[to Del.icio.us]
Jim West drew my attention (in his post Oh Those Crazy New Zealanders) to the absurd "new parliamentary rules which ban using images of MPs in the debating chamber to make fun of them" (NZ Herald). With a (sadly) few (but notable) exceptions politicians have no sense of humour. But this rule is ridiculous. The TV networks have no need to ignore the rule, they just need to broadcast selected highlights of the parliamentary debate with no comment. Depending on the level of idiocy achieved in the selection broadcast we'll all either fall asleep, or perceive the deep and biting satire of human life that is politics.As for Anthony Flannery's claim that
That is one right that I am happy to fail to exercise 99.99999% of the time - I have better things to do.The public has a right to see how their elected representatives behave and perform in Parliament -- warts and all.
Please note the photo and caption on the right (taken from Scoop) are in NO WAY intended to satirise our respected PM, who will no doubt continue to defend her errant minister to the bitter end!
Labels: not.funny, not.satire, politics
¶ 5:11 PM
[to Del.icio.us]
Labels: hebrew
¶ 9:56 AM
[to Del.icio.us]
Today (well the 25th, but they are based in the USA which is nearly a day "behind" the real world ;-) if:book released CommentPress as a Wordpress plugin.
So... Maybe we could even use this to allow more public interaction and commenting on (at least some of) the papers for the "Media and Religious Authority" colloquium... all I need is someone to help me set up a Wordpress site with CommentPress installed and a nice theme...
Labels: blog, comment, peer-review
¶ 6:00 PM
[to Del.icio.us]
Hi Tim,
I can set up a WP site for you no worries. I can set it up on a subdirectory of mars-hill.co.nz, or a domain of your choosing if you've got a domain name and hosting.
Let me know by email.
By 
Craig (mars-hill), at
July 26, 2007 8:37 PM
I get an error message from your CommentPress link, "This XML file does not appear to have any style information associated with it."
WordPress is much nicer than blogger! But it is harder to set up. If Craig is offering, I would suggest you let him move SansBlogue for you. See here for some of my experiences and suggestions about making this move.
By 
Peter Kirk, at
July 26, 2007 10:55 PM
Craig, thanks! I've emailed you with details. It would be great if you would help me set up a blog for the colloquium.
Peter, I'd quite like to swap to WP for SansBlogue, but I really don't have the energy to do it for the small benefit I'd get! I had a quick look at the WP "import" feature, but it recognises no posts or comments, so is not going to work "out of the box". But for a new blog starting with WP seems to me to make sense, especially as the main reason for using blog software is to get the CommentPress paragraph level comments feature...
By Tim, at
July 27, 2007 5:11 PM
Thanks for fixing the link. CommentPress looks interesting, but I don't think I'll install it for the moment.
You may have hit the problem that for a time WordPress would not import from the new version of Blogger. But I understand that that problem has been fixed, although I haven't tested it. So you may need to get the latest version of WordPress. For me WordPress imported fine from the old Blogger "out of the box". If import from the new version is now as smooth, all your posts and comments should come across perfectly.
By Peter Kirk, at
July 27, 2007 11:02 PM
Craig,
When I email from tim@carey.ac.nz I get a bounce back, so I tried from tim@bible.gen.nz, I thought that had worked, I am about to go out, but will try later... or maybe if we are both awake at the same time Skype...
By Tim, at
July 28, 2007 8:43 AM
I seem to be getting heaps of bounce-backs from NZ at present. I don't think ISP's there like me for some reason.
I still haven't got an email from you, but I'll be on skype a bit over the next two weeks.
- Exploratory because the ideas we discussed are not yet written papers
- Semi-virtual because we were in two places and talked via Skype and phone
- and only mini because the meeting took under 2 hours (though the Auckland people enjoyed a lunch together as well ;-)
On Tuesday the participants were:
Melbourne:
- Paul Teusner (Uniting Church) how Emerging Church bloggers respond to technorati or google blog ranking systems
- Peter Horsfield (RMIT) new media and religious authority in Australia
- Ann Hardy
(University of Waikato) the Exclusive Brethren's attempts to impact the NZ general Election - Stephen Garner (ex-University of Auckland now employable) religious authority comic books & graphic novels
- Tim Bulkeley (Carey Baptist College and University of Auckland) is interested in the role of textual authority in different religious environments
- Heidi Campbell (Texas A & M) part of her major study of religious blogging
The group plans to work on these ideas and to hold one or more other "meetings" (this time with a system for sharing things like PPT or pictures as we talk) to engage further with each other's ideas as we finalise the papers for publication. We need to fix a date (or dates if we do some short seminars instead of a day) for the next meeting(s), and we need to find out if others are interested as with half a dozen we are looking at an issue of some journal while if we had another four or so we would think of a book...
