|
One of the point-counterpoint sessions at last fall's WebDev 2000 addressed the issue of Distributed Versus Centralized Web Management and Development. We structured that event intentionally to accentuate the differences in the two positions, and we tried very hard not to let the presenters and the participants come to any kind of compromise or solution that accommodated the important concerns of both positions. The transcript of the session, and the follow-up participant comments are worth reading as background. What follows is my attempt to reflect upon the schism presented by those positions, to move us beyond those comments, not to synthesis, but to a broader understanding of the issue in the context of higher education. Ultimately, the goal of this discussion is to help us make thoughtful decisions about web development at our institutions.
Karen Schwalm, Glendale Community College
|
In the early days of the World Wide Web, writers and readers alike reveled in the obvious differences between sites that were nonetheless tied together. Following a hypertext link sometimes meant jumping across continents; sometimes the links led to documents written not just by another person but sometimes in another language; almost always they led to different servers located in different domains. Many observers commented upon the development of a global community connected by discourse threads, common ideas, complementary viewpoints. This sense of "knitting" was almost palpable to readers, and it became a significant positive value, enhanced and emphasized by the very obvious differences between sites. The paired activities of collaboration and coordination represented in microcosm by hypertext documents gave rise to utopian dreams of global communities, where in Marshall McLuhan's terms we had "extended our central nervous system itself in a global embrace..." For colleges and universities, the prospect of creating international "communities of scholars" and "communities of learners" was intoxicating.
Early web development activities built off a general belief among Internet users in the positive values of distributed management, lack of centralized control, and collaboration. Partly this stemmed from a recognition (at least in the United States) of the military potential of the Internet, that there should be a network that would be self-healing if it were attacked, that there should be no single point of failure and thus no single location which exerted binding control. Partly it developed from an already thriving Internet culture that promoted and rewarded cooperation at the same time that it rewarded and appreciated creativity and individual initiative. In fact, it was how the Internet communication protocol was developed. Much of the writing about the Web in the early '90s addressed problems of cooperation: how to use global networks which spanned political jurisdictions, or bridged work hierarchies, or crossed cultures. Additional development attempted to establish standards that would enable distributed use and coordinated efforts without slowing development and prohibiting contributions from many individuals. At least in the United States, theoretical discussions about the Web (as well as about other Internet functions) often built off democratic ideals about free speech and freedom of assembly. The Web didn't replace existing capabilities; it was an attempt to create something entirely new.
When the business world began to explore the commercial potential of the Web, both as a means of reaching customers and as a mechanism for managing their internal information exchange, they brought to the enterprise an entirely different set of values and practices that derived from marketing and advertising. In addition, the products that business was initially supplementing and later replacing were print-based and linear; the culture from which they grew was hierarchical, and the organizational models offered clear reporting structures and levels of responsibility. A company's lifeblood depended upon its ability to create brand identity, build customer loyalty, and provide excellent service.
Over the same period of time, educational institutions were getting a heavy dose of business process training. They were learning the value of an educational "brand," becoming more student-oriented, and streamlining many of their institutional processes to be more friendly and efficient. Many public and private non-profit institutions hired marketing experts, expanded their advertising efforts, and built more sophisticated public relations offices. In fact, many educational institutions were able to do away with some quaint practices and streamline convoluted processes to become more flexible, lithe, and nimble. The weight loss felt good! At the same time, private, profit-making educational competitors appeared on the scene and put competitive pressure on public institutions.
As with many re-invention activities, it is difficult to know when to stop reinventing ourselves. And that is where, I believe, we find ourselves now. While colleges and universities use business processes and practices, they aren't businesses. They are public institutions charged with providing high-quality and accessible post-secondary education, and as such, they address three important (and occasionally competing) social needs: to develop good neighbors, good workers, and good citizens.
Collage of Maricopa Community Colleges' web sites
A college and university web site becomes another zone where these different educational purposes get worked out. It is both a demonstration of and a location for that effort. It can signify that an educational institution does (or does not) value diversity, that it knows how to present (or hide) the different voices on its campus, that it has mechanisms for collaboration (or coercion). This effort at institutional self-definition should not be managed by the marketing office, although it needs to know how to interpret the values of a distributed web site to various interested parties. Neither should it be managed by the IT department, although it needs to help develop tools and mechanisms that help coordinate distributed efforts. It should involve all the obvious institutional constituencies (students, faculty, staff, administrators, alumni, and community interests) and use the same institutional structures (committees, teams, and task forces) that allow for discussion of other key institutional efforts. A college web site should reward creativity (if that is an institutional value); it should reflect respect for difference and competing views (if that is an institutional value); it should provide an opportunity for critical thinking (if that is an institutional value); it should present an arena for research and alternative paths (if that is an institutional value); it should demonstrate cooperation and collaboration (if that is an institutional value).
Of course, all this gets worked out in the details: how do we distinguish between what's "official" and what isn't? How do we ensure that web contributors take responsibility for their words and actions? How do we provide effective search and navigation tools that help individuals find what they are looking for? How do we make sure that people can publish and update information easily or contribute without overcoming serious barriers? How we solve these technical and managerial problems, and how we explain and promote our solutions, is an important part of our educational mission-an effort to which the entire institution should contribute.
A college web site should accurately reflect the values of the institution- no, a college web site does reflect the values of the institution, whether those are the stated values of the institution or not, whether they are all the values of the institution or just some of them. It is probably a work in progress, if the institution is thriving, growing, and facing challenges.
WYSIWYG: what you see is what you get.
|
