Tina Vrieler

Uppsala Computing Education Research Group

recent posts

about

  • A Critique of the Manifesto for Education

    by Tina Vrieler

    Abstract

    This short essay offers a critique of A Manifesto for Education by Gert Biesta and Carl Anders Säfström (2011), identifying three key assumptions that limit its transformative potential: (i) A vague notion of freedom as an alternative to educational idealism, (ii) freedom without liberation and beyond oppression, and (iii) epistemological exclusivity in education. While the manifesto claims to defend education from populism and idealism, it constructs a narrow and abstract framework that fails to account for systemic oppression and practical realities in the classroom. Drawing on feminist epistemology and critical pedagogy, this essay challenges the manifesto’s denial of structural power and argues for an expansive, pluralistic, and justice-oriented vision of education—one that embraces complexity, honors lived experience, and promotes mutual liberation.

    1. Introduction

    On May 7, 2025, Mälardalen University hosted a one-day colloquium celebrating A Manifesto for Education, authored by Gert Biesta and Carl Anders Säfström in 2011. At the time of its publication, the manifesto was framed as a response to pressing challenges in educational research and the broader socio-political landscape. Since then, it has been translated into several languages—including Icelandic and Swedish—and has positioned itself as a defense of the educational domain against the forces of populism, neoliberalism, and idealism.

    However, beneath its philosophical claims lie a number of problematic assumptions, including the rejection of interdisciplinary contributions to education and an abstract conception of freedom that evades critical grounding. This essay offers a critique of three underlying assumptions of the manifesto, which I argue to be the most problematic, including (i) a vague notion of freedom as an alternative to educational idealism, (ii) freedom without liberation and beyond oppression, and (iii) epistemological exclusivity in education. In discussing these limitations, an alternative vision for freedom in education is offered, advocating for an education grounded in wholeness rather than dichotomy, epistemological plurality rather than disciplinary isolation, and an honest reckoning with power, discrimination, and shared responsibility rather than the denial of systemic oppression.

    Assumption 1: A vague notion of freedom as an alternative to educational idealism

    Idealism, according to the authors, is associated with projects such as democracy, solidarity, inclusion, tolerance, social justice, peace, and—more recently—sustainability (Biesta, 2025).  One of the manifesto’s core assumptions is that embracing such idealism in education is unrealistic, as it places excessively high expectations on what education should be able to achieve. These far-reaching aspirations, they argue, set education up for inevitable failure. Instead, the authors propose that the solution lies in shifting the focus to the notion of “freedom”—a concept that was deliberately left undefined. In their own words, it is: “a freedom that is ‘difficult’ because it is connected, related […] that also cannot be pinned down, that cannot be captured, and that, in that sense, also cannot be defined”, but must somehow be enacted in the moment (Biesta & Säfström, 2011, p. 543).

    The authors present the idea of freedom not as idealistic, but as “realistic,” implying that this abstract notion is somehow immune to failure (Biesta, 2025). Yet, the manifesto’s portrayal of freedom—as vague, elusive, and impossible to define—paradoxically comes across as highly idealistic in itself. This notion of freedom is elevated as the very essence of what makes education educational, in contrast to the democratic and emancipatory projects the authors dismiss as overly idealistic (Biesta, 2025).

    One could argue that this emphasis on freedom is simply a rebranded form of idealism, now stripped of any concrete direction for practice. By leaving the concept of freedom deliberately undefined, the authors effectively evade accountability, making their approach difficult to critique. This vagueness shields the notion of freedom from scrutiny by placing the responsibility of interpretation entirely on the reader, allowing the concept to remain unaccountable. Imagine teachers reading the manifesto to inform their education, only to find a concept that resists articulation, rendering them confused and placing them in an impossible position (cf. hooks, 1994).  This in itself can be seen as an irresponsible demand, and raises the question of how educators are expected to respond when educational philosophy is framed in such an abstract way that it feels entirely disconnected from the realities of the classroom. If teachers cannot meaningfully see the connection between the ideas proposed and how it can be applied, what value does the manifesto offer? At “best”, the text risks alienating its intended audience; at worst, it may serve primarily to reinforce the authors’ academic positions. Rather than empowering teachers or inviting critical engagement, the manifesto risks becoming an exercise in intellectual domination—undermining, rather than supporting, educators in their efforts to pursue thoughtful and reflective pedagogy.

