"Schome": Lifelong learning and the third space

Further to my last, doom-saying post on the Wikitorial ballyhoo, it seems all is not lost for the humble wiki.

Peter Twining from the Open University's Knowledge Network is coordinating development of an innovative, wiki-based resource focused on "the education system for the Information Age."

The concept is simple: commission a series of educationalists and practitioners to write a series of introductory pieces on approaches to education. Then release them for community access and input, via the wiki. (I'm writing an entry, so I guess this counts as self-publicity. However, onwards and upwards).

"Schome?" According to the OU, in future, learning will happen in (or at?) a place called "schome"--not school, not home. Catchy, or not, the title is all about ubiquity. It points to the ways in which the prospect of lifelong learning blurs the boundaries and spaces that, traditionally, have separated learners and learning contexts from other parts of work and life.

What follows are some initial thoughts about how "schome" might differ from the related concept of the "third space", and some problems I see with each.

Recent-ish cultural theory (Gilroy, Bhabha, Soja) proposes the "third space" as a utopian site for the development and expression of personal identity. The third space is not-work, and not-home -- it is the "other" space, or spaces, in which we operate and by which we define ourselves. This piece of HCI research on participatory design sees the third space as a kind of creative zone. Virtual environments (MOOs, gaming, the web)  have also been described in terms of convergence and the third space.

However, there are problems with using "schome" or the "third space" as a basis for developing ICT for lifelong learning. For the third space, first of all it occurs to me that if postindustrial society didn't require such strict divisions of labour, capital, and identity/citizenship, then we wouldn't experience the need for a dedicated space in which to "be ourselves". Nor would we experience such a sharp differentiation between our utopian spaces and the "regular" daily worlds we inhabit. Furthermore, a critic like Bourdieu would argue that the gift, or promise, of a third space tends to restrict learning and identity to the privileged, and even acts as a kind of social safety valve (if we have our 15 minutes of self-expression, we'll put up with the 50-hour week on the office or factory floor). I'm beating the accessibility/inclusion drum again here.

Conversely, the problem with "schome" is that ubiquity can be experienced as absence, as well as presence. If lifelong learning has no dedicated space and time, will it be less valued? Will learning be restricted to quick glances and snatched moments, rather than active reflection and deep learning? With its dual emphasis on skills and personalised learning, the philosophy and policy of lifelong learning places a heavy emphasis on the individual. I'm not really convinced that the ICT-facilitated measures and techniques we've developed so far (synchronous learning tasks, communities of practice, etc) are really enough to counter this highly individualised, instrumentalist approach to learning.