I admit, I have an ego. We all do. But most of the time I do a relatively good job of keeping it in check.
I am also a curious lot. I have been asking questions of others since I can remember.
I also recognize that when my curiosity gets the best of me, I tend to play hardball. I find being direct often cuts to chase where answers (or non-answers) tend to surface more quickly.
A good example of this type of hardball curiosity surfaced last week on Twitter with Don Tapscott. Mr. Tapscott pushed the following tweet over the line:
I'm writing a major article on the coming crisis of The University. Among other things the model of pedagogy is all wrong. Other sources?Truth be told, such sweeping generalizations like "the coming crisis of The University" rub me the wrong way. Especially from respected business consultants like Mr. Dapscott. The issue of a "crisis" in the Ivory Tower is hardly a new. And the issue of pedagogy among research professor-heavy universities has always been the proverbial elephant in the room. Given this perspective I offered Mr. Tapscott the following response:
re: uni's- No offense, but what makes your opinion of the matter valuable? Are you going to add something new or just bitch?Mr. Tapscott is not a known entity in the field and literature on high education. He has also not offered much evidence of legitimate knowledge of educational change, educational reform, or pedagogical change in his published writings. So I felt my question, while prickly, was legitimate.
His response:
Why is my opinion valuable? Google me. Don Tapscott. You may decide it isn't. Or...
Not quite the response I was expecting. Mr. Tapscott did not answer my question, but he did offer a snarky response to my prickly pique. "Google me" is an odd choice for a response to why one's opinion might be valued given the context of the question. This is a suprising case of fallacious reasoning known as an appeal to authority wherein Mr. Tapscott's claim to authority may be true, but since he does not provide any rational reason to accept his claim to authority as true, his argument is moot. Perhaps my "just bitch" remark set a bad tone and I should have anticipated such a response. But "Google me"? Wow.
Upon reflection, I feel I should have handled myself more professionally in my query to Dr. Tapscott's initial statement. The reality is, most every one I know has attended school. As such, this entitles each to an opinion of what schools should or should not be like. Does this make every one's opinion a valid or authoratative response? No. So my question to Mr. Tapscott seems just.
Perhaps 140 characters isn't the best place to raise such a question of one's authority. Perhaps serious engagement of significant consequence should be taken up in a forum that can allow for deeper discourse. Next time, I'll choose my words more carefully.
In the meantime, your thoughts are more than welcome.
Post script: BTW, here's an article by Mr. Tapscott in the Huffington Post addressing the demise of higher education. A "major article" or not? You decide.
Keywords: authority, crisis, Don Tapscott, egos, fallacious reasoning, higher education, opinion, twitter
Comments
I think your question was completely valid. I have spent much of my life interacting with business consultants who have an ego the size of their.... well, you know. Most tend to assume that because they come at a subject from an 'outsiders perspective' that they will have something fresh to say. Unfortunately, Tapscott appealed to his authority as a business consultant to prove that he will have something worthwhile to say. This is akin to my 3 year old son confidently stating his opinion on weather patterns because he knows his colors -- they just don't relate that much.
Interesting to note, Christopher, that he also makes the crass error (in my opinion) of following far fewer people than follow him - a sign of the self-important twitterer, or a sign that he is on Twitter merely to be able to say he uses it, or both. I haven't yet started a Tapscott book that I have managed to read more than a small fraction of, mostly because there are many others on the Web who say the same things in a much more interesting way, and who have been saying it for a lot longer.
My guess is that his 'major article' will be yet another 'leading the wave' piece that shows him, in fact, to be a long way behind the wave that has been gathering pace for the longest time in online conversations. Any article now about the 'coming crisis' of the university (or 'The University') is likely to repeat arguments that have been heard for many years, and a single article, major or otherwise, will be unable to capture the nuances of those online arguments.
His tweet looks, to me, like an attempt to catch a thin slice of that rich conversation without actually joining it.
@Chris Yes, your question was entirely valid, but to play devil's advocate for a bit:
140 characters is certainly not enough for an answer to such a question. In the space of that, there's not a lot that can be said. In fact it might have been the 140 character limit that forced the wording that got up your nose in the first place. There may simply not have been enough cusion to couch it more gently.
Maybe he wanted you to Google him so that you could read his work and contact him to pick the conversation up in another space. He might not have been implying that the size of his digital footprint automatically gave him authority, but suggesting a way for you to establish in your own mind whether or not his opinion had value, rather than citing his kudos-generating achievements.
Finally, the read/write web has afforded us a space in which everyone's opinion can be shared and aired, his, yours, even mine. It is up to each individual to decide whether it has/adds value. Which privilege and responsibility - to give him his due - Tapscott accorded you.
Don't go getting all Andrew Keen on us, now.
Chris,
I think most people agree it's not possible to have a deep discussion in 140 characters or less. What's most interesting to me is how 140 characters can start a conversation. The question is whether the "drive by" comments evolve into something deeper and perhaps more valuable. Regardless of whether you and Don continue your personal conversation, a number of others are talking about it and thinking about the implications. It is completely valid to ask Mr. Tapscott about his credentials, especially in a field for which he presumably has limited experience (as an adjunct at U of Toronto, I believe). For those who may want to continue the discussion, Tapscott will be a guest on Classroom 2.0 tomorrow (Wed., May 6, 2009).
Thank you for starting another thought-provoking conversation.
Come on Chris - shouldn't you be flattered to be part of Tapscott's personal learning network? ;) It's not often you are invited to the lab to help create the snake oil.
The Mark Bullen presentation (via datruss and shareski) looks excellent http://bit.ly/18zFtN - let's see if Tapscott replies to shareski.
I am in favour of futurologists being brought in annually by the 'evidence police' and being asked to provide an account of their predictions from 5 years ago ;-)
@John --Thanks for stoppping by and reponding. I get the feeling Mr. Tapscott really enjoys the sound of his own voice. Not that I am any different, it's just that I prefer being honest over being correct.
@Karyn -- Oh I got what I deserved no doubt. However, the more I look into his work, the more justified I feel about my open handed swipe. It appears the emporer has some research methodology issues that make his findings clearly flawed and detrimental to sound educational research.
@Wendy -- Perhaps Mr Tapscott's session will be a bit more lively given Mark Bullen's latest salvo concerning the legitimacy of Mr. Tapscott's research. Should be exciting if people honestly take him to task. We can't afford bullshit research to go unchecked.
@Frances -- I doubt Mr. Tapscott wants me putzing about his lab! I am just some poor schlepp who couldn't resist tossing a stone or two his way. Bullen's work is absolutely delicious and hopefully brings Mr Tapscott down a peg or two. But I doubt it will have much impact given the popular press' lack of understanding of legitimate research vs snake oil salesmanship. Tapscott is a business man and a self-promotion machine. He could care less whether his research is valid. It is valid in his eyes, so I doubt any of our debunking will have an impact. That said, I am ready to take on Goliath any old time.