Scholarlink

<p>Research on academic capitalism has critiqued the commodification of knowledge, but it has not critiqued assetization. The difference between commodification and assetization is more than a technical distinction. Extracting value from assets requires a different regime of coordination than what is required for extracting value from commodities. Through an analysis of 132 texts related to the online course&#xa0;review process&#xa0;at 16 research universities in the USA, I propose and problematize an online learning assetization regime which transforms discipline-based knowledge into digital content that can be owned, controlled, and managed as a university asset. This process potentially alienates faculty from pedagogical decision making; entices, beguiles, or coerces faculty to transfer intellectual property rights to the university; and shifts faculty from structures of academic governance to the private law of contracts. I show how techno-pedagogic discourse mystifies the online learning assetization regime even as it exhorts faculty and staff to accommodate it.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Techno-pedagogic discourse and the online learning assetization regime

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2025年1月24日

查看全文
  • David F. Ayers

摘要

Research on academic capitalism has critiqued the commodification of knowledge, but it has not critiqued assetization. The difference between commodification and assetization is more than a technical distinction. Extracting value from assets requires a different regime of coordination than what is required for extracting value from commodities. Through an analysis of 132 texts related to the online course review process at 16 research universities in the USA, I propose and problematize an online learning assetization regime which transforms discipline-based knowledge into digital content that can be owned, controlled, and managed as a university asset. This process potentially alienates faculty from pedagogical decision making; entices, beguiles, or coerces faculty to transfer intellectual property rights to the university; and shifts faculty from structures of academic governance to the private law of contracts. I show how techno-pedagogic discourse mystifies the online learning assetization regime even as it exhorts faculty and staff to accommodate it.