    A significant problem in the authors’ call to remove or minimize the so-called “idealistic” elements of education is that such a move may itself result in a reduction of freedom. In a society that embraces democratic and humanistic values such as care, tolerance, equality, and sustainability, these ideals cannot be compartmentalized or left to be upheld solely by those in positions of greater power. It is not the exclusive responsibility of political institutions to sustain these values; rather, every actor within the educational and societal system must embody them. Without such collective practice, the notion of a cohesive democratic society is undermined, reinforcing a fragmented view of social responsibility and fostering a mentality in which no one assumes accountability for their actions.

    Assumption 2: Freedom without liberation and beyond oppression

    The manifesto conceives of freedom not as individual autonomy or self-expression, but as the emergence of dissensus—a moment in which the learner’s subjectivity “comes into the world” (Biesta & Säfström, 2011, p. 541). From a teacher’s perspective, this notion of freedom can be understood as a relational and ethical commitment to the freedom of the other—namely, the child, pupil, or student. While this vision resonates with the idea that educators bear responsibility for creating environments where learners are encouraged to think for themselves, it is troubling that the manifesto speaks of freedom and equality without addressing what learners need to be freed from. In other words, it fails to name or confront the systemic forces that limit subjectivity and agency—be they racism, sexism, ableism, or economic inequality. By failing to acknowledge the presence of oppression, the manifesto risks reinforcing—rather than challenging—the oppressive practices occurring in schools and society, ultimately rendering meaningful educational transformation unattainable. Moreover, what is even more problematic is that this silence reflects a position of privilege; the ability to overlook systems of oppression is a stance typically afforded only to those who have benefited from them.

    The manifesto critiques the sociological argument focusing on social change, liberation from oppression, and the overcoming of inequality, claiming it is too entangled with the idea of progress and defers educational purpose to a future that may never arrive. However, this dismissal is deeply problematic, as it sidelines the structural realities—such as patriarchy, colonialism, racism, sexism, heterosexism, classism, and economic injustice—that must be acknowledged and challenged for any genuine freedom to emerge. By rejecting the contributions of sociology, the manifesto de-legitimizes and invalidates the social, cultural, and material conditions that shape the structure of the classroom and constrain learners’ lives, particularly those of marginalized groups. In doing so, it perpetuates a privileged, White, masculine, abstract notion of freedom—one that is disconnected from struggle, responsibility, and the intersectional work required to make education emancipatory in both theory and practice.

    Rather than placing the work of “freeing” students solely on teachers, a feminist discourse on freedom in education emphasizes a shared journey of intellectual and spiritual growth between educators and learners. As bell hooks (1994) argues, education must be a space where both teachers and learners engage in mutual transformation. This begins with acknowledging that education operates within systems of oppression, and that both educators and students live within a broader culture of domination. Therefore, the task of the teacher is not to transfer knowledge, but to create conditions in which learners are given tools, space, and possibility to critically examine their own, others’ (including the teachers’) and society’s “truths”, assumptions, beliefs, and values. Through this dialogical and reflective process, students are empowered to raise their voices, engage with knowledge as a means to improve their lives, and continually disrupt the harm caused by oppressive ways of learning and thinking (Kumashiro, 2009).

    Assumption 3: Epistemological exclusivity in education

    A third key assumption of the manifesto is that knowledge from other scientific disciplines, such as sociology and psychology, cannot adequately capture the educational dimension of education. The core issue here lies in how the authors themselves define what is considered “educational.” According to the manifesto, the educational moment—one that leads to freedom—occurs in the tension between “what is” and “what is not.” Based on this framing, the authors argue that definitions borrowed from other academic disciplines are insufficient, as these fields are allegedly too focused either on the present (“what is”) or on a deferred, developmental future (“what is not”).

    This discourse to assert definitional authority represents a kind of policing of knowledge through the claim of ownership over the concept of what is considered “educational”. It implies that only one epistemological framework can legitimately define the educational moment. Such a protectionist discourse, which seeks to delineate insiders and outsiders, and to shield education from the influence of other disciplines, is deeply problematic. It constrains and denigrates valuable knowledge from fields that have long informed educational thought and practice—contributions without which it would be impossible to make education truly educational. By reducing the educational experience to a narrowly philosophical abstraction, the manifesto becomes disconnected from the complex psychological, social, emotional, material, cultural, and bodily realities that fundamentally influence how human beings teach and learn.

