The top-down business model of MBO--management by objectives--appears inappropriate for technology deployment projects in the loosely-coupled, multi-purposed, constrained environments of public schools. The interrelationship between existing an school culture and the evolving culture of computing is complex, and impossible (and inappropriate) for any one agent to predict or control. As a computer lab insulates teachers from the frustrations of classroom computing, it can slow their engagement and readiness to partake of its advantages. As a BBS creates new opportunities for miscommunication and conflict, it can build community and spur curriculum. As external partners foist technology implementations upon schools that may conflict with existing norms, they can be catalysts in spurring a more congruent infusion process. The dynamics of school change vary with each setting and shift over time, and those who frame technology planning grants should be conservative in the articulation of instructional deliverables.
On the other hand, once such an open-ended initiative has been funded, the best approach to making the most of opportunities might be to find ways to involve all stakeholders -- students, teachers, administrators, parents, staff, faculty, technologists -- in ongoing formative evaluation of process, so that all can take a degree of ownership and have their experiences and values represented. It was clear in both cases (RBS and SPC) that technologists, teachers, and students had different agendas - but there were few moments when groups were convened to openly discuss these with each other. An anthropological perspective had not been part of the project culture - in retrospect, that might have been quite useful.
Working with diverse schools and interests, the challenge to project coordinators is become field anthropologists: able to identify the salient issues and ask questions in ways that generate useful information about attitudes and experiences. Such analysis is far easier in hindsight, of course. But an acknowledgement of the consensual, gradual, and organic process of change (as opposed to the pressuring for smoke and mirrors at the ends of funding cycles) will place a coordinator in a better position to facilitate it. Edward T. Hall sums it up well:
If a person really wants to help introduce culture change he should find out what is happening on the informal level and pinpoint which informal adaptations seem to be the most successful in daily operations. Bring these to the level of awareness. Even this process can only accelerate change, not actually control it in the manner desired by men of action. This is because the out-of-awareness nature of the informal is where all changes start.
The Silent Language, page 96
The task of computer infusion is largely one of acculturation to new patterns of space use, scheduling and communication. The significant effects of introducing online environments into schools will reflect the synergies and conflicts between them and existing relationships and processes at work in host settings. These effects can be facilitated through an anthropological understanding of existing environments and cultures. For example:
The first year of such projects will not be the university expert teaching the school about where it is going; it will be the school practitioner teaching the university about where it is at.
=>Proceed to Related Websites
It is doubtful that anyone ever really changes culture in the sense that this term is ordinarily used. What happens is that small informal adaptations are continually being made in the day-to-day process of living. Some of them work better than others. These adaptations eventually become technicalized as improvements, and the improvements accumulate imperceptably until they are suddenly acclaimed as "break-throughs"....
Of paramount importance in deployment projects is the degree of teacher acculturation and active involvement in the process. Two arenas for faculty acculturation to computing in a fully networked school are computers in physical spaces (individualized in classrooms and centralized in labs), and computers as gateways to online environments (individualized on desktops and user accounts and centralized on school websites, bulletin boards, and network environments). Each of these arenas create opportunities to deal with issues of territoriality and control - for both SPC and RBS, the question of who defined the uses, conventions, and boundaries of lab, classroom and cyber-spaces was a pivotal one. In RBS, Paul Reese reigned over the lab, to the functional exclusion of teachers; at SPC, Phil Davies supported and moderated the BBS, but always fostered a consensual culture.
Selection and orientation of schools for multi-school testbed projects requires care, investigation, communication and consensus about goals and work plans. Stakeholders who may view schools from some distance arrive too quickly at strategies to transform them within narrow time frames. The reality that schools are conservative (and rightly so, if they are to take responsibility for passing on core values) and short of the space and time needed to trade for resources supporting innovative experimentation cannot be overemphasized. Each school has its own organizational culture and history, and innovations will likely take on the aspects and shapes of existing practices and values.