For those who came in late – I’m working my way through all the submissions to the Third Space Slowposium/Symposium by theme. There are rather a lot more entries in Identity than there were in Connecting so I’m guessing this will be in parts)
Identity is kind of a big deal in the tertiary education third space, given that our defining quality is that we are not quite one thing (academics) or another (professional staff). Or rather, the things we do don’t easily sit in one domain or another. (We are generally still employed in academic or professional roles). 3S roles also tend to be somewhat liminal, as they are generally not well or consistently understood and there can be substantial overlap between them. This is not always a bad thing.
Make your pitch for your preferred role title (Colin Simpson, Uni Sydney)
It seems a little weird to open with my own submission but it is first in the “Identity” book so there we are. The purpose of this section is to acknowledge that nomenclature is an ongoing challenge – there is an article that I have cited in my thesis from 1972 (Geis & Klaassen) bemoaning this issue – but to offer participants an opportunity to ignore that and make a case for their preferred title to be adopted sector wide. For example – if you think everyone in a learning/education/instructional designer role should be called learning designers, tell us why.
I kicked it off by making a case for the term EdAdvisors to be used to describe learning designers, academic developers and educational technologists collectively. As in, rather than needing to spell out the three roles every time we discuss these roles which have a common purpose. This may have been unnecessarily confusing, as some respondents assumed that I want to replace the three titles with this single title. Others travelled down the rabbithole of the impossibility of getting the agreement needed to change titles sector wide. (True but this is a hypothetical exercise. This is probably on me for not making my point more clearly).
Once I added some clarification, some more interesting pitches emerged for “Educational Improv Artist”, “Educational designer/developer in residence”, and “The Inbetweeners”. The etymology of wider roles in HE emerged and as virtually all conversations go around these topics, many fascinating ideas swirled around without resolving a great many things.
Capturing third space skills
Kate Mitchell (Uni Melbourne), Keith Heggart (UTS), Colin Simpson (Uni Sydney)
Well this is just embarrassing at this stage as up I pop again. This section arose from ongoing discussions about the need to identify the skills that third space practitioners possess (tied to their practices) as a way of helping to clarify and define these roles. This section centres around a Padlet where participants are encouraged to free range share any skills/practices that they think are relevant. With the intention being that the hosts will group and cluster these in time.
Among the skills and capabilities present when I visited the board (in the early days of Slowpo) were Connecting (highlighting the centrality of relationships in this work), Adaptability (arguably a personal trait?), Digital skills (perhaps needing further breaking down), Influencing skills, and Lifelong learning skills. (I agree that lifelong learning is also important – I wonder if it is as much a disposition or an openness). Maybe there is something to be said for identifying a set of values or qualities that are important in TSPs?
I’m in HE’s third space – who is with me?
Zoë Allman (De Montfort University)
Allman’s section is an interesting one because it is a question that I’ve heard a few times before from (academic) institutional leaders. Is management a third space role? Given that there is a separation from academics (and sometimes an antipathy toward the managerial class overall), I can appreciate managers and leaders wanting to belong to a community. Their work also crosses over academic and professional domains, so there is definitely that. I do wonder whether having a lack of power/influence as a result of occupying a liminal role is a defining trait of being in the third space though – which might exclude managers. Or at least put them into a special 3S category. I’m more inclined to having them inside the tent, particularly if it helps to build stronger relationships and better understanding.
Responses to the provocation questions, which all came from leaders – which are around the theme of how/why do you feel you are in the third space – tended to focus on the fact that their work transcends traditional academic/professional domains, incorporating activities tied to both. I shared my feeling – hopefully tactfully – that both academic and professional staff can be third space but there are institutional differences in hierarchy/standing for them that should be noted.
What does the Third Space look like?
Wendy Taleo, Monash Uni
Wendy is one of my fellow 3SS organisers and I have long admired the creative bent that she brings to her contributions to discussions and discourse. This is no different. Here she has generated content addressing the wider question of what the 3S looks like, incorporating video of GenAI imagery and ‘asemic’ writing – a wordless open semantic form of writing. She invites participants to consider their responses and share suggestions about AI image creation.
Taleo created phrases in response to the images as part of this work. “We wear our skills embedded in our skin” stuck out for me. This says something to me about the fact that as third space practitioners, our identity is inexorably tied to what we do (and arguably what we provide – our perceived value). Learning and teaching would continue without us – arguably not as well – but in making in better, we have a reason to exist in the institution. (Recognised or not)
Hard pressed but not crushed
Rebecca Kan & Eliza Yeo Hui, (University of the Arts, Singapore)
This is one of the largest sections in the Slowposium. Where almost all sections sit on a single page in their associated Moodle book, this is spread across 7. Which is fine, clearly they have something to say, in this case reflecting on their parallel traits as artists and institutional administrators and how they land in between. It takes the form of an exchange based in collaborative autoethnography. They frame the discussion in terms of:
- Traces – influences and encounters of the past that continue to shape the present
- Relays – processes of transmission to navigate between different individuals, faculties, or organisational structures
- Ambivalences – tensions arising between institutional goals and personal agency, or balance multiple roles and identities
- Ambiguities – the lack of clarity or fluidity inherent in a space defying traditional boundaries
- Contradictions – the inherent conflicts arising when working in a space that must reconcile opposing principles
The hosts take us through these ideas as they discuss their work in the third space in their institutions and how these core ideas form the basis of third space practice. It is an approach to considering the third space that I’ve not come across before, though certain aspects – like the contrast between the things we do in our work (and according to our values) and institutional priorities – certainly rang true with my own research and experiences.
They shared provocation questions related to these qualities. These were my responses:
1) I have noticed that different cultures in institutions shape their willingness to take risks or to trust their staff. My experiences at 2 Group of Eight (“elite”) universities in Australia were of a timidity and a great lack of willingness to explore change. Working at a ‘young’ university was different – although seeping institutional toxicity presented other challenges
2) Communication is key in all situations and at all times. Where there are barriers or information about decision making is kept from staff, it can be incredibly difficult to know how to plan for the future.
3) Tensions between what the institution wants/needs and what individual stakeholders want/need is something that we navigate in the third space every day. In many ways, smoothing those waters is a big hidden part of this work
4) Ambiguity is fantastic when it means that we are able to work beyond the boundaries of our role. This is one of the reasons that many third space practitioners don”t want our roles to be too accurately or narrowly defined.
5) Contradictions are 99% of what we do. In the teaching and learning side of the 3S, we are not teachers but we tell them how to teach.
Conclusion – Identity part 1
Well this is a fairly long post already, so I’m going to save the remaining Identity sections for the next one. It is a joy seeing the wide variety of perspectives on the third space.