    Feminist research advocates for epistemological plurality—the recognition and validation of multiple ways of knowing and understanding the world to counteract a hegemonic view of what is considered “educational” about education (see e.g., Anderson, 2024). This means acknowledging that what constitutes the “educational” is, and always will be, complex, never to be reduced to a single framework or discipline. A fundamental part of what makes education educational in a pluralistic sense lies in appreciating how different scientific fields approach questions of concern, each grounded in distinct epistemological assumptions and conceptions of social phenomena, and therefore, reality (Blaikie, 2007). To fully grasp the complexity of what is educational, it is essential to remain attuned to our situatedness—our partial perspectives and incomplete voices, to use the words of Haraway (1998). This means acknowledging the limits and contradictions of our perspective and our knowledge, while embracing the full spectrum of what it means to be a learning human being—one shaped by social, cultural, biological, psychological, and emotional dimensions. For these reasons, the field of education must be expanded, not reduced, because the complexity of education and what is educational can never be fully described. The reality of education is more nuanced than can ever be defined by one discipline or philosophical strand. Therefore, I believe it is indispensable to allow and accept contributions from diverse disciplinary viewpoints because this mosaic best reflects the multifaceted nature of being human, the act of engaging in educational experience, and the complex contexts in which that experience is embedded.

    Conclusion

    A Manifesto for Education sets out to defend education against the reductive pressures of populism, neoliberalism, and idealism. However, a critical reading reveals that it reproduces a series of assumptions that limit rather than expand the emancipatory potential of education. By rejecting idealism while offering a vague, abstract, and allegedly “realistic” notion of freedom, the manifesto imposes impractical and ungrounded expectations on teachers. Its refusal to engage with systemic oppression and its dismissal of interdisciplinary insights reinforce a privileged and exclusionary vision of education that is disconnected from lived experience. This critique argues for an alternative: an education grounded in complexity, relationality, and epistemological plurality—an education that recognizes power, acknowledges oppression, and fosters mutual transformation. Only through such a reorientation can freedom in education be made meaningful, actionable, and just.

    References

    Anderson, E. (2024). Feminist Epistemology and Philosophy of Science. In E. N. Zalta & U. Nodelman (Eds.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2024). Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2024/entries/feminism-epistemology/

    Biesta, G. (2025, May 7). Revisiting the Manifesto [Presentation]. Conference at Mälardalen University.

    Biesta, G., & Säfström, C. A. (2011). A Manifesto for Education. Policy Futures in Education, 9(5), 540–547. https://doi.org/10.2304/pfie.2011.9.5.540

    Blaikie, N. (2007). Approaches to Social Enquiry: Advancing Knowledge (2nd edition). Polity Press.

    Haraway, D. (1998). Situated Knowledges: The Science Question in Feminism and the Privilege of Partial Perspective. Feminist Studies, 14(3), 575–599.

    hooks, b. (1994). Teaching to transgress: Education as the practice of freedom. Routledge.

    Kumashiro, K. (2009). Against Common Sense: Teaching and Learning Toward Social Justice (2nd ed.). Routledge.

  • Doctoral Thesis – Check! Last paper from PhD – Check!

    My thesis, titled “Advancing Social Justice in Code Club Education: Exploring Participation, Pedagogy, and Computer Science Capital,” can be accessed here. The defense was held on Friday, the 13th of June 2025. I now work for Western Norway Research Institute in the beautiful town of Sogndal, Norway.

    Latest news: Finally, after a long year of waiting, the last paper from my doctoral studies was published in the Journal of Computer Science Education. I am so proud of this work. My deepest gratitude goes to the practitioners we interviewed for taking the time to talk with us about their experiences. I would also like to thank my co-authors Tomislav Jagust and Joelyn de Lima. You complemented each other well and strengthened our research team. I hope we can collaborate more in the future. Thank you also to the reviewers for their constructive comments, which helped improve the paper.

    Below is a summary of the paper I created to make the article’s content more accessible. I understand that not everybody has the time or opportunity to read 31 pages. The full paper (open access) is available here.

    Summary_CSE_PaperDownload

  • Power-Hungry AI and Humans

    Someone mentioned on Facebook that the total energy used by AI is now equivalent to Japan’s entire energy consumption. Later, I read a blog post that said data centers alone consumed “almost 2 percent of global energy demand in 2022”[1] — and that this demand could double by 2026, which would make it roughly equal to the electricity use of all of Japan. That’s enormous!

    AI is an incredible technology in so many ways. It helps doctors detect diseases, assists us on the road, makes planning easier, and helps us understand complex stuff. But it also comes with a massive environmental trade-off. And still, some people remain incredibly optimistic, believing AI will fix everything. Just a few days ago, The Washington Post [2] reported that the AI industry told U.S. lawmakers they must win the AI race — because, according to them, AI will solve the climate crisis. They literally said environmental concerns shouldn’t get in the way.

    But honestly, when has humankind ever scaled anything back? We don’t reduce, we just keep adding. Look at electricity: even though we’ve developed green energy and nuclear power, we haven’t stopped using coal. We just added more sources to meet our growing need for electricity.