So, if you are inerested... drop me a line, who knows our next meeting might include your place as well as Auckland, RMIT and Texas A & M...
[to Del.icio.us]
Using the example of (the topical) "spin doctors" they argue that information is the "most valuable commodity today". This is simply untrue and an indication of how old media savvy people simply do NOT GET the new world. If you think information has significant worth think about the cost of one page of the Encylcopedia Britannica and how this price has changed over time. In my paper "Back to the Future: Virtual Theologising as Recapitulation" I calculated:Arguably it ranks third only to the invention of the printing press and the internet in the impact it has had on the communications' world.
The cost of information can be approximately measured by calculating the cost per page of an encyclopaedia (or its equivalent before the modern genre “encyclopaedia” developed). Since the value of money, and indeed exchange rates, change with time and geography, the time worked at an average wage to earn one page of information provides a comparable measure across time. So, in the manuscript age a scribe produced some 150-200 lines per day,[1] and information cost in the order of 8 hours per page.[2] In 1771, when the first edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica was produced it contained 2689 pages of information, and cost ₤600 or 11⅓d per page.[3] The average wage for an English farm labourer at that time is estimated to be about 11½ d per day, so such a servant would have had to work about one day to earn a page of the new publication.[4] Given that farm labourers were paid significantly less than professionals like medieval scribes, and that estimates put the wage of a skilled artisan at this time at about double this,[5] we can suggest that the cost of information had at least halved by this time. By the close of the twentieth century, however, a print copy of the encyclopaedia cost NZ$2,050 but contained nearly 32,000 pages, or about 6.5 cents per page.[6] The average hourly wage was NZ$17.44 giving about 13 seconds per page.[7]So,the major premise of the piece is flawed. Therefore its discussion and conclusions are also inevitably flawed. The conclusion reads:
All of these figures concern the cost of information supplied as words on a real page of paper. Electronic information is cheaper still. At the turn of this century the CD-ROM edition cost NZ$100 giving a cost per page equivalent of just over one half second. The graph of this cost is clearly asymptotic, tending towards zero - for half a second’s labour is a very low cost indeed. The information will take hundreds of times longer to read, let alone process and understand. The cost will never reach zero because there is always some cost involved in accessing information, if only things like the electricity required to run the equipment.
If it is to genuinely provide us with more information, then blogging relies on our ability to filter information and discern truth. But in an age so skeptical of experts and authority, can we really put blogging to good use?Wrong and wrong! Because the New World of communications relies on our ability and responsibility to filter information we MUST be skeptical of "experts" and "authority" and so must put blogging to good use!
By the way, if you are a Maxim fan and want to check my "expertise" or "authority" please start from my CV, I'll be delighted if you check my opinion any way you like - you see as a blogger my reputation and therefore readership depends on being reliable as well as entertaining!
[1] or this estimate see Michael Gullick, "How fast did scribes write? Evidence from Romanesque manuscripts," in Making the Medieval Book: techniques of production: proceedings of the Fourth Conference of the Seminar in the History of the Book to 1500, Oxford, July 1992 (ed. Linda L. Brownrigg, Los Altos Hills, Calif.: Anderson-Lovelace / London: Red Gull Press: 1995) 39-58.
[2] The pages of print encyclopedias contain many more words than a manuscript page and my estimate of 8 hours seeks to represent this fact – if one simply measures by the page the figure would be nearer three hours.
[3] The figures are drawn from various editions of the Encyclopaedia Britannica article “Encyclopaedia”.
[4] Gregory Clark, "Farm Wages and Living Standards in the Industrial Revolution: England, 1670-1869", The Economic History Review 54,3 (2001) 477-505, esp. 503.
