Clark’s findings suggest an inextricable relationship between the knowledge- based work structures of HE and its belief structures. One might analyze the structures described on MIT’s Web site with this linkage in mind. In the
previous sections, I discussed how the CM technologies reify the separation of existing disciplinary cultures as well as many traditional enterprise structures.
I also described how the technology enactment might be seen as creating new enterprise forms. Looking at the technology with an eye on belief structures sheds additional light on these enactment phenomena. Specifically, there is evidence that the developing structures not only reify the traditional separation of academic and administrative culture but also reflect broader changes occurring in the culture of the system.
I turn my focus initially towards analyzing the separation of the culture of the discipline from the culture of the enterprise in MIT’s technology enactment.
Examining the description reveals that not only do the enacted structures evidence the familiar lack of interaction between the culture of the discipline and the culture of the enterprise typical of HE organization, but the structures seem to intensify this separation. The OKI’s organizational framework strongly emphasizes integration both at a local and an international level. “When combining OKI with on-the-wire protocols like IMS, it becomes much easier to integrate the whole lot” (Kraan, 2003, p. 2). This kind of large-scale integration is very different from traditional HE organizational structure. The structural nature of the OSID’s (discussed in the previous section) also support the goal of broad-based integration. They are “designed to allow multiple OKI sites to share some common infrastructure…” (Thorne, Schubert, & Merriman, p. 4). Clearly, the cultural values of stability and reliability have strongly influenced current structure. According to Clark’s research, these values are strongly prized by the culture of the enterprise, whereas the culture of the discipline favors individual autonomy and freedom. One might conclude then that the foundational structures currently enacted in the OKI over-represent the interests and values of the culture of the enterprise and under-represent those of the culture of the disciplines.
The separation of the CM system into the “content” and “delivery” components (or the OCW and OKI components) also evidences the break between cultural systems. Implied in this structural split is the assumption that the organization and administration of communication interaction does not impact educational activities. Leaders of the project openly acknowledge that the OKI Service Interface Definitions provide foundational technology structures, yet at the same time, they imply a lack of relationship between these foundations and the educational activities built upon them. They cite an advantage to OKI’s organizational split as being “much greater flexibility in learning related appli- cations”. They continue, claiming that “if all the hard work is done in standard-
ized, widely used adapters, then it becomes much easier and cheaper to make applications that are very innovative or finely tuned to teachers’ and students’
needs” (Kraan, 2003, p. 2). This is a curious assumption given that teaching and learning needs have informed the foundational organizational structures in an extremely limited way.
In addition to looking for evidence of disciplinary and enterprise structures in MIT’s enactment I also examined the technology for rules and resources relating to the culture of profession (the system of beliefs that Clark identified as a balancing force to the fragmentation between the discipline and enterprise structure). Much of the rhetoric is clearly recognizable as enacting HE’s existing professional culture. The values that the project’s leaders espouse are closely aligned with longstanding traditions: “At colleges and universities, visions of learning communities fostering the open development and exchange of ideas and useful services have guided the growth of institutional culture for years.
Peer review is a hallmark of this system. The revolutionary open-source software movement shares this collaborative ideal” (Moore, 2002).
But are the possibilities for individual autonomy and innovation truly reified in MIT’s enactment? Leaders claim that OKI has “noble design goals” and frequently cite their intention to provide a technology system that is: “open, scalable, secure, reliable, flexible and extensible” (Thorne, Shubert, &
Merriman, 2002). Three of these goals ring quite true with the traditional values of the culture of the profession—open, reliable, and flexible. But the others—
scalable, secure, and extensible—seem to represent a new set of professional values.
Investigating this new trend, I found many incidents where this new set of values were emphasized. For instance, leaders of the OKI promote these values as they articulate the goal of this new enterprise: “Specifically, OKI efforts include developing the means to exchange educational content or student information and to synchronize information across the educational community” (Tansey, 2003, p. 4). The project is being developed in close connection with others who share the goals of synchronicity and extensibility. For example, the IMS has goals not only to synchronize HE’s technical structures, but those of K-12 education and professional training as well. Frank Tansey (2003) does a nice job describing this grand scheme plan in his article, “The Standard Bearers Close Ranks.” In it he states, “The OKI is feeding into IMS (Global Learning Consortium) the new methodology for next-generation applications … IMS attempts to provide specifications and standards that meet the needs of many vertical efforts” (Tansey, 2003, p. 4).
How these integration/unification values may impact HE’s professional cul- ture—a culture that has long been unified by their strong commitment to autonomy and individual innovation—is an interesting question to ponder.
Before moving to examine that question, however, it will be useful to round out my analysis of MIT’s CM system by looking at the authority structures enacted in the collaborative effort.