    And it’s the same story everywhere. We introduce something new to improve an existing version, and then we need all the accompanying items — the accessories, upgrades, and subscriptions. It’s endless. Why can’t we break this vicious circle of constantly wanting more? It was probably important for our survival thousands of years ago. Today, things are different, and it’s depressing, because deep down, we know. We know that AI won’t save us from the climate crisis. It is just another technology add-on. We might delay the worst for a bit, maybe even a long time, but as the saying goes, “You can run, but you can’t hide.”

    The only real way to prevent this planet from overheating and the disasters that follow is to change how we live — and that includes everything from what we eat and say, to what we teach, to the stories we tell ourselves about progress, growth, and ultimately, happiness.

    [1] https://www.vox.com/climate/2024/3/28/24111721/climate-ai-tech-energy-demand-rising

    [2] https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2025/04/10/ai-race-china-energy-congress/

  • Bring Strange Things

    The author Philip Pullman once said, “Poetry is not a fancy way of giving you information; it’s an incantation. It is actually a magical spell. It changes things; it changes you.“ I came across this beautiful and thought-awakening poem by Ursula Le Guin, and I could not resist sharing it here as a way for me to remember and cherish her work. This poem may not (directly) have anything to do with research, but it is a way of seeing the world that I resonate with. In research, in education, as well as in life, one should not be afraid of recognizing what is different, strange, or “other.” To be open and reflective about what we see, but also what we don’t see. To be daring and courageous, to explore perspectives and experiences beyond what we know. To travel and come back home, looking inward to understand how “new” ideas, information, and ways of seeing and knowing change us so we can grow.

    “Please bring strange things.
    Please come bringing new things.
    Let very old things come into your hands.
    Let what you do not know come into your eyes.
    Let desert sand harden your feet.
    Let the arch of your feet be the mountains.
    Let the paths of your fingertips be your maps
    And the ways you go be the lines of your palms.
    Let there be deep snow in your inbreathing
    And your outbreath be the shining of ice.
    May your mouth contain the shapes of strange words.
    May you smell food cooking you have not eaten.
    May the spring of a foreign river be your navel.
    May your soul be at home where there are no houses.
    Walk carefully, well-loved one,
    Walk mindfully, well-loved one,
    Walk fearlessly, well-loved one.
    Return with us, return to us,
    Be always coming home.”

    ― Ursula K. Le Guin

  • Reflecting on the 24th Koli Calling International Conference on Computing Education Research

    My first Koli Calling experience was in 2013. There I was, an undergrad presenting a paper on informal learning through Facebook, feeling like a fish out of water among the senior researchers. I had many doubts: Did I belong here? Would these experts find my work worthwhile? What would they think of my presentation? I practiced relentlessly for my presentation. I remember how nervous I felt. What really threw me for a loop was seeing everyone present without notes. In upper secondary school, we always had that safety net of paper prompts. Here, it seemed like everyone had their talks memorized. I remember thinking, “How on earth do they do that?” Looking back, I’m glad these memories are still vivid. They’re a testament to how far I’ve come. More importantly, they help me empathize with others facing similar challenges. It’s funny how our past experiences, especially the nerve-wracking ones, can become bridges to connect with others. Also, those initial feelings of inadequacy? They’re just the first step on the path to confidence and expertise.

    My second time in Koli was in 2017. I returned for the doctoral consortium (DC) led by Professor Matti Tedre at the University of Eastern Finland. While the technical content of my first DC has faded from memory, the people I met and the unique spa experience remain vivid. Koli Calling is an intimate conference, with around 60 participants attending this year. Its small size and remote location create an ideal environment for networking and socializing, as attendees can’t easily slip away. A highlight of the conference is the spa on the second day. It’s a fantastic opportunity to connect with peers. However, I’ve realized that my comfort in this setting reflects a certain privilege. The spa experience, while enjoyable for some, can feel exclusionary to others for various reasons.

    This year, I went to Koli to present my paper titled: Applying the Computer Science Capital Framework to Understand Factors Facilitating Children’s Decision to Participate in Code Clubs. Submitting my paper to Koli Calling came with a mix of anticipation and anxiety. I’d heard from colleagues that acceptance rates had been declining, making publication increasingly challenging. So when I received news of my paper’s direct acceptance as a full paper, I was elated. It felt like a validation from the computing education research community, affirming the value of my work. In academia, publishing is a crucial metric of a researcher’s capabilities and “worth.” The prestige of the venue matters, too, and Koli Calling, along with conferences like ICER, holds significant weight in our field.