[5] Peter Mathias, The First Industrial Nation: The Economic History of Britain (London: Methuen, 1983) 197.
[6] E-mail response from us.britannica.com 16th May 2005.
[7] The New Zealand Official Yearbook 102nd edition (Wellington: Govt. Printer, 2000) 332.
Labels: authority, blog, maxim
¶ 1:03 PM
[to Del.icio.us]
Or if you don't read well yourself, suggest the project to a friend. You could read just a chapter a week, or get inspired and read ten over a holiday weekend, it is up to you... For more details just either email me (tim at carey.ac.nz) or visit the Librivox forum for the project. ¶ 8:24 PM
[to Del.icio.us]
The Bible Society undertook some research that displayed only 21% of the more than 2,000 church attending participants read their Bible daily. Twenty one percent. Twenty two percent stated they read it at least weekly with the remaining 57% which absolutely should blow you away. I hope it does, because this is a crisis. The remaining 57% saying they either read the Bible occasionally or hardly ever – 22%. Now similar studies recently conducted in the U.S. stated that only 12%. In this study in the U.S. which is quite large, 12% said they read the Bible regularly. Twelve percent! This is an issued that faces the Western Church and I’ve had the opportunity of doing a little travelling, chatting to colleagues in other western Countries, in the U.S., U.K and even Australia. And this is the problem they face. This is an epidemic.Mark also candidly shares his personal experience, in which the central problem was "that through my theology training the Bible had moved from my heart to my head." This is a huge problem (at least for a theological educator!) though one I will hope to return to in a later post. For now, I just want to note now what happened when we discussed Mark's question in our local church elders meeting a while back.
The oldest elder began the conversation: "Why don't people in our church read the Bible like they used to?" After acknowledging the issue, we swiftly moved to the usual "answers", push SU Notes etc.. Then we recognised that many (but not all) people don't actually READ. They can all read, we have nearly if not 100% functional literacy, but people use that literacy to scan newspapers, webpages or magazines, they do not read books. We also recognised that many of these "non-readers" (as well as many young "readers") can be seen jogging and on buses with their ear buds feeding them music... The result PodBible, audio Bible for the iPod generation!
Incidentally, PodBible has been "down" for a week, but is working again now, so if you know someone who tried and failed, please explain it was circumstances with our hosting company, involving high usage, and a catch 22 that compounded a Murphy situation (which I probably won't explain more for fear of bursting into exhausted tears ;-)
[to Del.icio.us]
Because they aren't literate enough to read a real Bible (KJV) so they figure why waste their time with a fake one (NIV, NASB, NRSV, etc.)
By , at
July 20, 2007 3:30 PM
Hi, Anonymous,
Clearly we disagree a bit about the Bible, you think it is a cultural artefact to be preserved and studied, like Shakespeare - I think it is the record of God's dealings with humanity and the witness to what God did in Christ. I say in the Bible we can hear God's own voice today (that's why we translate the Bible so we can hear better).
By Tim, at
July 20, 2007 4:13 PM
(Routledge) and the blog "When Religion Meets New Media" if there are bloggers in the Auckland vicinity who would be interested in a face to face get together to meet Heidi and each other on the evening of the 24th please contact me by email or phone 526 0344 with your contact details. We will be having a sort of semi-colloquium on Media and Religious Authority that day (hopefully with virtual participants as well as physical ones - if you are an academic and interested in this topic please also contact me!) and a quiet chat with a wider group could be a good way to finish the day.
¶ 6:41 AM
[to Del.icio.us]
In a comment that to another post on ancient hebrew poetry I mention that in a radio interview that I listened to as a podcast from ABC (when will I start just saying an ABC podcast?) George Brooke from Manchester made the almost throwaway remark that some of the prayers from the DSS c/should be used in church today. John stes out to demonstrate this in his “Blessed is the one who does not forsake her in tribulation”: 4Q Beatitudes post.(thank you you are a star for making it available with a CC licence!)
[to Del.icio.us]
Speaking of the Dead Sea Scrolls, it seems like this time they really went and put their foot in their mouth...
http://www.nowpublic.com/dead_sea_scrolls_exhibit_misleads_public
http://www.nowpublic.com/dead_sea_scrolls_san_diego_natural_history_museum_update
By , at
July 12, 2007 6:59 PM
But isn't it nice that 60 years after being delivered from their womblike caves the Scrolls continue to provoke puzzlement and debate, to evoke wonder and excitement. I'm nearly sixty now, I do hope both the scrolls and I can continue to provoke and evoke for a few more years!
