the most pernicious cliché of our times?

You can’t blame Christensen and his co-writers for all the dumb things said and done in the name of disruption. But you can spot some unsavory habits of mind in their prescriptions. For one thing, they possess an almost utopian faith in technology: online or “blended” learning; massive open online courses, or MOOCs; cool health apps; and so on. Their convictions seem sincere, but they also coincide nicely with the interests of the Silicon Valley venture-capital crowd. If you use technology to disrupt the delivery of public services, you open up new markets; you also replace human labor with the virtual kind, a happy thought for an investor, since labor is the most expensive line item in all service-industry budgets.

This ^^ caught my eye, among other things. I'm curious what ilx thinks.

http://blogs.tnr.com/article/114125/disruption-silicon-valleys-worst-buzzword

opening paragraph

Sometimes buzzwords become so pervasive they’re almost inaudible, which is when we need to start listening to them. Disruptive is like that. It floats in the ether at ideas festivals and TED talks; it vanishes into the jargon cluttering the pages of Forbes and Harvard Business Review. There’s a quarterly called Disruptive Science and Technology; a Disruptive Health Technology Institute opened this summer. Disruptive doesn’t mean what it used to, of course. It’s no longer the adjective you hope not to hear in parent-teacher conferences. It’s what you want investors to say about your new social-media app. If it’s disruptive, it’s also innovative and transformational.1

if you disagree, do you have any ideas of what you think might be more pernicious or more clichéd?

My company is possibly the worst offender for talking about "disruptive technology" in the education sector but i don't know whether i fully buy into the idea that it's inherently negative. "Replacing human labour with the virtual kind" isn't necessarily the objective.

or more of our times? although i don't know what could be more of our times than ted talks. i guess this could be xposted with that new age gurus thread, except it extends into public policy whereas new age cults are about personal microimprovement.

yeah, i brought up education because i am constantly battling with...people about buying technology that no one bothers to train..other people how to use. one publisher almost bullied us into an exclusive contract because they offer a lot of instructional technology (that didn't have the sort of books that would serve our population) it was a huge battle!

i'm not sure it's inherently negative, but that's part of what makes it PERNICIOUS. it looks good at first...but then?

...and by that time it's already part of the system
and everyone has the contracts they want
like the war machine, but for education

i'll admit that it scares me!

I wouldn't be entirely surprised if we're talking about the same company. It's scary - it's true, but there is real potential to improve learning outcomes if it's handled correctly. It has to be done by augmenting the expertise of teachers rather than seeking to replace it, though.

tbh, the whole sector looks military-industrial-complex competent from the outside but there's a lot of learning through failure going on behind the scenes. It's a very new approach to supporting education and things will go wrong, particularly, as you highlight, if people buy technology thinking it will make their classrooms more effective without actually learning what they need to do to make that a reality.

I think scepticism is natural - and probably growing - which is why the focus over the next couple of years is likely to be on demonstrating that this stuff works, rather than constantly trying to come up with the next big thing.

It has to be done by augmenting the expertise of teachers rather than seeking to replace it, though.
but that would require something like paying humans (rather than companies) and that seems to be against the general strategic plan, unfortunately (for the humans)

i think we're on the same side. how weird that we could be talking about the same company! they were really aggressive. i'm always a skeptic of the hard sell, and they trotted out what seemed like their best for this one particular demonstration and it just...it was stark how different they were from who we were. it was noteworthy.

also if institutions have to provide the support for these disruptive technologies, i'm afraid we're all going to be in a lot of hot water with our burns being taken care of by people who learned how to practice medicine from youtube. i do like the idea of disrupting certain aspects of the power structure, but education is not one that should topple first because it's kind of important. i guess that's my central reservation.

There can always be a tendency for sales people to be a little 'salesy'. In your particular sector, i'd want people with experience of that kind of teaching to be leading events. The idea is supposed to be that we listen to what the schools are trying to accomplish and suggest solutions, rather than trying to foist products on them for the sake of a sale.

There's definitely a tendency to use "disruptive" as a catch-all term for anything innovative simply because everyone is so bought in to the language of silicon valley. It's often more sinister sounding than it might be in practice. The aim should be to assist your teaching, not disrupt it.