    Despite this success, I occasionally grapple with doubts about the relevance of my research. “Does anyone really care about the sociology of computing education?” I sometimes wonder. However, these uncertainties were quickly dispelled by a chance conversation just before my presentation. I found myself chatting with two fellow Ph.D. students about their experiences in computer science education. Their stories were eye-opening. One confided that she had spent two years in tears, struggling through her studies. The other described how she had “suffered” (her exact word) through her CS education, having primarily chosen the field to please her parents rather than following her interests.

    The conversations I had with these PhD women impacted me. They shared stories of being among the few women in their computer science classes.  One particularly striking account was of a professor who openly stated that women were inferior programmers compared to men. Despite this discouraging environment, these women persevered. One of them, determined to prove her worth, not only completed her CS engineering education but graduated at the top of her class. She told me that she really appreciated the kind of work I was doing. I don’t think I have felt more of a sense of purpose. I am truly grateful for them sharing their experiences with me.

    These candid revelations underscored the importance of my research focus. They highlighted the authentic human experiences and challenges within computer science education. The encounter with these women reminded me that behind every statistic and theory are real people with real struggles and aspirations.

    Reflecting on my presentation experience, I noticed that while I initially felt nervous, a sense of calm and confidence washed over me as soon as I began speaking. The support from allies in the audience – Miranda, Naas, Anna, and Olli – whose encouraging nods were a constant reassurance, played a significant role in this transformation (Thank you!). The Q&A session following my presentation was particularly memorable. Lauri Malmi took the opportunity to emphasize to the audience the rarity and importance of sociological perspectives in computing education research. His words carried significant weight, given his standing in the field. This public recognition of the value of my work was incredibly affirming and meant more to me than I could express. Lauri’s use of his position and academic influence to support my research exemplifies the kind of allyship that can make a real difference in academia. It validated my work and highlighted the need for diverse perspectives in computing education research. Such endorsements can be pivotal in shaping the direction of future research and in encouraging more scholars to explore interdisciplinary approaches in computer science education.

    Reflecting on this Koli experience, I’m struck by the collaborative and supportive atmosphere that defines this conference. After my presentation, several attendees approached me to express their appreciation for my talk and its contribution to computing education. I’d like to extend my heartfelt gratitude to several individuals who significantly enhanced my Koli experience. Their engaging conversations, insightful reflections, kindness, and friendship were invaluable. Andreas, Anna, Anastasiia, Brian, Casten, Erkki, Ilkka, Juho, Katrin, Lauri, Lukas, Marco, Miranda, Naas, Nick, Olli, Sindre, Sten, and Zoia – your presence and interactions made this conference truly memorable.

    You can find this year’s conference proceedings here. And finally, what is a blog post without some pictures 🙂

  • Latest Publication and Presentation at EDUCON

    I am happy to share that my latest research publication (and the fourth paper of my thesis) is now available online. The title of the paper is “A Case Study of a Code Club’s Inclusion Policy and How It Is Implemented Online and in the Classroom”. The study examines how Kodcentrum’s practitioners/teachers work with inclusive practices online and in the classroom. Unfortunately, the paper is not open-access, so if you wish to get a copy, feel free to email me or contact me on ResearchGate. Here’s the abstract:

    This paper investigates the implementation of an inclusion policy within both the online and code club classroom settings at Kodcentrum (Code Centre), a non-profit organization located in Sweden. The primary objectives of this study encompass the identification of key focus areas outlined in Kodcentrum’s inclusion policy and the description of how these specific focus areas are translated into practice within Kodcentrum’s digital platforms and code club classroom environment. To accomplish these research aims, a two-pronged approach was employed. Firstly, a content analysis of Kodcentrum’s inclusion policy was conducted, revealing four primary areas of inclusion: 1) broadening participation and equal opportunity, 2) digital competence, 3) inclusive teaching, and 4) representation and diversity. Subsequently, an analysis of Kodcentrum’s online platforms and interviews with practitioners were undertaken to illuminate the practical implementation of these four identified focus areas. The findings not only shed light on the strategies employed by Kodcentrum to address inclusive practices online and in the code club classroom but also underscore some inherent challenges associated with each area. The paper ends with a discussion of the broader implications of these findings beyond the specific case of Kodcentrum, providing a basis for future research in the field of inclusive non-formal computing education.

    The paper was presented on Kos Island at the IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference, commonly known as EDUCON. This was my first experience attending the conference, and I was pleasantly surprised by the warm and welcoming atmosphere. While there are always areas for improvement at any event (e.g., reduce the queues, please), what stood out to me most was the emphasis on connection and collaboration among researchers. The organizers truly fostered an environment where sharing ideas and networking were prioritized.