By Tim, at
July 13, 2007 6:10 AM
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
The rewards are primarily:
- social - in reading and writing blogs one "meets" so many interesting people (some of us who met physically for the first time at the notorious SBL Biblioblogging session in 2005 discussed this)
- intellectual - one also meets, and I hope shares, such interesting ideas
- surprising - when by email, phone or face to face on meets someone who actually reads what one writes (now that's seldom happened to me as a result of print publication!)
Gary and David both make a big point of statistics, somehow the number of people who "visit" makes the effort worthwhile. This does not encourage me, sadly this blog has seen better days, 2005 was the highlight, and I have now far less visitors than I used to back then :( In fact Sansbloque's best day ever was Tuesday, August 30, 2005. So in the hopes that nothing succeeds like success and in the interests of nostalgia here is a replay of that day's posts - TAH, DAH:
The view from my office ::
Stephen's post (full of the joys of [Southern Hemisphere] Spring) titled "The sun is shining..." suggested to me a new round of the old this-is-my-desk blog craze...[Sadly the inspiring photo of a distant and high skylight with grey sky has gone the way of all digitalia, and is no longer available, but trust me it was and is uninspiring!]
The new and even more exciting this-is-the-view-from (or in my case "of")my-window craze. Despite Stephen's extolling of the windows at Carey,
the view from mine is impossible without a ladder, and I've never
climbed up to look...
Peer review another look: or, on the salvific effects of peer review ::
Jim West has, in Biblical Theology, a fine polemic piece titled "Washed in the Blood of the Peer Review" taking me (and others) to task for our dependence on "peer review". He sums it up, himself, in fine style:InAnd
sum I object to the scholarly mentality that sees itself as "washed in
the blood of the peer review". Peer review does not guarantee truth. No
one can believe it does. Hence, it exists simply for the preservation
of power. It is nothing less than the old cliche of the smoke filled
back room where the good ole' white boys gather around the card table
to buttress the careers of their friends while they ignore those who
are not worthy of their attention because "their ideas didn't appear in
the Journal of High-Falootin' Research" published by Brill and costing
95 Dollars for each issue published on a quarterly basis.
largely I agree with him. I have no desire to defend the "system" it is
(almost) indefensible (well it's not, and probably some biblioblogger
with more desire will defend it) but I certainly don't
want to defend it. And I did say, as well as some incautious stuff,
that I now (thanks to Jim's good sense) deeply regret, and won't repeat
;) I did say "or some process that ensures similar rigorous standards".
And will note that, in the sordid world where paid academics live,
"publish or perish" is the rule, and the publish part needs to be
recognised by other bodies as the equivalent of peer review else it
only counts for mini-brownie-points and will not save your career, job
and family income!
So, in summary: I heartily withdraw the phrase "peer review" and reword the last bullet point below:
- scholarly,
unless Open Biblical Studies submits itself to quality assurance to
attest to outsiders (particularly beginners) that it is indeed
scholarly, and (through some process that ensures rigorous standards as
a peer review process intends) satisfies the professional academics'
need for recognition.
Labels: blog, open.access.scholarship
¶ 10:01 AM
[to Del.icio.us]
How would I know where to go for a decent cup of coffee if you didn't blog?
By lingamish, at
July 8, 2007 5:00 PM
Tim,
Blogging is still rewarding. Readers will come back again because we have some thing good to say. You are a good writer; so, do not give up.
Claude Mariottini
A different, but effective way to think about academic careers - particularly recommended to recent PhDs and scholars with an early onset mid-life crisis ;-)
At this point I think I am (almost?) thanking God that I've never had an academic career! I've been teaching at tertiary level for the last quarter century, but always my employers have had activities and qualities they value much higher than "scholarship". Faith, integrity, simplicity... But the scholar as brand is not a new phenomenon, the early European Universities of the middle ages (even while they were religious institutions and their teachers "Religious") had their "stars" - think Piere Abélard ;-)
Labels: scholarship, tenure
¶ 6:48 AM
[to Del.icio.us]
Oh!
