be recognized in sites of power in the wider world (Ito et al., 2013). Young people's entry points to connected learning and connected civics can be through their everyday social, creative, and community engagements, or through formal adult-guided programs and learning institutions. What is distinctive about a connected approach to civic learning is that it brings together these spheres in a meaningful and efficacious learning experience. In contrast to more fleeting or institutionally-driven forms of learning, connected learning experiences are tied to deeply felt interests, bonds, passions, and affinities and are as a consequence both highly engaging and personally transformative. Importantly, though, among the key learning tasks within connected civics is understanding

The pivot between the cultural and the political can be enduring or ephemeral. In either case, it can be transformative for the young people involved, and for the issues of public concern they take on through their work and play (Jenkins, Gamber-Thompson, Kligler-Vilenchik, Shresthova, & Zimmerman, forthcoming).

Also highly relevant to our framework is Kligler-Vilenchik's (2013) notion of “mechanisms of translation” that young people deploy to link participatory culture and participatory politics, forming a hybrid mode of engagement she and Shresthova (2012) describe as “participatory culture civics” (Kligler-Vilenchik and Shresthova, 2012).

By stressing these boundaries between expressive and civic culture, our intention is to recognize these existing distinctions in order to find ways to cross and bridge the disconnection between them. We build on how King Beach (1999) has described learning as “consequential transitions.” “Transitions are consequential when they are consciously reflected on, often struggled with, and the eventual outcome changes one's sense of self and social positioning” (p. 114). Also highly relevant to our framework is Kligler-Vilenchik's (

By social justice, we mean efforts geared towards equity, freedom, and sustainability. As articulated within the framework of participatory politics, these activities can involve: production and circulation of information about a matter of public import; carrying out dialogue and feedback related to that issue; investigating topics that are consequential to the community; using that information to hold accountable people in power; and mobilizing others on questions of justice, rights, and equality (Soep, 2014). This normative definition of the civic is unavoidably situated in our own U.S.-inflected progressive traditions, and we feel it is important to recognize and make explicit this cultural and historical specificity.

What counts as “civic” is a normative designation grounded in specific cultural values and institutionalized practices. We use the term to designate activities that include involvement in state apparatuses (what is traditionally deemed “politics”), as well as activities tied to community problem-solving and social justice that do not necessarily lead to or even involve direct governmental action, for example, through so-called “hashtag activism” campaigns inviting peers to share first-person experiences with racial profiling or violence against women. By social justice, we mean efforts geared towards equity, freedom, and sustainability. As articulated within the framework of participatory politics, these activities can involve: production and circulation of information about a matter of public import; carrying out dialogue and feedback related to that issue; investigating topics that are consequential to the community; using that information to hold accountable people in power; and mobilizing others on questions of justice, rights, and equality (Soep,

A young person who is active on Facebook and Instagram, or who organizes a gaming league or fan community, will likely not recognize these activities as relevant to political engagement, or to the activities for which they might earn community service credit at school. And civic educators are much more likely to stress involvement in civic and state institutions than they are to look towards popular culture and youth-centered identities and affinity for evidence of students' political imaginations and actions.

We have observed however, that these questions of learning across settings are actually highly salient for understanding how young people's everyday settings and cultural practices relate to civic and political engagement.

The process of connecting learning across settings is not a simple matter of acquiring generalized knowledge, skills, and frameworks that an individual can “transfer” across diverse settings of life. It turns out that the ability to connect learning across settings rests on a host of other contextual factors, social relationships, and mediating practices (Beach, 1999; Bransford & Schwartz, 2001; Engestrom, 1996). It also hinges on young people's own judgments about the extent to which they even want their civic and political activities to follow them across digital contexts (Weinstein, 2014). Indeed, as a 2012 National Academies report on “deeper learning” concluded: “Over a century of research on transfer has yielded little evidence that teaching can develop general cognitive competencies that are transferable to any new discipline, problem or context, in or out of school” (Pellegrino & Hilton, 2012, p. 8).

we need to actively support learning and consequential connections between spaces of youth cultural production, their agency, and their civic and political worlds.

More recent research has interrogated how these dynamics are playing out in contemporary digital environments (boyd, 2014; Ito et al., 2009; Kligler-Vilenchik & Shresthova, 2012). Through remix and other forms of media appropriation, popular culture fans and other consumers can exercise citizenship and create frameworks for activism (Jenkins, Ford, & Green, 2013). Deploying a “logic of connective action,” young people circulate civic content across fluid social networks that don't necessarily require joining hierarchical political institutions (Bennett & Segerberg, 2012). In so doing, they enact forms of citizenship that privilege meaning, identity, and inter-subjectivity as everyday forces that shape political life and opportunity (Bakardijeva, 2009; Dahlgren, 2005). The notion of participatory politics identifies the conditions under which young people's everyday social and cultural engagements can foster forms of civic and political agency that are increasingly accessible due to emerging modes of social connectivity and the spread of digital and networked technology.

Youth ethnographers have described the complex micropolitical dynamics of teen social status negotiations (Eckert, 1989; Milner, 2004; Pascoe, 2007).

Our central question is, how can we support young people's learning and development of deeply personal and culturally resonant forms of civic agency? In order to address this question, we draw from two bodies of theory and research–studies of youth popular culture and sociocultural approaches to learning.

“connected civics” as a form of learning that mobilizes young people's deeply felt interests and identities in the service of achieving the kind of civic voice and influence that is characteristic of participatory politics.

What are the characteristics of the environments that support these connections between social and cultural activities, civic and political practices, and developmental outcomes for young people? And how can we better support these connections and outcomes?

This groundswell of research on participatory politics shows young people linking the experiences of belonging, voice, leadership, and mobilization that they are developing through participatory culture to practices more conventionally thought of as civic and political in nature. Young people are also working in the opposite direction. Those who start off with civic and political commitments bolster those efforts by linking them to participatory culture. The research indicates that these connections between participatory culture and politics don't necessarily form automatically and can be actively brokered by peers and adults, and through organizational infrastructures.

Commentators bemoaning youth apathy worry that digitally-mediated, expression-based forms of civic activity will make young people less likely to take part in institutionalized politics (such as voting), but recent research has indicated the opposite. Involvement in participatory culture—meaning contexts that actively encourage members to make and share creative products and practices that matter to them, supported by informal mentorship (Jenkins, 2006)—can be a gateway to political engagement (Cohen, Kahne, Bowyer, Middaugh, & Rogowski, 2012). Moreover, participatory politics are much more equitably distributed across racial and ethnic groups than conventional measures of political engagement, like voter turnout (Cohen, Kahne et. al.,

We posit three supports that build consequential connections between young people's cultural affinities, their agency in the social world, and their civic engagement: 1. By constructing hybrid narratives, young people mine the cultural contexts they are embedded in and identify with for civic and political themes relevant to issues of public concern. 2. Through shared civic practices, members of affinity networks lower barriers to entry and multiply opportunities for young people to engage in civic and political action. 3. By developing cross-cutting infrastructure, young people–often with adults–institutionalize their efforts in ways that make a loosely affiliated network into something that is socially organized and self-sustaining.

guided instruction may work better for some than minimal guidance.

Angela Duckworth's research on grit. Do I have the characteristics of grit to overcome the negotiation of ambiguities?

Twitter probably facilitates this, if one can juggle the multiple threads to the same topic. Twitter forgets though that cognitive overload is a challenge for some people.

Coming in with those positive experiences, I'm thus of the opinion that reading in advance helped me to learn and participate better