    I was fortunate to be scheduled for the first presentation slot on the opening day. Presenting early has its advantages; it allowed me to focus on my talk without the lingering anxiety of waiting, enabling me to relax and absorb the inspiring work of others throughout the day. Below is a photo of me during my presentation. I felt it went exceptionally well (but then again, I enjoy presenting to others)—I managed to stay on time and engaged with the audience, receiving some insightful questions afterwards. One of the highlights of my presentation was connecting with fellow researchers in my field after my presentation and getting compliments from the lovely Joelyn de Lima.

    One of the most enriching aspects of attending conferences is the opportunity to connect with fellow researchers. EDUCON this year proved to be an exceptional experience in this regard. The atmosphere was conducive to forging new connections, and I found myself engaging with colleagues in ways I hadn’t before. Initially, I was worried about feeling lonely since I was going to the conference alone, but doing things alone is sometimes the most rewarding. Being alone made me open to interaction. I found myself striking up conversations in unexpected places, like the hotel reception. These chance encounters led to meaningful connections with fascinating researchers from diverse backgrounds. The conference challenged my preconceptions about the research community. I discovered a warmth that I hadn’t anticipated, forming friendships that I hope will endure beyond the conference halls.

    While I’m eager to see where these new connections might lead in the future, my immediate focus remains on completing my thesis. With four papers already under my belt, I’m keeping my fingers crossed for the acceptance of my fifth and final paper. EDUCON has not only contributed to my academic growth but has also expanded my professional network in ways I couldn’t have imagined. It’s a testament to the power of scientific gatherings in fostering both intellectual and personal development within the research community.

    Below are some pictures of our lovely little group. I think they conveyed nicely the time we spent together 🙂

  • Thoughts on the Supervision of PhD students’ Writing

    Supervision and guidance in reviewing a PhD student’s work have been on my mind lately. I have been working intensely on my fourth PhD article and, therefore, received quite some feedback from my supervisors. Even though I think that supervising PhD students is a rewarding activity, it does come with challenges. If I’d be lucky enough to supervise PhD students one day, this is probably what I would tell them:

    Recognising that you will be the one doing the hard work

    Your supervisor is there to guide and support you, but the heavy-lifting is yours to do. Your PhD education is about you becoming an independent researcher. Therefore, you must try to show that you can achieve this. You will feel lost, you will run into blind alleys (and waste time), you will take sharp turns, and you will change your mind completely. And this is all part of the process. Remember that it is a privilege to be able to spend time in search of knowledge. So, cherish this time as a PhD student! To use the words of one of my favourite authors Yuval Noah Harari:

    “Finding truth lies in experimenting with unproductive paths, explore dead ends, make space for doubts and boredom, and allow little seeds of insights to slowly grow and blossom. If you cannot afford to waste time, you will never find the truth”

    Recognising that writing a paper is a long process

    Seeing a published paper can make you think that the process of writing it was straightforward and easy, but this couldn’t be further from the truth. It takes several attempts to get a paper in good shape for publication. Do not wait too long with sending the first draft to your supervisors. Remember the 80-20 principle, i.e. send the draft for feedback when it is about 80% good. Wait to fix the 20% until you know that you are on the right track. If you focus on improving the draft to reach 100% you might end up spending a lot of time working on things that most likely will not lead to significant improvement anyway. Or, worst case, you might be working on the wrong things.

    Recognise that supervisors can disagree

    Your supervisors will occasionally disagree on things, which can make you feel confused. Whose side should you “choose”? The important thing to remember here is that, often, there is no right/wrong answer, and there are multiple “correct” paths to take. Listen to your supervisors’ advice but make your own decisions. In the end, it is you who will be held accountable for your choices, so it is essential that you can justify them. Also, you don’t always have to do everything your supervisors ask. But you have to be able to explain why you didn’t do so.

    Recognise that your supervisors want the best for you

    At times it can feel like your supervisors are out to get you or to make your life harder. Sometimes, their comments can feel harsh, but in the end, it is never about you; it is about the text. Keep in mind that your supervisors care about you and want to help you get your text to the next level of quality.

    Last but not least, be humble

    The writing process is time-consuming and takes a lot of energy. It can occupy your mind constantly. Also, the feedback you get can be emotionally draining. It can sometimes be hard to see your work for what it is, especially when you have been working with it intensely. Take a few days’ breaks from the text to regain motivation, energy and “fresh eyes”. Let outsiders’ eyes take a look at your writing. Once you get the feedback on your text, it can take time to understand what the reviewers meant. Therefore, don’t jump into a defensive position. It is critical to remain open to critiques. Be humble, persevere, (take notes of their comments if the feedback is not in writing), calm down, and return to the reviewers’ comments when you are ready. I am not implying that the reviewers are always right, but you should always take their comments seriously.

