Recording and commenting in stories, accounts and moments about the pandemic unfolding
Category: The Post/Pandemic University
Universities are a critical site of oppositions: between public good and private benefit; between cooperation and competition; and between collective and individual conceptions of knowledge production. How are these tensions playing out in the changes being forced on universities and academic communities? And how are they playing out differently for different people within the University, given its highly unequal structure? To what extent are changes precipitated by the pandemic speeding up processes already in motion, and to what extent are we observing new dynamics?
To contribute please contact Sophia Woodman
In talking to some of my PhD students recently we were discussing how they are not able to enjoy each other’s company at the moment or go to conferences and other events. Such occasions can be very helpful for networking. Over the years, I have found that a lot of my best networking has been done rather serendipitously. For instance, Lynn Jamieson and Liz Stanley encouraged me to apply for the job I now have at Edinburgh. I was introduced to Lynn Jamieson during a tea break at the first BSA conference I attended in 1998. I met Liz Stanley some years later when I applied for a job at Manchester (which I didn’t get) and she was kind and chatted to me about Auckland (my home town). Åsa Wettergren, who I co-founded and co-edit the journal Emotions and Society with, was at a small conference on emotions that I attended many years ago and we got chatting over a glass of beer. Remembering such encounters gave me the idea for an experiment in virtual networking that I am now undertaking. It works like this.
For each of my PhD students (1 at a time), I invite a scholar I know, whose work they are, or should be, citing.
I set up a ‘tea break’ online meeting (based on the scholar’s availability)
I ask that scholar to invite one of their PhD students or early career colleagues
My student gets to invite 1 other PhD student (anyone, at Edinburgh or from anywhere)
I invite their other supervisor – they are not obliged to come! (so 5-6 people per meeting)
Come the time of the meeting we all make ourselves a cup of tea or coffee
When we meet we introduce ourselves and just chat about what everyone is working on just now and swap any academic gossip we have (x has got a job at the University of Pocklington, y has bought a goat farm etc). There is no homework needed beforehand.
The scholars I have contacted have responded very positively, even the ones who I barely know, and I now have several meetings lined up.
The inaugural ‘I’ll meet you at the tea break’ went absolutely beautifully. We spoke to Vivienne Elizabeth, at the University of Auckland and one of her students, Moeata Pele Keil. Moeata and my student, Amy Andrada, had a lot in common across their respective projects on post-separation Pacific families in Aotearoa/New Zealand and single mothers in the US. It was a joy to hear them talk confidently about their work and yet be able to discuss some of the difficulties they faced in doing it. This less formal setting made that discussion more nuanced and interesting than I think it would have been if they had been giving a structured presentation. They were able to talk about mistakes they felt they had made and how their positions and approaches had changed as they did the research. For Vivienne, Angus (Amy’s other supervisor) and I this provided a welcome chance to reflect briefly on how our research can change us as researchers and to think about why this is not discussed more. It was also nice to see my friend Viv. She and I met during a tea break at a conference when we were PhD students.
Whether you approach old friends (who might now be esteemed scholars) or chance a speculative email to a Professor you really don’t know, I encourage you to try this out. COVID-19 has crowded out some of the more human and inspiring aspects of intellectual life. This is a form of connection that allows a sharing of ideas but does not put pressure on people at a difficult time. Sharing our sociological connections with PG students and colleagues less advanced in their careers can hopefully contribute to enriching the discipline. So please do, if you would like, set up some tea breaks of your own. I am happy to be invited: email@example.com. Or not. Enjoy.
An interesting article by Nic Mitchell in the most recent 3 July issue of University World News reports on a British Council Going Global conference on ‘global learning in the post-Covid world’. Its final session was concerned with the Eurocentric curriculum and the myth that Covid-19 will almost by definition change HE and much else for the better.
“The myth that COVID-19 will be “some great equaliser” should be debunked as its impact on education is likely to increase the gap between richer and poorer regions around the world, the British Council’s Going Global 2020 conference heard in its final session, – which also discussed the impact of the Black Lives Matter movement on the “Eurocentric curriculum”. This year’s virtual conference was split into a series of webinars culminating in a look at ‘Global learning in a post-COVID world’ in a session chaired by Maddalaine Ansell, director of education at the British Council.”
