Paul R. Carr

• Ed.D
• Professor (Full) at Université du Québec en Outaouais

In many universities, notably in North America but most likely around the world, there are five-year reviews of professors throughout the careers. The reviews can take the form of assembling pretty well everything they have done in the previous five-year period, including providing vast documentary evidence of satisfactory (or even outstanding) performance in teaching, research and scholarship, and service (and, if applicable, in administration). This is generally an extremely time-consuming, intense and potentially stressful experience, and, equally, it is not always clear what the value of this exercise is. In addition to the potential for (conscious and unconscious) bias throughout the process as well as a number of forms and sometimes quantitative configurations, there is also the normative consideration of ensuring that full weight of given to the contributions that are presented for review. Although the broader public may not be aware of the working conditions within academia, it is important to note that, generally speaking, there are a number of regular evaluation-points that professors routinely must face, including: annual reviews, tenure and promotion reviews, grant proposals, conference presentations, articles and other publications, sabbaticals, teaching evaluations by students, some positions and committees, research chairs, etc.. My question seeks to understand—if there is already robust, intense, high-stakes, regular and relatively comprehensive evaluation of academic performance—is there (significant) added value to these five-year reviews? I am aware of some universities that have eliminated them, and others that have re-negotiated the requirements, but they do remain for the most part intact. Do they support and cultivate more enhanced engagement and performance? How? Would the time and resources required for this process be better spent in cultivating more enhanced engagement and performance?

How should/could we consider all of the dimensions, polarization and dialectic and problematic forms of engagement within and in relation to social when doing research on citizen engagement in relation to social media? Our research team has been doing research on the subject for the past few years, and this has involved online questionnaires in a number of countries, case studies using mainly Twitter data, interviews with diverse colleagues and civil society activists internationally, and knowledge dissemination and debate mainly through Facebook, among other connected projects. While we can theorize and conceptualize citizen engagement (we’re interested in examining the effects of social media on citizen engagement?), we’re also participants (consumers and producers of debate, dialogue and interaction). We’ve noticed and also experienced bots, trolls, cantankerous individuals and moments of in- and mis-comprehension. This goes with the terrain but also makes us reflect on how debate does, should and might take place within the confines of click-bait, clictivism and sharply divergent viewpoints. Some have argued that there isn’t a lot of space between disconnected and unlike groups and interests to address concerns in a meaningful way, and we can see this. Others have noted there are some openings for more engaged and salient debate, and we can also see that some social movements have been able to move beyond mobilized opposition to reach higher levels (BLM, #metoo, Idle No More and other examples), and, effectively, bring about some levels of conscientization and social change. My question relates to this changing context, and how we should consider social media research, warts and all. Traditionally, there have been many levels of control on who participated and how through research but now the gate has been, proverbially, blown open. How do researchers consider the ethical, epistemological, methodological and personal dimensions of research that connects with, is interwoven with and overlaps with social media?

Education is a serious concern everywhere. What is, and should it be, about? Should neoliberalism dictate the mercantile, business-focused orientation increasingly taking hold of educational programs, policies and thinking? What is the place, role and function of social justice, citizenship and social solidarity? Of course, these are not binary propositions but we can see trend-lines pointing to less of the latter and more of the former infused in educational reforms. Critical scholarship, experimentation and programming is being squeezed out of the equation at the policy, curricular, pedagogical, institutional cultural and leadership levels. Many "high-level" debates point blindly to the "Finnish" model as if a broad-based, society-wide approach, one that seriously values teachers (monetarily and in other ways), can simply be replicated in vastly diverse contexts. I have been struck how this model has been upheld as the one that can be integrated into societies where there isn't even universal access to education, where teachers are often fighting to make ends meet, where basic structures are lacking, where political will/commitment seems vacuous, etc.. I'm not suggesting that Finland has not got some things right; I'm, rather, interested in knowing why the socio-political dimension is not more centrally infused into educational debates so as to be able to address serious, systemic, institutional, deeply-entrenched inequities. As I end my sabbatical, travelling in five countries over the past several months, I have observed this polemical debate, and reading La Nación this morning in Buenos Aires I was struck as to how the argument was made that teacher education needed to be enhanced, following the "Finnish" model, so as to, somehow, bridge the poverty gap. This was not the first article I have seen that suggests that better teacher ed will lead to miraculous societal change, especially when there is a context of vast private education, social inequalities and an increasing focus on education as a private good. I welcome any comments about how public debate might become more constructive, engaging, critical and beneficial (especially for the many who are not benefiting from the status quo). I would like to add that there is a mountain of very engaging research in this area but the critical components underpinning it seem to be marginalized in public debate, decision-making circles and mainstream education milieus. As election-season is once again upon us (in Canada, and, in reality, everywhere as the cycle is never-ending), it would appear that serious education discussions are reduced to get-rich-quick schemes, an attack on teachers, and little about how education needs to be tethered to meaningful, critically-engaged democracy and social/societal change.