  • A Sociocultural Perspective on Computer Science Capital and its Pedagogical Implications in Computer Science Education

    I have been so busy lately that I realised that I forgot to mention that my latest publication is finally out! You can access the article here. If you wish to read the article but cannot access it for whatever reason, please feel free to contact me at: tina.vrieler@it.uu.se

    Abstract

    The aim of this conceptual article is to provide a framework and a lens for educators in diversifying and making CS education more inclusive. In this paper, we conceptualize the notion of computer science capital (CSC), which extends Bourdieu’s sociological theory of capital and Archer et al.’s work on ‘science capital’. The CSC concept was developed by contrasting the concept of science capital with a literature review on key factors affecting students’ aspirations in CS. We argue that there is a need to distinguish between science capital and CSC, because the types of capital that are considered legitimate vary between the field of natural science and computer science. The CSC concept uses a sociocultural perspective on learning and can be understood as a form of symbolic capital that is influential in facilitating students’ possibility to fully participate in, engage with, and form aspirations in CS. The CSC concept consists of three main components, each with associated subcomponents. We believe our CSC framework, along with the self-reflection prompts included in this article, will offer support for reflections for educators in their daily pedagogical work. By taking students’ various levels of social and cultural capital into consideration, educators can plan didactic activities with a focus to strengthen students’ various types of capital. This includes reflection on how implicit and explicit norms, beliefs, thoughts, expectations, values, and ideas can affect the pedagogical practices and ultimately the students. Only when we are reflective about our teaching practices can we be better positioned to construct a more inclusive teaching and learning environment.

    Tina Vrieler and Minna Salminen-Karlsson. 2021. A Sociocultural Perspective on Computer Science Capital and its Pedagogical Implications in Computer Science Education. ACM Trans. Comput. Educ.(September 2021). https://doi-org.ezproxy.its.uu.se/10.1145/3487052

  • Reflection on Leadership

    During the past year, I have served as the chair of the PhD student council at Uppsala University’s faculty of science and technology. I applied for the chair position mostly because I wanted to learn about how the university functions. I will admit that the application was also a strategic move since it looks nice on the CV to have had a position with many responsibilities. Not unexpectedly, besides learning about the organisation of the university, I have come to learn a lot about myself as well. This blog post is (an incomplete) reflection and a summary of the things I have learned as chair of the doctoral council (TNDR, in short).

    • It is good practice to start the first meeting by setting expectations. Formulate and communicate what is expected from your colleagues. Avoid taking things for granted, even things that seem obvious to you. For example, if punctuality is important, then it is essential to communicate to your colleagues what they are expected to do if they cannot attend a meeting or run late.
    • Share your responsibilities. This is difficult for me since I am a control freak; I have difficulty trusting people to uphold my high standards. My advice to my fellow control-freaks is to learn to let go. Start small, for example, by delegating a few tasks that you care less about to others. Make a conscious decision to trust people because they can do the job as good as or even better than you can. Make a conscious decision to be silent and let other people be in charge/in the spotlight because you can learn from them as well.  
    • You cannot make everybody happy. A position with many responsibilities means that many people will rely on you. Making difficult comprises is part of the job; no matter how much you think you have thought of every detail, you will still miss something. Accepting the fact that you will sometimes let people down is a big step towards a more mature leadership.
    • Like the old saying goes: “To know oneself is the beginning of wisdom”. You get far by just recognising your strengths and weaknesses. Write down what they are and how you plan to work on your shortcomings next time you are in a similar position.
    • I have learned that in leading and supporting others, you need to get a holistic perspective of your colleagues. Essentially, all of us come with a bag full of experiences, emotions, opinions and so on that affect who we are. Beyond this, we are affected by the well-being of our mind and body and what goes on in our environment. All these factors affect us and our ability to work. For some people, it is very apparent that something is affecting them, while for others, it is harder to see. Remind yourself to have compassion. If your gut feelings tell you something is amiss with your colleague, it probably is. Show your colleagues you are there for them if they want to talk.
    • One of the most challenging tasks in work is how to set boundaries for workspace friendships. I tend to get emotionally involved with people instead of maintaining a friendly relationship. And the key here is friendly because being friendly and being friends are two very different things. My advice to someone with similar tendencies is to stay focused on the goals of your work and try not to let your relationship with people hinder your performance. But I have to admit that the friend-colleague relationship is a tricky one.  
    • The last point of advice has nothing to do with leadership or relationship. It is a gentle reminder to you and myself to always write when you feel inspired. Don’t wait until tomorrow; it might be too late by then.