A call for papers has been circulated in the last week by Mark Carrigan, for a digital sociology conference and possible book concerned with what universities will be like ‘after‘ and the impact of the digital in this. The call for papers is as follows and see here also:
In a matter of months, the world has changed beyond recognition. Covid-19 has led to an unprecedented reorganisation of everyday life, with half the world’s population subject to lockdown measures at the peak of governmental response to the pandemic. These measures are being eased across the world, with uncertain and worrying consequences in the continued absence of the vaccine which would herald a potential resolution of the current situation. In its continued absence we face the necessity of institutionalising what has been called ‘social distancing’ but is perhaps better described as ‘physical distancing’, given the capacity of digital platforms to facilitate social interaction without the co-presence which is still frequently seen as its defining characteristic.
The impending arrival of the forthcoming academic year means we urgently need to grapple with what this crisis means for the future of the university. How will higher education be transformed by lockdown and social distancing? What university do we hope to work within after this crisis? What contribution should we make to building this post-pandemic university? The current operations of the university are reliant on the affordances of digital platforms and this seems likely to grow in the coming years, even if some face to face meetings resume in the name of blended learning and research capacity. This includes digital platforms like Microsoft Teams and Zoom being incorporated into the core operations of the university in a manner which is likely to be difficult to unwind at a later date, as much as it has served a clear purpose in the present crisis. For this reason it’s essential we begin to incorporate the socio-technical into our established accounts of higher education, opening up the ‘black box’ in order to understand the role played by technology in building the post-pandemic university.
However while we see digital technology as playing a crucial role in response to this crisis, the questions which the sector faces are much more than technical ones. Our intention is to facilitate a conversation which bridges theory and practice, analysis and intervention, animated by a shared concern about what this crisis means for the university and how we ought to respond to it. If we want to understand the challenges facing higher education, it is imperative this encompasses the range of potential responses to these difficulties and the interests and ideals served by these for the multitude of groups who will play a part in building the post-pandemic university. We hope this will be a broad and multifaceted conversation which brings together multidisciplinary expertise engaging with an eclectic range of topics rotating around the core problematic of ‘building the post-pandemic university’. We imagine this would include themes such as:
The built environment of the campus and how it is likely to change
The enactment of social distancing across the university’s activities
The impact of the pandemic on racialised, classed and gendered injustice
The implications of these changes for equality & diversity within the university
The impact of Covid-19 on the challenge of climate change
The search for new markets and products by education investors
The public role of the university and transition out of the crisis
Equality and diversity in the post-pandemic university
The geo-politics of Covid-19 and its relationship to global higher education
The challenge of academic mobility and the potential demise of the global conference circuit
The surveillance architecture inherent in the turn towards platforms
Labour relations during the crisis and what this means for the post-pandemic university
These are only suggestions and we welcome contributions on any topic which speaks to the broader theme of building the post-pandemic university, particularly if they also contribute to a broader exercise of mapping out the contours of the present crisis and possible transitions from it. Please send 300 word abstracts by email to firstname.lastname@example.org by July 31st with the subject line ‘Building the Post-Pandemic University’. We aim to inform contributors of acceptance by August 10th for an online conference due to take place on September 18th 2020. We hope this event will be the starting point for an edited book so please indicate when submitting your abstract if this is something which you might be interested in contributing to.
We will release full details of the conference format soon after the confirmation of acceptance but at this stage we expect the bulk of the event to take place through Zoom with an as yet to be confirmed asynchronous component which will extend participation beyond those who are speaking at the conference.
A friend in
Geneva sent me these photos and translations of posters put up by students.
semester of online teaching, the University of Geneva is holding a
socially-distanced exam session. Among torn posters advertising pre-lockdown
hip-hop festivals and social events, students are voicing their concerns.
I’ve been called for civil service duties – I’m working night shifts in a nursing home. Should I sleep or should I prepare for the exams?
I have three
small children. The nursery is shut so they’re at home with me. I can’t study
but I’m being forced to sit exams. I can’t afford another semester.
concentrate at home. I’m too anxious about the whole situation. I can’t follow,
I can’t read. There’s no way I can sit exams.
I lost my
job. My situation is very precarious. The real test will be to cope.
will remotely control my computer to check I’m not “cheating” during the exams.
What should I put first – my diploma or my privacy?
education or social selection?
Our lives have been locked down – Let’s COVID the exams!
These are some strange, strange times. (My God, the emails over the past several weeks that’ve opened with that tired-ass line. Ugh.) I’ll admit. This sucks. All of it. There’s no way around it. Yes, COVID-19 has turned our lives upside-down and with it all of our half-baked, wonderfully (and painfully) crafted projects. But I implore you to believe me—all is not lost. This is the chance to rethink old (and sometimes tired) notions. As researchers, we’re in a bind. How do we collect data if we can’t actually. Go.Collect. Data? What do we do with our projects, half-finished and half-thought? What happens to all the ‘meanings’ we meant to find, once we got into the field? And how do we find the people we hoped to speak with? Well, if you’re a researcher you just gotta know where to look. (I mean, that is our job. Right?). And the best place to start is by looking at who’s looked in hard-to-reach places, with unconventional tools and in unique ways.