Social media is widely and increasingly used, consumed and disseminated. The web of social media, social networks and social engagement is vast, intrusive and interconnected with almost everything we do. Even researchgate is intertwined in the mix. We're not sure who accesses what we do, produce, present and share, how it then gets re-packaged, and what the impact is. In relation to doing research on and through social media (our specific project concerns social media, (critical) citizen participation and (critical) media literacy), I would be interested in comments, insight and proposals from colleagues and those interested in the consequences, ramifications and dilemmas of engaging in and with social media as a research project and focus. Are there particular ethical concerns, conceptual issues, methodological points of contentions and analytical provisos that one should be aware of? Are there particular research programs, protocols, software, frameworks that should be considered? And how should one approach online vs offline identity and social media participation?

This admittedly vast question is an important question for our UNESCO Chair in Democracy, Global Citizenship and Transformative Education (DCMÉT), and one that we believe is under-emphasized and under-theorized, despite some excellent work by some of our colleagues and others in the field. UNESCO has placed a priority on Global Citizenship Education (GCE), and many jurisdictions have noted GCE in their policy and curriculum documents but the core of the concept does not appear to have gained significant traction in terms of tangible and critical content, practices, experience and outcomes. The formal side of education, I believe, has not sufficiently connected with civil society and the tremendous energy and creativity of many young people around the world who have formed movements, NGOs and alternative forms of engagement. Ultimately, in current times, how does, and should, GCE engage with peace education, media literacy, social justice and democracy as a means of countering hegemonic practices that negate meaningful, robust and critical engagement and participation?

This admittedly vast question is an important question for our UNESCO Chair in Democracy, Global Citizenship and Transformative Education (DCMÉT), and one that we believe is under-emphasized and under-theorized, despite some excellent work by some of our colleagues and others in the field. UNESCO has placed a priority on Global Citizenship Education (GCE), and many jurisdictions have noted GCE in their policy and curriculum documents but the core of the concept does not appear to have gained significant traction in terms of tangible and critical content, practices, experience and outcomes. The formal side of education, I believe, has not sufficiently connected with civil society and the tremendous energy and creativity of many young people around the world who have formed movements, NGOs and alternative forms of engagement. Ultimately, in current times, how does, and should, GCE engage with peace education, media literacy, social justice and democracy as a means of countering hegemonic practices that negate meaningful, robust and critical engagement and participation?

This admittedly vast question is an important question for our UNESCO Chair in Democracy, Global Citizenship and Transformative Education (DCMÉT), and one that we believe is under-emphasized and under-theorized, despite some excellent work by some of our colleagues and others in the field. UNESCO has placed a priority on Global Citizenship Education (GCE), and many jurisdictions have noted GCE in their policy and curriculum documents but the core of the concept does not appear to have gained significant traction in terms of tangible and critical content, practices, experience and outcomes. The formal side of education, I believe, has not sufficiently connected with civil society and the tremendous energy and creativity of many young people around the world who have formed movements, NGOs and alternative forms of engagement. Ultimately, in current times, how does, and should, GCE engage with peace education, media literacy, social justice and democracy as a means of countering hegemonic practices that negate meaningful, robust and critical engagement and participation?