  • Engineering Science, Vector Metaphor and Women’s Needs

    According to Evelyn Fox Kellers, a vector (in mathematics) represents science. Within science, there are various actors, such as the researcher and the research participants. A vector has both a force and a direction, just like science and the actors in science; each with different agendas, plans, wills, prejudices and values. Science is not free from ideologies, political control, opinions, values ​​and interests because no human being or institution is free from ideas and values. Since we (researchers) are central in the production of knowledge – we perform scientific experiments, interpret results, convey implications of research and so on – we can conclude that no knowledge is free or objective. When a researcher seeks funding, the research project must meet several requirements. Often, these requirements are linked to economic or societal interests. It is rare that research, especially in technology or engineering, can be conducted for its own sake because research (often) depends on funding. In Sweden, tax money is a common form of research funding.

    I recently got acquainted with the Spacerpad project. In the Spacerpad project, the engineers have developed reusable sanitary pads for women living in poverty areas. The motivations for developing the sanitary pads were several, including menstruation’s impact on women’s everyday lives and educational  opportunities. According to previous research, women avoid going to school when menstruating because they do not have access to sanitary products.

    It is apparent in the description of the Spacerpad project that the engineers have a deep contextual understanding of the women’s situation. For example, many poor women have only limited access to water. Therefore, the sanitary pads come with a washing container that makes it easier to wash the sanitary pads with just a little bit of water. In addition, the sanitary pads dry very quickly and are equipped with a drying pocket in case the women want to dry the pads discreetly. In other words, the engineers made sure that the technology they developed was actually accepted and useful for women. The engineers also recognised the economic opportunity that came with the sanitary pads. They claimed that if the pads were to be produced locally, the pads would be more affordable, and the production of the pads would give rise to employment opportunities in production and businesses. If I were to use the vector metaphor by Evelyn Fox Kellers, I would say that the force and the direction of the vector in the Spacerpad project stem from women’s needs and desires, and second from economic possibilities. The project thus shows that economic gains and meeting the needs of women and the environmental can go hand in hand.

    The Spacerpad project meets all the requirements in the definitions I have found about engineering science. The project “produces systems or tools (sanitary pads in this case) with technology that are the result of science” [1]. In addition, the project solves a meaningful problem [5] (helping poor women live a decent life) by using scientific methods and creativity. KTH’s [4] description of engineering science also includes the engineers’ professional role, and in this case, this includes, understanding of women’s everyday lives, problems, needs, assets, values, etc. Being reflective and open is an important part of an engineer’s professional role.

    Let’s again go back to the vector metaphor by Evelyn Fox Kellers. We can understand that the power and direction of science (and the vector) are determined partly by scientific funding and partly by people in positions of power who decide who gets funded. Thus, they also determine how science should be prioritised. Historically, women have been in the minority in engineering and public spaces (in this case, where decisions on research funding are made). Given men’s dominance in technology, it is no wonder that men’s definition of what research is valuable or worth pursuing has been prioritised. Women’s living conditions, problems, and situations have thus not been seen as an arena where engineering solutions could take place. How is it that we have developed a space rocket that can take us on a lunar journey in 1969, and only over 40 years later have we found a sensible solution for one of women’s most common needs: adequate and comfortable menstrual protection?! It has taken so long for the engineers to prioritise (poor) women’s needs for sustainable sanitary pads that meet all women’s requirements. Fortunately, the number of women in engineering and public fields has increased (albeit slowly). Thanks to this, we can hopefully see changes in the type of science conducted in engineering.

    References

    [1]       “Vad är teknik? – Users.se.” https://users.se/vad-ar-teknik/ (accessed Jan. 17, 2022).

    [2]       NE.se, “teknik – Uppslagsverk – NE.se.” https://www.ne.se/uppslagsverk/encyklopedi/l%C3%A5ng/teknik (accessed Jan. 17, 2022).

    [3]       E. Sahlström, “Skillnaden mellan teknik och teknologi,” Evas skrivskola, Apr. 23, 2019. https://evasskrivskola.se/sprakriktighet/skillnaden-mellan-teknik-och-teknologi/ (accessed Jan. 17, 2022).

    [4]       KTH.se, “Ingenjörsvetenskap (ED1100) | KTH.” https://www.kth.se/social/course/ED1100/ (accessed Jan. 17, 2022).

    [5]       “Ingenjörsvetenskap,” Wikipedia. Mar. 19, 2021. Accessed: Jan. 17, 2022. [Online]. Available: https://sv.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ingenj%C3%B6rsvetenskap&oldid=49024405