Two words: Deviance. Research.
Ta-dah! Yeah, I know. I know. Very
anti-climatic. (But a gurl can dream, can’t she?) Anyways, I’m that researcher.
As such, I’m familiar with researching people that don’t want to be reached and
in ways that aren’t always *ahem* legal. Just kidding! (Maybe). Thus, being in
the field taught me a crapload more about methodological ‘expectations’ verses
any theoretical approaches. Now, how do I know this might
work when my data wasn’t collected during COVID-19? Because most of my
participants were already limited in time and resources, making
in-person/physical meetings less likely—hence, the alternative creative
approaches to methods. So, from one researcher to another, here are some real
life tips on what to consider when trying to figure out how to sample (or
strategize getting) participants in these very,very strange times.
Although this is a bit more directed towards deviance research, the perspective still applies. Deviant members don’t particularly want to be found and most are uninterested in an academic’s ‘research’. If you want any hope of contacting them—much less collecting data from/with them—you have to work within their constraints, not yours. Now, I understand researchers have their own issues atm. I get it. But the access points to potential participants have now (thanks, COVID) become extremely limited. So, you’ve got to start from that vantage point. Or you’ll lose sight of a main project goal—getting actual participants. Be realistic and set realistic goals. Period.
consider the usual ‘face-to-face interview-based’ data collection strategies.
Yup. Those approaches are not gonna work—at least not in their traditional
designs—but they are still strong starting points. So think of them in
practical terms. Where are people most likely to be accessible now? Online.
Now, let’s be frank. What do you think the return rate is for online
interaction? Yeah, bro… it’s low AF. Ok. That’s settled. You’ve got a clear
idea of a significant limitation. Great. Moving on. It’s still an access point. Use it and maximize the hell outta it. But remember, it’s never about the thing itself. It
is how the thing is used. Use the platforms you’re familiar with
and find new ones. Reach out to your own networks and ask for recruitment help.
Many people are usually happy to help—(I stress, usually). More importantly, use the platforms your potential
participants may use.
This isn’t an ‘if you build it, they will come’ motif BS. This is real life.
You gotta go to where the action is. So, figure out where these groups
congregate online, their apps, etc. and target those spaces. If you’ve got
peeps in those hoods, even better. Reach out. If not, learn their spaces real quick. (I mean, we’re all PI’s underneath it all. Act like it.)
looking for diversity in your sample? That’s still possible with online
recruitment, you just gotta work harder. Post your project on Facebook, MeetUp
(there’s still ‘interactions’), etc. Create an online space for your project so
people have the opportunity to take initiative when you’re not chasing down
potential leads. Most people respond well to this form of transparency. Think
of it like a ‘home base’—both you and them can always circle back here. Tbh, any online forum/chatrooms where people with similar
interests may interact—start there. There are literally endless platforms and
networks within every community, so make the most out of them. And remember, it
usually takes a particular type of person to be open to talking to a researcher
in the first place (aka selection bias). If they’re interested or you find
them, either can develop that initial interaction. Don’t push it. Just keep
putting it out there and be open-minded. Keep in mind
that other avenues eventually evolve from your initial steps. You’ll find them
if you work at developing them. Be patient.
ya know that ‘originally’ planned in-person interview? Yeah. That’s not
happening. So, think of how else can you conduct interviews. Zoom? Skype?
Facebook video messenger? WeChat?
Use them. And how about those focus groups?
HouseParty, etc. Whatever. Find some tool and use it. Pronto. Will some ‘authenticity’
be lost? Yeah, but getting participants is like going on dates. Not every date
is the same, right? That’s what happens with every forum and method—something
is ‘lost’ based on context. But, it’s still data. Beggars can’t be choosers
(and you ain’t Bey). Attend to this in your design and manage any
shortcomings. Best way to do this? Mixed-methods or triangulation (i.e. use
more than one strategy and method. They offset each other and can complement
the overall design/methods, if used
your research is focused on intimate knowledge, interview for longer periods. People
tend to open up the longer the interaction (it’s a non-verbal cue, look it up).
If you want more general (and perhaps superficial) interactions—Keep. It.