By , at
July 7, 2007 9:41 AM
Think "Tim Bulkeley" t-shirts and coffee mugs.
By Stephen G, at
July 11, 2007 7:28 PM
Oh, no, thanks, I'd really rather not! I'd prefer a matt brown or gunmetal finish...
By Tim, at
July 11, 2007 8:58 PM
When we were in Congo people used the euphemism "Deuxième Bureau" (or second office) to speak of the mistress a rich man might keep as well as his wife. Certainly anyone who can maintain two blogs must be (time) rich, but are they also unfaithful or is this a useful trend?
When I started this blog, back in 2004, I said:
That assessment remains true! So, no second office for me, though I do hope to keep my audio annex going with posts to 5 minute Bible... but not until my paper for the God and Gender colloquium is finished!
So this probably is not [yet?] a blog, therefore it's a NonBlog, yet I'm not joking (in French sans blague ;)
Labels: blog
¶ 12:52 PM
[to Del.icio.us]
Sometimes maybe one blog good, two blogs better. I have to admit I was of two minds in creating a second blog - and both have enormous projects on them - one on Psalms and a full portrait target completion in x years, the second hosting a story that I expect will have about 400 parts! So it is a multi-year project also. WIll I ever have fun?
I look forward to your entries, Tim.
By Bob MacDonald, at
July 5, 2007 1:28 PM
If a person can't or won't write enough to blog regularly on one, why double the misery and write even less on two?
By Jim, at
July 5, 2007 1:33 PM
Before training as a pastor, Hannah was a leader in another profession. There, her talents, ideas and guidance were welcomed. Now she is a pastor, and in the one place where "who you are" should not matter - "in Christ" - she finds that being a woman matters more than the qualities she can offer. She finds the ministry to which God called her an uphill struggle, because of the attitudes of others.
People say that this issue, of the roles of women and men in church, will "take a generation or two" (just as slavery did). They may well be right.
However, when would you date the beginnings of a movement to allow women free and full exercise of any ministry in the church to which God calls them? Among British Baptists the issue was a live one in the early 60s. We are more than a generation on from there. From when would you date the beginnings of a movement to ensure that our image of God is not distorted through exclusive or excessive use of male imagery and language? I know it was a live issue when I began a PhD on The Image of God and Parental Images in 1977. At 30 years that makes about "a generation".
But Hannah's experience shows, like that of the (all too few) other women who have followed God's call to ministry in Evangelical contexts, that the issues are far from resolved. Our colloquium on God and Gender (at Carey in Auckland from 12-13th July) and the public evening dialogue that accompanies it still have a role to play. Most of the draft papers for the colloquium were in on time, I hope to finish my draft today... If you live near Auckland do come to Carey Baptist College at 7pm on 12th to listen and share in this dialogue on women, men, God, and the Church.
[to Del.icio.us]
Wednesday 4th July, 2007 at 7:30pm
Bible College of New Zealand, Auckland Campus
80 Central Park Drive, Henderson
Seriously, though I have not heard Blomberg, by his reputation and writing this should be a another good occasion, Auckland theology is blest with many fine academic visitors this year, and SBL International is here next year too!
This evening sounds like a chance to get Blomberg's own take on the highlights of his book, which has to be interesting.
Labels: bible
¶ 9:57 AM
[to Del.icio.us]
That disclaimer out of the way, the evening intends to provide an opportunity to really get some discussion going in NZ Evangelical circles about the roles of Women and Men in church. Chris Grantham should be a lively and entertaining chair and the panel is chosen to represent a range of views. The dialogue (it is not a debate, the goal is to talk sensibly and listen respectfully) is associated with a two day colloquium of "God and Gender" that a number of us are participating in along with US visitor Craig Blomberg.
Here is a flyer, and a link to a PDF if you can send it to possibly interested parties (in or near Auckland on 12th).
¶ 9:10 AM
[to Del.icio.us]
Personally, the title put me right off - even though I know the speakers and dialogue will be great.
Made me feel like there was an implicit "Ladies, please bring a plate" (of food, Antipodean slang) attached.
Hope it doesn't keep people away whose voices should be heard, nor annoy others so much that they are polarised/upset before coming.