Where it does have the potential to fall down is access though. You have to make sure that you aren't solidifying wealth / class gaps by demanding kids all have their own tablets and super-fast internet connections at home, for example.

omg TOTALLY
that's also part of my fundamental opposition to this concept. even though it's more accessible in some ways (MOOC, etc), it's absolutely not in other ways. and the same people keep getting left out of the equation or being cared for by well-meaning people who have no idea what they're doing (bringing in the culty feel of tedx, for example)

i always get the feeling a lot of this "disruption" is just about making huge loads of quick cash and ego capital, as opposed to actually improving anything for anyone.

is being disruptive an actual good thing for anyone? unless you're somehow floating above the consequences of that particular disruption, or have a very solid grasp of the consequences of said disruption + courses of action to help keep things stabilized during the "disruption" + some friggin idea of what you're actually trying to accomplish in the long-term.

a lot of our recent dIsRupTioNs have occurred without anyone having a clue about what the heck it would even entail, except gobs of money for someone and lots of ego trumpeting. hence my own skepticism of this partiuclar line of crap.

see also: recasting solutions to mundane problems as "life hacks"
it's not in the language used as much as the pernicious and far-reaching idea that ingenuity/innovation can "solve" all of our "problems"

The reverence / awe that tech companies inspire can't be overstated. Practically the only two institutions in any sphere of modern life that are held up as examples to emulate are Apple and Google. If you can't run your business / school / whatever along their lines of thinking, there's an assumption that you're going to fail.

I can understand the fear, though. So many organisations deeply entrenched in successful sectors (entertainment, publishing, etc) have been rendered almost obsolete within the space of ten years. There's a cult-like aspect to it but there's also an element of clutching at straws in a panic.

an element of clutching at straws in a panic
which is probably what grosses me out too -- i don't want to see my public officials/legislators/"leaders" clutching at straws in a panic
it's disconcerting to know that the people in charge don't know what they're doing (or are doing what they do for last-ditch effort personal reasons)

something something schumpeter something destructive/creative cycles iirc

something something more pls

Ha i didnt think anyone would be interested but the use of 'disruption' as i see it used in current economic/technological terms seems explicitly related to (and poss deliberately softened version of) schumpeter's theories/work of creative destructionism, p easy concept where technology tears down established processes, norms, cost centres etc due to economic drivers steering technologies in those exact directions.

All unquestionably positive of course, lol business grad.

i have never taken a business course -- tbh i've never heard of this person

i was with you until here cost centres etc due to economic drivers steering technologies in those exact directions.
and i don't really know what that means

i guess it's the intersection of corporate (profit making) language/ideology and the public sphere that has me o_O

Sorry i did lapse into the speak there

The New Yorker article from a couple months ago about the political utopianism of Silicon Valley was pretty good (and damning), I thought:
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2013/05/27/130527fa_fact_packer

i can't help but think of this guy
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/fa/Pied_piper.jpg/240px-Pied_piper.jpg

it's disconcerting to know that the people in charge don't know what they're doing

On a more positive note, I think a lot of these arrangements are going to be subjected to real scrutiny over the next few years and companies are really aware that if they're not contributing measurably to positive outcomes, they're going to be in trouble.

BTW, out of professional curiosity, if you had a chance to ilxmail me the name of that publisher I'd be very interested.

re: the article jaymc posted -- this freaks me out

The buses carry their wired cargo south to the “campuses” of Google, Facebook, Apple, and other companies, which are designed to be fully functioning communities, not just places for working. Google’s grounds, in Mountain View—a working-class town when I was growing up—are modelled on the casual, Frisbee-throwing feel of Stanford University, the incubator of Silicon Valley, where the company’s founders met, in grad school. A polychrome Google bike can be picked up anywhere on campus, and left anywhere, so that another employee can use it. Electric cars, kept at a charging station, allow employees to run errands. Facebook’s buildings, in Menlo Park, between 101 and the salt marshes along the Bay, surround a simulated town square whose concrete surface is decorated with the word “HACK,” in letters so large that they can be seen from the air. At Facebook, employees can eat sushi or burritos, lift weights, get a haircut, have their clothes dry-cleaned, and see a dentist, all without leaving work. Apple, meanwhile, plans to spend nearly five billion dollars to build a giant, impenetrable ringed headquarters in the middle of a park that is technically part of Cupertino. These inward-looking places keep tech workers from having even accidental contact with the surrounding community.

i have a more positive outlook when it comes to some related topics -- for example, the availability of census data to support various initiatives in communities that have a proven need for them. the way we can use census data is pretty awesome in 2013.

will ilx mail you!!

Had an interesting meeting/convo with the IT VP at my institution -- we talked about investment in technology vs investment in humans and I was glad to hear him land on the side of humans.

also i thought this was relevant

http://chronicle.com/article/A-MOOC-Star-Defects-at-Least/141331/

William E. Kirwan, Maryland's chancellor, told The Sun, in Baltimore, that "there are two things we're seeking: new strategies that will improve learning outcomes, and lower costs."