Short. Also, being an in-group member helps with intimate or deviant data
collection. Why? People tend to trust people that are ‘like’ them. If you’re
not in da club, figure out how to get in or get someone to vouch for you (i.e.
gatekeepers). If your project doesn’t require this type of nitty-gritty, just bounce. Either way, don’t stress.
all those bazillion roadblocks you’ll come across while doing all these? Yeah,
that’s gonna be really significant data, in itself, at the end
of the project (talk to an ethnographer if you don’t believe me).
Now, remember my outreach to out-group
participants? Yeah, only one-third of them were met in-person, and of those I
had to go out of my way (60-90 miles to be exact) to sit down in front of each
one. Overwhelmingly, most interviews were done with tech, via Skype/Zoom,
FaceTime, phone, etc.—any electronic means actually. Yet, all of them were contacted through some
technical forum. And that part
where I mentioned the roadblocks being part of your data? Yeah, those
were key reasons I couldn’t recruit people in-person, or physically meet most
of them. Why? They were either in-between projects or work, were too far away,
or simply not available to meet with some random researcher, i.e. me (hence, I had to work within their constraints). And what
did I find? I found out what their spaces were and
lit those babies up. So guess what happened? They either enlisted themselves or
showed interest in the project. Like, literally. It blew my mind. And none of this was ever mentioned in ‘traditional
Now, was it all rainbows and
butterflies? Hell no. I mean, I even gained ONE damn troll in the process of this crap. (Honored, though I am *happy tear*).
Still, cycling through ‘traditional methods’ just didn’t work. In fact, they
blew up in my face. Royally. But, once I started realizing how those methods
only worked for traditional people and ‘normal’ times (and my target groups
were anything but traditional despite ‘normal’ times), I quickly realized
I had to get creative. Fast. So, I pounced on their
movements. I learned to listen to these groups and their
interests. And I quickly learned to step to their pace. And what came outta it? A design I couldn’t be more
proud of and an understanding I couldn’t have ever predicted. Now, the books
were a decent start, I’ll give them that. But the real
methods came from maneuvering within participants. In fact, had I not taken heed of their
needs and constraints, I don’t think I could have collected the data I did. And
that’s the honest truth.
So, go forth young sprites! There’s new
knowledge to be found—and new ways to get there. Be the researcher you came to university to be.
Amy Andrada is a PhD Sociology candidate at the University of Edinburgh. Her research focuses on deviance, family, and gender studies. She is currently writing up her mammoth of a PhD while simultaneously raising her precocious 16-year old son. (Wish her luck in both.) She may be reached at email@example.com.
Many of our students pay a lot of money for their education.
The current pandemic is raising all sorts of questions about what they might
get for their money when classes are delivered online. These are important
questions that concern university teachers as much as students, but many of us
have long had doubts how universities have been turned into businesses. The
defence of the
public university is an important, but often complex task. So here I just
wanted to share some thoughts I had after a brief discussion with students
about whether they were customers. I just wanted to think about some of the
problems with that argument.
that students are customers assumes that education is something you have to buy
rather than a right or a public good that should be freely accessible to all.
are students buying? Is it a degree, is it a service? If teachers are providing
a service is the customer always right? How then can teachers tell students
what they need to do to improve?
see students as customers undervalues the work and effort students have to put
in to achieve a degree. As Jon Hearn says, teaching is more like being a coach
than selling something to a customer. We both have to work together to achieve
How we might work together under remote or socially distanced conditions might be challenging, but it is working with students that made me want to teach and, with the help of students, I intend to find a way forward together.
Mary Holmes is Professor of Emotions and Society @ University of Edinburgh, email firstname.lastname@example.org
Like many of us during this pandemic, I feel somewhat anxious about the future. Among other things, I think about what the post-Covid19 world means for my current PhD and my career post doctorate, considering the implications of a prolonged period of remote and physically distanced interactions. In this piece I want to talk specifically about my concerns for lost opportunities for face to face contact, and how this might impair my and other PhD students’ stake in the ‘invisible college’.
college is a term originating in the 17th century to describe the informal
interactions of a small group of like-minded scholars, with the aim of
exchanging academic knowledge. Beginning as an exchange of written letters, the
need to further ferment ideas for intellectual flourishing led to regular
in-person, small group meetings at Gresham College, London. This locally-based
exchange of ideas would later challenge the religious and academic orthodoxy of
the time. The invisible college continues to operate today as a global,
self-organised community of collaborating scholars, and is understood as one of
the essential structures by which knowledge is created. While modern life
affords us the technology to substitute in-person collaboration with video
calling and other media, sociologist John Urry reminds us of the limitations of
our networked sociality for building the connections that depend on being
co-present. Personalised trust is formed when we can personally know people,
and I would argue is harder when we’ve only ‘met’ them online or on a
videocall. Co-presence involves rich, dense and multi-layered conversations
using body language and eye contact to create intimacy and reciprocity which
are difficult to re-create through technological communication.
