Getting critical.In this section, we'll look at some ways in which we can develop a more critical understanding of the blockchain in higher education. There is a lot to read and take in here, so be sure to put some time aside to think of your own critical questions about the blockchain.
Time required: 45 minutes. |
Unblockchain consultant: professional specialized in telling you how a "blockchain tech" idea sucks and could work without a blockchain
Marco Agner (@marcoagner), November 5 2017 [CC-BY-SA 4.0: used with permission from author]
As we saw in the previous section, much of the discourse around blockchain technology emphasises its disruptive or revolutionary capabilities. As a response to this, many tech experts have developed a list of criteria for whether or not a blockchain project should go ahead. [For example, take a look here!] We're going to spend the next ten minutes watching a short video and reading a short blog post which focuses on this kind of reasoning.
1) What makes a good blockchain project? Greenspan, G. (2016). Avoiding pointless blockchain projects, online here. Here Greenspan argues that the criteria for a good blockchain project is having a database which is written to by multiple entities. Consider this argument in relation to what is happening at MIT Media Lab and Sony Digital Education. Does this project fit Greenspan's criteria? 2) More criteria for blockchain projects Lewis, A. (2017). Avoiding blockchain for blockchain’s sake: Three real use case criteria. Online here. Lewis diagnoses some of the reasons behind the failed blockchain projects, and uses this to develop criteria for a good case use for blockchain. Do you agree with Lewis' criteria? Having read and thought about the blockchain, would you suggest any additional criteria? |
What would purposeful pessimism about blockchain look like?
Criteria developed to judge whether or not a blockchain project could go ahead are useful. Their approach separates the technology itself from the project for which it might be used and they focus their criticism on the latter. However, it might be argued that the positions of those mentioned adopt a functional, instrumental understanding which is slightly flawed. They ask: will this technology work for this purpose?
A position of 'purposeful pessimism' would seek to go beyond these sorts of practical considerations. It might expand and deepen these questions, focusing as much on whether the technology should be used as whether it would work. It would mean not separating the technology from its potential use. It would move beyond a checklist of criteria towards a more holistic critique. And it means that we approach blockchain technology in higher education from a position that 'expects nothing' (Selwyn, 2015, p. 15).
The remainder of this section will introduce three themes which might inform the development of this toolkit - a set of ideas which might inform how we approach and assess potential blockchain projects. These are trust, ideology and neutrality. These connect to one another, and overlap, as you will see, so their separation is rather superficial. However, there are several others that we might also focus upon - you may wish to think about what else might be listed here.
A position of 'purposeful pessimism' would seek to go beyond these sorts of practical considerations. It might expand and deepen these questions, focusing as much on whether the technology should be used as whether it would work. It would mean not separating the technology from its potential use. It would move beyond a checklist of criteria towards a more holistic critique. And it means that we approach blockchain technology in higher education from a position that 'expects nothing' (Selwyn, 2015, p. 15).
The remainder of this section will introduce three themes which might inform the development of this toolkit - a set of ideas which might inform how we approach and assess potential blockchain projects. These are trust, ideology and neutrality. These connect to one another, and overlap, as you will see, so their separation is rather superficial. However, there are several others that we might also focus upon - you may wish to think about what else might be listed here.
Trust
We saw in the previous section that the valorisation of trustless transactions is a key element of the blockchain discourse. Equally, it might be argued that it forms a major part of the critique of it. As we saw, 'trustlessness' is interpreted in two ways: in terms of the immutability, permanence and transparency of the data, and in terms of the decentralisation that blockchain allows, and the lack of need to trust in any particular institutions.
Second, the blockchain means that we no longer have to place trust in third-party institutions, such as universities. But does that mean that it is truly trustless? Instead, might it be argued that we have to trust both the mechanism by which data is transferred and the blockchain itself. Might it better be described as 'trust-fluid', in the sense that blockchain merely displaces our trust? What are the implications of removing trust from third-party institutions like universities with governance and quality structures (however ineffective or flawed), and centring it instead on the technology itself, and the networks and infrastructures which support it?
So let's consider how we might add this to our critical toolkit to assess blockchain projects. We might commit to asking the following questions about use cases:
So let's consider how we might add this to our critical toolkit to assess blockchain projects. We might commit to asking the following questions about use cases:
- What are the potential implications if the data in the blockchain is 'trustless'? What does this imply about the truth, validity, completeness or accuracy of the data?
- Who is trusted in this application of blockchain? And what is the nature of that trust?
- Is the 'trustless' capability being used to disguise anything?
Ideology
We might also consider blockchain technology from the perspective of ideology. Watters (2016b) argues that the blockchain is ideologically freighted because of its beginnings with bitcoin. For example, she cites Golumbia (2015) who sees in the rhetoric, functionality and software of bitcoin a right-wing extremism.
