Here, I suggest that we (anti-big-data-scholars) should stop simply rejecting the concept of data. Instead, we should use our long training in pedagogy and teaching and our knowledge of interpretive and inductive/emergent methods of analysis to create better literacies about what data can mean.
This participatory performance and exhibition invites you to think about the process of making memories, to play around with the idea that remembering and forgetting are not always distinct. We ask participants to contribute something they’d like to forget and walk them through a process of dis-remembering, de-archiving, and dis-preserving.
Brief reflections on the power of the curation process, as it inevitably carries our own moral codes, furthering our particular ethics. The only way through this tangle is to understand that the point of all of this is not to create The Museum but to engage citizens in a process through which they can think about their own memory-making tendencies.
Our everyday lives are shot through with questions of politics and history; and now perhaps we need to rethink the Museum’s purpose as providing the space for framing and reflection of each of our relative positions to these larger questions. How, then, to refine our prompt, our approach generally, and develop the role of Museum staff, all towards greater social inquiry and political discovery?
Open-ended education emerges when we combine play with serious challenges. This idea is more gameful than gamification.
We asked two of the professors, Annette Markham and Sarah Pink, to talk about the design strategies they used to build such a challenging, creative, and fun learning environment. In this video clip, Sarah Pink talks about the value of developing pedagogical models that highlight collaboration and co-creation.
In an era of web 2.0, networked sociality, constant connectivity, smart devices, and the internet of things (IoT), how does everyday talk shape our relationship to technology, or our relationships to each other?