Even when we’re eventually allowed to meet in person at a
‘safe’ distance, will there be places to meet? The early meetings of the
invisible college were held within a supportive institutional setting of
Gresham College. The academy is already demonstrating its risk aversion to
aiding Covid-19 transmission by its recent 18-month moratorium on in-person
fieldwork. In addition, the politics of space and place are significant for
capitalist processes, requiring a spatial fix for continued accumulation.
Universities will be facing financial black holes with the loss of
international students, and are likely to exploit the opportunity to recoup
lost revenue by saving costs in building and office spaces. We are already
seeing the development of virtual teaching and learning for the new academic
year. With this in mind, I am not optimistic that on-site sociality will resume
even after the government begins to loosen lockdown measures.
I miss the buzz and atmosphere of being co-located with
peers and colleagues. I feel sadness for the lost chances for corporeal
mobility and proximity, for the situated social practices that build rapport,
trust and social capital, and foster collaboration. The networking at
conferences, conversations with peers in social spaces, catch-ups over coffee,
forging new contacts at seminars and other small on campus events are very
difficult to recreate in a virtual space. I fear this will impede not only the
discussions and exchange of ideas that shape my research field, but also the
connections that could contribute to future job opportunities. The
disembodiment of our current social life may be profound for academic life as
we once knew it. We will adapt, out of necessity. But it’s clear that the
invisible college, perhaps taken for granted before now, will in future not be
as well supported by conducive institutional places and spaces. The
responsibility will fall more on the individual to find ways to build their
Lisa Howard is a first year PhD student in Sociology at the University of Edinburgh.
Armchair Sociology is a series of informal ‘in progress’ conversations on key challenges either brought into being or raised to consciousness because of the coronavirus pandemic and which sociological imaginations need to get to grips with. For more information, visit the post on What’s happening to sociological imaginations?. Facilitated by Liz Stanley, this conversation with Orla Murray is concerned with the ways in which sociality and relationship are being remade, including in relation to teaching and researching, as we enter a ‘social bubble’ context.
Dr. Órla Meadhbh Murray is a feminist sociologist who completed her PhD in Sociology at the University of Edinburgh (2018). Her PhD used Dorothy Smith’s work on institutional ethnography to explore UK university audit processes. Órla is currently working at Imperial College London on SIDUS, alongside developing methodological resources and writing a monograph based on her PhD (forthcoming 2022, Bristol University Press).
This pandemic, and the responses of universities to it, are providing a fascinating on-going natural experiment for thinking through what higher education is/should be for. During the UCU strike in February and March this year, I was reading more than was healthy about plans in some quarters to turn universities into platforms through which students consume information, ‘teaching’, food, entertainment, accommodation, sport—in other words, everything. And how during such processes, universities can hoover up data about these students to enable ‘smarter’ responses to their needs—including for mental health interventions.
For some time, university leaders have been warned that EdTech is going to make them redundant, because students as ‘digital natives’ will opt for the customized, individualized, efficient (and cheaper) ‘learning’ the EdTech companies are offering. Generally, the proponents of digitization assume that the best (or only?) way for universities to take on this challenge is to compete with the EdTech companies at their own game—to give the customers what they want. And of course, the EdTech companies are only too happy to help with these processes of transforming the university; platformization involves various forms of public-private partnerships. Just like other big tech firms, EdTech companies will be big winners from the coronavirus fall out.
We don’t know yet how this experiment will play out, but it seems peculiar to me that university managers would be willing to accept the above ‘if you can’t beat them, join them’ premise. I’m completely convinced by Raewyn Connell’s arguments in her marvellous, witty and readable new book, The Good University: what universities actually do and why it’s time for radical change. She argues that knowledge production has to be cooperative, and that cooperation is built into the DNA of universities. Intellectual labour, she writes, is inherently collective and requires cooperation, not just among academics and students, but also with what she calls the ‘operations staff’ who enable the working of the university. The ‘banking model’ of education on which the EdTech vision sketched out above is based is obviously contrary to the idea of a knowledge commons where multiple ‘knowledge formations’ are constantly being constructed and transformed through collective efforts, processes that are fundamentally at odds with the university as business, which seeks to extract profit from such efforts.