One step forward, and yet a (patronising?) step backwards. *sigh*
By Stephen G, at
July 3, 2007 10:46 AM
It'd be nice to have a grown up respecful title for such a pain ridden topic. For 25 years my heart's burned to serve Him - I stayed single for the purpose - but have been slapped (physically) for volunteering in men's prisons, discredited from pulpits over unladylike shoes, told not to teach (including evangelism) accused of rebellion for doing things the men were praised for, and to me the real issue is about people who can't see past the body to the spirit. Just what are their eyes looking at?! Yuck! One thing I know - Peter & Paul had to "rebel" against the Pharisees to fulfill their burning mission and Jesus was with them. It's not so different for women - and Jesus leads all who love Him and want to serve Him. "The labourers are few" cry the same fools who ban half the workforce. God grieves.
By , at
July 12, 2007 8:49 PM
Feedback:
The event took place, after a full on day at the colloquium discussing related issues (title: God and Gender) it was encouraging to see about 100+ people (both men and women) gather on a wintry night to listen and talk even though the "organisation" responsible for the evening was totally unknown (the Centre for the Theology of Gender before 12 July only existed in the dreams of a handfull of people). It was also encouraging to see many people signing up so as to be told of other events the Centre arranges.
Marion, thanks for your heartfelt comments. (I'll reiterate that I did not help choose the name for the evening event.) If you live in Auckland and got to the evening I'd like to hear your impressions.
By Tim, at
July 13, 2007 6:00 AM
I'm not sure whether the "one constituency in our planning meeting" phrase indicates an otherwise widespread desire to engage with the opportunities and challenges of Web 2.0 and beyond, or whether it is just a scholarly caution not wishing to implicate others in what one has observed is true of a small sample. Either way, the inability to engage with Web 2.0 and beyond seems to me to be endemic in the Theological world. How many teachers at your institution (assuming you are institutionalised ;-) have a blog, even?
meeting stayed fixed at the Web 1.0, or generously at the Web 1.5 level
— whereas the digital natives who will very soon be entering
seminary take Web 2.0 for granted, and some have begun messing with
more adventuresome instantiations of the digital environment. To a
student who’s active with Facebook and Flickr, who plays in
Second Life or Warcraft, who’s comfortable chatting in text,
conversing over a shared audio server (such as Ventrillo or TeamSpeak),
at the same time she’s flying to her island in Second Life, a
seminary’s installation of BlackBoard not only represents archaic
technology, it represents determined irrelevance to her way of daily
life.
There is a reason (beyond old age and advanced technophobia) for this. Web 2.0 begins from letting everyone and anyone have a voice. Scholarship is a series of guilds. Guilds are communities designed to keep others out, and ensure that only the authorised, and properly respectful, may perform the holy acts and mysteries that the guild "owns".
In biblical studies this fear of letting "lay" interpreters loose on the sacred text is deeply ingrained. (See Jim's post More Wretched Dilettantism for a textbook example!) In academic institutions the stakes are different, after all "we" control the marks. Yet the fear is similar, if teaching gets tainted by Web 2.0 ideas students will decide for themselves what is worth their time and what is not. They might decide that the solid (if frankly often dull and insipid) scholarship we value is not interesting enough... No, "we" know what's right, and good, and true and we'll make sure our students are not given freedom enough to think for themselves - they might hurt themselves poor things!
[to Del.icio.us]
Hi Tim,
What's missing from your and AKMA's thinking is a critical evaluation of digital natives' Web 2.0 use. We tend to unquestionably assume that digital natives have some sort of advantage over us! I'm not so sure. Technically, yes; conceptually and critically, no. In my comment here please note that I'm trying to add balance, not betray any non-existent personal Luddite thinking!
'Irrelevance' is the key word in AKMA's post, and the lynch-pin for what I think is much erroneous thinking in this whole area of using Web 2.0 in education. Use of the Internet in Web 1.0 mode is NOT irrelevant, and applying Web 2.0 tools does not automatically baptise anyone into relevance. In 'good' education, students will have a voice regardless of whether or not Web 2.0 tools are used. The danger I am wary of is the loss of the professor's perspective among the array of half-baked and semi-critical ideas that the message- and perspective-swamping that some Web 2.0 networks provide. Further, Web 2.0 communities can be just as parochial as the guilds you mention.
