I have found that throughout the first weeks of this course I have framed my experience through the lens of a technician…. because I am one. I have found myself looking at the range of subjects discussed in relation to my job. Almost all of the subject matter is directly applicable, but sometimes I find myself raising thorny questions related to my role and how it connects to what we are discussing… or doesn’t.
I have been pleased and interested to find that many of my colleagues on the PG Cert are technicians at UAL. I find this really encouraging as it suggests that many feel what I feel: that technicians are an integral part of the pedagogical environment at UAL. That we are more than part of the educational backdrop or “facilities” of the institution but that we are actually a crucial active component in the learning and teaching environment. This sentiment is echoed in Clare Sams’ survey of technicians’ views at UAL (Spark, Vol 1 / Issue 2 (2016) pp. 62-69)
Now the less inspiring part. Despite the fact that most if not all technical colleagues feel that their educational role is central to what they do, it is not well recognised institutionally. It is not officially recognised as part of the job. These are all of the verbs in my job description related to my role: support, assist, help realise, work with, be responsible, maintain, supervise, ensure. Conspicuously absent are words like teach, instruct, engage, inspire, provoke, challenge. Now I am sure job descriptions differ and that some may certainly mention instruction and demonstration as part of a technical role, I would be very surprised to hear that any technical job description referred to “teaching”. That is reserved for academic staff.
At CSM the management structure for the technicians is completely separate from the academic staff. Two systems functioning side-by-side, ideally in perfect harmony, but in practicality two groups doing their own thing with their own priorities and own understanding of what students need. How can two separately managed groups hope to efficiently work together to provide a consistent educational experience for students? In my experience they find it difficult as they end up having different priorities, schedules, and interrupted communication.
The Upstairs-Downstairs phenomenon. I use this phrase to describe different roles of technical staff and academic staff at CSM. It refers to 19th century upper class child-rearing which saw parents as often disengaged from children’s everyday life, offering mainly broad moral and social guidance and financial support. The everyday intimacy of parenting would be carried out by the servants who would end up forming close familial bonds with their charges. I see the technical staff in my program as those servants/surrogate parents. The parental aspect of the staff student relationship is often rewarding for both parties and that is a role I happily embrace when it is appropriate. I am less happy with being cast in the role of servant, and I do feel that there is a subtle implication that this is our role. This feeling is engendered through the separate management structure and our being largely excluded from direct participation in shaping and understanding course curricula. It feels that there is an assumption that we don’t really need to know what the pedagogical plan is, we just need to stand by, ready to assist.