Watters (2016a) persuasively proposes that blockchain technology might reinforce certain prejudices and biases. Focusing briefly on the independent verification of credentials, she questions what it means to effectively frame students as 'crooks', individuals lying about their credentials. She asks, "which students' claims are likely to be viewed as suspect? [...] which certificates, verified by the blockchain, might find a new legitimacy?" |
Watters' concerns are extremely relevant to our development of a set of critical questions to ask about future blockchain projects in higher education. We should be encouraged to think about the specific ideologies which are being encoded into the project itself, and about any biases or prejudices that it might work to cement or advance. For example, there are several ideologies that we might indicate in projects to use blockchain to verify credentials independently. It might be argued that the emphasis on efficiency gains in Matthews (2017) and Sharples and Domingues (2016), promote an ideology of managerialism, which underlines the need for cost reductions, modernisation and rationalisation above all else. We might question whether the use of the technology encodes an anti-institutionalism, and whose interests this might serve. Using blockchain technology to verify credentials means foregrounding ideas such as emphasis on the student 'ownership' of credentials (we might ask how we define students' relationship to their achievements now); it means promoting informal learning, and valorising disruption. We might ask about the implications of emphasising these sorts of ideas.
The questions we might ask of a blockchain technology project, then, include:
The questions we might ask of a blockchain technology project, then, include:
- What biases and prejudices might be reinforced in this use of blockchain technology?
- What assumptions are we making about those whose data is collected in a blockchain? What ideas does this reinforce?
- Whose interests might this use of the blockchain serve? Who is served by any disruption?
Neutrality
Finally, our toolkit will focus on the neutrality of blockchain technology. First, we might question the extent to which those who advocate for or plan to use this technology treat it as fundamentally neutral in the sense of working instrumentally towards the purpose for which it was designed. For example, Findlay asserts that that one of the advantages of moving to blockchain technology for record-keeping is that it "eliminates a perspective bias that affects how records are made and kept" (2017, p. 9).
However, we might question this neutrality. We might wonder, for example, about the design of the blockchain, the specific data collected, and the interfaces through which it is accessed or distributed. Do these contain codified values? We might also question how the data collected could be put to other uses - could, for example, data collected in the credentials blockchain be weaponised against teachers, or as evidence for the success of examination culture? What safeguards are in place to protect the privacy of those about whom data is collected and distributed?
However, we might question this neutrality. We might wonder, for example, about the design of the blockchain, the specific data collected, and the interfaces through which it is accessed or distributed. Do these contain codified values? We might also question how the data collected could be put to other uses - could, for example, data collected in the credentials blockchain be weaponised against teachers, or as evidence for the success of examination culture? What safeguards are in place to protect the privacy of those about whom data is collected and distributed?
Neutrality also relates to the complexity of blockchain technology, which is widely reported. Not only does it require significant computational power (Hoy, 2017), but at present this places the technology beyond the technical range of the average individual. Walch (2016, p. 731) suggests that this will lead to future reliability on blockchain experts. This may lead us to question the accessibility of blockchain technology, and the impact of any inaccessibility on neutrality. If the complexity of blockchain means that only the most powerful and wealthy institutions (such as MIT and Sony) can make use of it, how does this affect its neutrality? If only those individuals who can interact with the most powerful and wealthy institutions will benefit from blockchain technology, can we call it neutral?
The questions that we might add to our critical toolkit, then, are the following:
|
The toolkit
By focusing on these three elements - trust, ideology, and neutrality - we're starting to get a sense of the kinds of critical questions that we might pose when considering a potential blockchain project. These take our critical position beyond a 'will it work?' sensibility to address in more depth the socio-critical context in which blockchain technology is being considered. These don't treat blockchain as separate or in opposition to the potential blockchain project, but consider it as a single entity. As mentioned above, there are several other routes that this toolkit might have taken.
In the next section, we're going to test out the toolkit and use it to explore and question and adopt a position of purposeful pessimism about an imagined use of the blockchain for an educational purpose. It's called "How to Adult". But before we start, just spend a few minutes re-reading the toolkit questions developed here, and the ones that you have come up with on your own. There's some optional reading below, which you may wish to return to at a later date.
In the next section, we're going to test out the toolkit and use it to explore and question and adopt a position of purposeful pessimism about an imagined use of the blockchain for an educational purpose. It's called "How to Adult". But before we start, just spend a few minutes re-reading the toolkit questions developed here, and the ones that you have come up with on your own. There's some optional reading below, which you may wish to return to at a later date.
Optional further reading
Findlay, C. (2017). Participatory Cultures, Trust Technologies and Decentralisation: Innovation Opportunities for Recordkeeping. Archives and Manuscripts, 1–15. Online here. [Requires subscription].
Hoy, M. B. (2017). An Introduction to the Blockchain and Its Implications for Libraries and Medicine. Medical Reference Services Quarterly, 36(3), 273–279. Online here. [Requires subscription].
Schaffhauser, D. (2017). Blockchain: Letting Students Own Their Credentials. Online here.
Watters, A. (2016). The Ideology of the Blockchain (for Education). Online here.
Wüst, K., & Gervais, A. (2017). Do you need a Blockchain? (Cryptology E-Print Archive, No. 375). Online here.
Hoy, M. B. (2017). An Introduction to the Blockchain and Its Implications for Libraries and Medicine. Medical Reference Services Quarterly, 36(3), 273–279. Online here. [Requires subscription].
Schaffhauser, D. (2017). Blockchain: Letting Students Own Their Credentials. Online here.
Watters, A. (2016). The Ideology of the Blockchain (for Education). Online here.
Wüst, K., & Gervais, A. (2017). Do you need a Blockchain? (Cryptology E-Print Archive, No. 375). Online here.
You've made it to the end of this section! Now it's time to put our critical toolkit to the test. Click the button below to move onto the next stage of the resource.
|
Education and the blockchain is licensed by Helen Murphy under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
|