I am personally rather suspicious of any talk of 'relevance' when it comes to applying technology in education. 'Networking' has its place, but so does didacticism; students wanting to 'network' for the purposes of discussing things theological have multiple avenues for this pursuit. What we should be asking ourselves is why students even bother enrolling in higher theological education at all, and acting to continually add value to their experiences based on what is relevant to them. I suspect that applying Web 2.0 tools will actually be somewhat tangental to this. Students come for a qualification, yes - but also for a qualified other's perspective or an introduction to key issues about a subject, and the opportunity to have a qualified other's feedback on their own thinking in that area.
The cynic in me proposes that while Web 2.0 encourages networking, it does not necessarily encourage levels of engagement comparable to what takes place within the guilds you speak of. Further, digital natives' short attention spans ('click-speed') and need for visual stimulus is proposed by Prensky; these are serious disadvantages in the concept- and terminology-rich world of theological education. Our tools are reflection, critique, evaluation - not access, convenience and connectedness. Compare the average NOOMA to the complex issues that DA Carson and other scholars wrestle with in peer-reviewed exchanges; which is most 'relevant' for stduents wanting to study theologically in higher education? I am not suggesting either-or here, and neither am I trying to devalue NOOMA! Instead, what I'd like to suggest is that if we embrace what is 'relevant' to the natives (here in terms of curriculum rather than technology), we may well lose what makes higher theological education precious to those who enrol in it. If we can intelligently use Web 2.0 tools to assist students to participate in dialogue related to higher concepts, well and good. But personally I don't put much value into whether or not an academic is using a blog. I'd rather they were engaging their enrolled students in the issues that theological scholarship is wrestling with, and challenging their students' thinking. Despite it being somewhat passe, Web 1.0 is still really good for this.
As you can tell, you hit a nerve...
Best,
Mark.
By Nichthus, at
July 1, 2007 10:19 AM
I would be interested to learn how Nichthus determines which technologies pass muster for his approach to theological education, and how he knows whether I teach "concept- and terminology-rich" classes (presumably, as a judge of others he is aware that at least some technology-positive scholars participate in peer-reviewed exchanges over complex issues -- though perhaps not at the nonpareil heights that characterize D. A. Carson).
If I were to oblige my students to use quill pens and wax tablets, on the premise that these were good enough for their sainted forebears, I would not think it inappropriate for students to protest that they operate more effectively with ball-points and typewriters. "But writing with a quill affords more time for self-aware deliberation!"
Nichthus will have read carefully enough to note that I do not endorse Web 2.o+ technologies for any inherent virtues or advantages, and will have noticed that I do not exculpate either the technologies or their users from attendant drawbacks.
If Nichthus thinks that it's pedagogically helpful to ignore (or denounce) the cultural characteristics of one's students in preparing to teach them, I politely disagree; and if he does not, then I'm not sure of the basis for his disagreement with me.
By AKMA, at
July 1, 2007 12:35 PM
Nichthus:
You write: "We tend to unquestionably assume that digital natives have some sort of advantage over us!" They have one advantage over me, at least often, they "get" the possibilities for basic use of the technology quicker - though decades of practice learning new technology also offers some advantages!
But what I intended to be saying was not (directly) related to the technology, rather directed to the underlying attitudes. As I understand it, the underlying attitude of Web 2.0 is collaboration, user generated content, and participation. As I see it, the dominant attitude that underlies much theological education is "teacher knows best". I agree with you that teachers often do know better, though I am not convinced assuming this always produces the best educational results! My two best and most educative periods have been:
(i) Doing my PhD, despite formal supervision that gave little more than encouragement to explore and which in terms of the techniques, skills and even information content of the topic was woefully inadequate, I sought out and got huge help from scholars and from print (this was back in the dark ages when a photocopy posted airmail from the USA was the height of technology). By exploring I learned heaps, and others (mainly outside the formal educative structures) helped me learn.
(ii) Reading for an undergraduate degree at Oxford (I also have one from a more modern University). The Oxford system of a weekly essay discussed with your tutor is brilliant, but without the coffees and arguments with my fellow students it would have failed for me. I am driven by an enquiring mind, not by marks ;-)
The common factor is that on both occasions it was informal, unplanned interaction with others that produced the greatest learning. In Oxford I had access to lecture series by world renowned scholars, but I regularly skipped them. I learnt in the library and in fellow students rooms, not in the lecture theatre.