"We can't have one without the other," he said.

went to a lecture today by a 'thought leader' at our academic library, the interim dean who is thankfully on his way out. lots of hot air and no stance. the d-word was used many times.

that sounds dire. does this person parrot other people's ideas or is s/he genuinely ideologically committed?

not that it matters, i just wonder how many people sign on without thinking about the full range of consequences of pursuing that kind of agenda. i have a friend whose husband is involved with some people who think they can change the world with their business savvy and it's depressing but also scary because they seem to be in control of a lot of money/pursestrings. he has good intentions, but you know how much those are worth.

xp i don't know. he reminded me of matthew yglesias without the analytical skills. you're right, it's probably not really his fault. i'm in a very conservative state and the people who run things are pretty die hard free market types. oil, gas, financial, and health care run things. sad to watch otherwise left-leaning people try to make a go of it. sometimes it feels like you either tow the line or you won't get anywhere. i feel anxious, resentful, spiteful a lot. i think a big part of it has to do with my boss.. *remembers this isn't on 77*

anyway, one bit of good news is i may be trained on the reference desk. interacting with people who actually use the library would be nice for a change. oh and i'm sitting in on a research class to learn more about the info in our library and profession of specialty.

oil, gas, financial, and health care run things

forgot government tech. we have the nsa data mining facility in our backyard.

anyway, the whole gist of the lecture was "technology will provide the answers to our money problems if i am, i mean if we are, smart enough." lots of assumptions about scholarly value. career of professor as mercenary digital publisher taken as a given. idk, maybe that's just how things work in higher ed right now. and libraries are supposed to run (and by run i mean fund) the platform, which is actually run by come-and-go vendors/start-ups in the library 'sector' or by these people

Professor Eugene F. Fama

Robert R. McCormick Distinguished Service Professor of Finance, University of Chicago Booth School of Business, Chairman, Center for Research in Security at Chicago Booth, Advisory Editor of the Journal of Financial Economics, Director of Research, Dimensional Fund Advisors, and Chairman of Social Science Electronic Publishing
Professor Ronald J. Gilson

Charles J. Meyers Professor of Law and Business, Stanford Law School and Marc and Eva Stern Professor of Law and Business, Columbia University School of Law
Professor J. Richard Hackman

Edgar Pierce Professor of Social and Organizational Psychology, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University
Professor Michael C. Jensen

Jesse Isidor Straus Professor of Business Administration, Emeritus, Harvard Business School; Founding Editor of the Journal of Financial Economics, Chairman, Social Science Electronic Publishing, Past President of the American Finance Association, and of the Western Economics Association International.
Professor Richard Quandt

Hughes-Rogers Professor Emeritus, Princeton University and Senior Advisor, The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation
Professor William F. Sharpe

The STANCO 25 Professor of Finance, Emeritus, Graduate School of Business, Stanford Business School, Past President of the American Finance Association, 1990 Nobel Laureate in Economic Sciences
Professor Hal Varian

Professor, School of Information Management and Systems at the University of California at Berkeley, Professor of Economics in the Haas School of Business at UC Berkeley, Chief Economist at Google

Are they like the Chicago school of technology disruption?

ha, no that's the board of directors of the social science research network, the conservative facebook of academic publishing in certain disciplines that looks like a geocities website.

anyway, i'm glad your IT VP came down on the side of humans!

tl;dr the entire thread, no offense, but the most pernicious cliche is obviously YOLO which both encourages reckless behavior and embodies some pretty glib metaphysical assumptions.

lol

ha, no that's the board of directors of the social science research network, the conservative facebook of academic publishing in certain disciplines that looks like a geocities website.

really? "conservative facebook of academic publishing?" ssrn is an open access repository where authors share research, people all over the world can access otherwise-closed peer reviewed papers there. i'm not totally familiar with its ins-and-outs but that fact right there makes it considerably less conservative than a huge slew of other academic publishing entities

one publisher almost bullied us into an exclusive contract because they offer a lot of instructional technology (that didn't have the sort of books that would serve our population) it was a huge battle!

guess which company just filed for bankruptcy
i nelson laughed when i found out. it was not professional but it just kinda happened.

PERNICIOUS CLICHE SIGHTING IN THE WILD I forgot to post this the other day when i heard it, but there was this guy on the radio talking about something (i can't remember) and he was kind of a blowhard, and he kept speaking super emphatically about his philosophy re: selling whatever it was he was selling. at some point he said, "we're always going to be thinking, and creating, and DISRUPTING." i was like, i get the first two, but the last...not so sure about that one.