Of course "applying Web 2.0 tools does not automatically baptise anyone into relevance". And, as you say: "In 'good' education, students will have a voice regardless of whether or not Web 2.0 tools are used.". My worry is the "style" rather than as any particular technology, Web 1.0 thinking (at least on its own) will not serve our students as well as Web 2.0 enabled thinking will. Enable students to learn, rather than "teaching" them!
(I guess, from AKMA's comment below yours, that we all hit nerves! But I hope we do not let such reactions stifle the discussion. For I am sure that the technologies of teaching theology will change, for better or worse - and if we fail to reflect, discuss and argue those changes will not be for better!)
AKMA:
As an innovative technological facilitator of education, Nichthus is certainly not advocating a return to quill pens, though for myself - being still in the middle of marking! - I wonder how much more reflective and measured student writing would become in a course that did demand such a technology fast!
(A significant part of your apparent disagreement, I suspect comes from my selection of a small fragment of your post to comment upon, and may illustrate at least some of the very dangers and problems to which Nichthus draws our attention. Fragmentation, quick responses, lack of real contact... there's perhaps an irony or two in this exchange - not least because N is much more nearly digitally native than I and somewhat I suspect more so than you ;-)
By Tim, at
July 1, 2007 1:38 PM
Hi AKMA,
Thanks for the reply.
You say that:
"I'm not sure of the basis for his disagreement with me". My main point is this: "We tend to unquestionably assume that digital natives have some sort of advantage over us! I'm not so sure. Technically, yes; conceptually and critically, no." That's really where I'm coming from, and I suspect there may well be some agreement there? I am certainly with you in terms of valuing the cultural characteristics of incoming students (Foley 2005 in "Theological Education" gives a good perspective), but all culture should be embraced from a critical perspective of sorts. This criticism is seriously lacking when it comes to any talk about digital immigrants and natives.
You also say that:
"If I were to oblige my students to use quill pens and wax tablets, on the premise that these were good enough for their sainted forebears, I would not think it inappropriate for students to protest that they operate more effectively with ball-points and typewriters. "But writing with a quill affords more time for self-aware deliberation!""
This I think misses my point... I am certainly not against Web 2.0, and neither do I have a Luddite's perspective. My concern is that we may overlook the fact that we are not solely talking about a means of expressing ideas here; we are talking about a cultural shift in terms of what digital natives think it means to learn. I am certainly not suggesting that we ignore Web 2.0, just that we make use of it after some careful deliberation. Further, we should not write-off Web 1.0 in the process. My objection is not the technology itself, rather it's the teaching and learning assumptions that tend to surround it and its use.
Our perspectives are both probably too deeply grounded to adequately explore in this format... I would certainly welcome an opportunity to explore this further. Tim will have my email address!
Best,
Mark.
By Nichthus, at
July 1, 2007 1:55 PM
Sorry, thanks to the rapid response Web 2.0 enables ;o) I posted my message above before I saw both of your responses!
It is really all about engagement, power sharing, conversation, shared perspectives... these are all very deep issues.
Thanks for the valuable exchange. I would be interested in pursuing these ideas further... again, email might be best.
By Nichthus, at
July 1, 2007 1:59 PM
I'd be happy to "talk" to either or both of you more by email, though my email usage is more comfortable responding to emails than initiating "conversations" in that medium.
I'm (at least) equally happy to continue on blogs, where others can read and join in, I have often in the past greatly valued contributions to such discussion by people I do not know, but who somehow found a post and commented...
Online media (including email) which are text abstracted largely from the personal indicators we elsewhere in life take for granted often induce a sharpness of response which sometimes requires a different sort of interpersonal negotiation. I have learned a lot from watching myself and others perform this. I'd love for my students (especially those not digitally native, indeed particularly especially those who are hardly at all yet digitally literate - of whom in Theology we currently have quite a few ;-) to have opportunities to watch and hone such skills.
The digital natives perhaps can be trusted to develop them elsewhere, but where will the digitally deprived get the chance if we do not provide it?
By Tim, at
July 1, 2007 3:17 PM
