Friday, January 27, 2012

Wrong standards, wrong Marx

Language allows us to distinguish between appearance and reality, but it also allows some of us to persuade others that appearances are realities.
--Mark Kingwell
I think you mean the other Marx, Humphrey.
“The puppies are confused when the dogs don’t teach the same things or use different assessments.”

Humphrey overheard some such statements at his faculty meeting at the daycare. Readers will recall he does a little bit of teaching of other dogs.

The administration faculty were arguing about standardization versus something called “academic freedom.” Humphrey had never heard such a term! Academic – sure, he likes academic things. And freedom – who doesn’t like freedom? Really, he thought to himself, freedom’s just another word for nothing left to lose. Then he thought he should write that down, it might make a good song lyric someday.

He listened and listened, head cocked. He came to understand that some of the faculty believe that they should have the right to make decisions about how to teach the puppies, what they will teach, and how they will assess the young one. These faculty argued that ultimately, they should be able to make some choices - and Humphrey, as a junior faculty member, agreed. After all, as John Dewey said way back in 1913, “Since freedom of mind and freedom of expression are the root of all freedom, to deny freedom in education is a crime against democracy.”

Humphrey wondered if some of the people in the room actually knew John Dewey – perhaps they were even there when he said that! But he was far to engrossed in goings-on to ask.

He listened. “We need to make sure those pup have skills to make it when they are in the real world.”

“They are not all pups. Don’t infantilize them – many are middle aged, just new or returning to learning. They are adults, coming here with knowledge, education and skills.”

“What we do is rooted in ideology, and we don’t all have to share the same ideological position.”

“Does anybody have any valium? Ativan?”

“What are you talking about, ideological? We’re not there as faculty to spout politics. We are there to be neutral.”

“Neutral? Nothing is neutral. Education is political. Every bit of it.”

Humphrey remembered what he learned about neutrality. For one, it’s very alluring – seductive, even. It suggests you can avoid making choices, stand above controversy. The notion that learning outcomes can and should be predicted, and then measured, seems sensible, objective, natural and practical. Gone is the reliance on the teacher’s value-laden, unreliable and subjective assessments. Gone too, is the uncomfortable and inefficient heterogeneity of classroom content, and the unpredictable and circumstantial pedagogy. In truth, choices that involve values cannot be avoided in education. For starters, values are inherent how subjects are grouped, which courses are offered, which topics are included in those courses, and especially which are excluded. Deciding what is “worth knowing” or “most important” are value-laden acts. How could that be overlooked?

Not to mention that values and ideologies are conveyed with the language the teachers use, how they construct their gender and covey (or oppose) heteronormativity in their appearance, hair cuts, body language, and words. Nothing neutral about it.

And yet, here they were arguing over neutrality, where it cannot exist in this environment.

While nobody said it, Humphrey sensed that some of the people there were implying that standards and standardization were neutral. And therefore laudable.

Then, there’s the related issue of the purpose of education – Humphrey was profoundly disappointed this didn’t come up. He listened, and concluded that many of those present seemed not to question a “transmission” model of education – that is to say, the faculty inculcate the pups with “facts” about how to function in today’s system. That, the proponents thought, was value-neutral, because it reflects their perceptions of how things are. Others seemed to have latched on to a “transformative” model of education – where the puppies learn to critically appraise systems, and to work within imperfect systems do things better, differently, more equitably. Those, Humphrey believed, were the two ideological positions the people held.

Humphrey also saw some of the faculty desperately avoiding a colossal plunge into the Hegelian Abyss – that’s when there’s no point to what is being done, but it must be done anyway, and the workers become alienated.

This is the danger of bureaucratizing the role of the faculty. Humphey is reminded of Samier’s work, calling attention to a history of bureaucratic critique focused on the negative effects on individuals, rooted in Weber’s characterization of a “lifeless machine” of “congealed spirit” and for whom modern society is characterized by “disenchantment,” meaning the retreat and displacement of ultimate values from public life, and a rationalization of all intellectual, political, economic, social, and cultural activities.

There are all sorts of bureaucratic pathologies – and Humphrey witnessed quite a few in action today.

Some produce a slavish and compulsive adherence to regulations (for example, in human education, things like NCATE standards, Ministry of Training Colleges and Universities indicators, and other bizarre forms of strategic-plan-related empirical indicators), obsessive defense of physical space and personal status, increasing distance from colleagues as a means of disguising anxiety about processes outside the individual’s understanding or competence. ‘Predator interests’ (Hood 1995: 95) intensify and feed off the spiralling distress, for example, demanding or providing ever more detailed verbal and written accounts of actions and outcomes.

Others, Samier reports, result in futile attempts at control by heavy insistence on receiving proliferating information to no end, an existentialist loss of any sense of public meaning, and a catastrophic destruction of relationships with others. Some perversions of bureaucracy lead to what Laswell calls ‘autocracy’:  demonstrating a preference for one way communication and an enjoyment of power and elaborate status differentials. 

It’s all really kind of depressing to see in action! Perhaps, Humphrey thought to himself, he was aligning with the wrong Marx. Harpo communicated joyfully with a horn, and didn’t obsess over standards, indicators or strategic plans. Either way, Humphrey knows that someday, when he's a professor, he will have to assign marx/marks to students. Just a matter of deciding which is best.


Source cites in text: Samier, (2010). Alienation, Servility and Amorality: Relating Gogol’s Portrayal of Bureaupathology to an Accountability Era. Educational Management Administration Leadership, 38 (3), 360-373

Thursday, January 19, 2012

Is that you winter? It's me, Humphrey!

Humphrey is extremely thankful to Marbles and his human pack for their kind wishes! He's improving each day, and actually made it all the way up Calvin Street yesterday afternoon! However, after that, he was a bit sore and had to have a long rest.
Are you there, winter? It's me, Humphrey!
Winter has finally arrived, and Humprhey made a point of full inspection of the olfactory happenings in the park just as the snow began to fall this morning. But, before he could build himself a snowman, his guardian decided that was enough walking, and he was reluctantly led back inside.

Maybe we can make another snowman?
Since Humphrey's time outside is limited and he's feeling nostalgic for fun in the snow, he has decided to share a retrospective phot gallery of his favorite winter images...

On the hill, Abba-style.

A view from the balcony

The good old days - running at top speed down the hill, and a trash bin without a lid.


He looks forward to being able to cavort with his pals very, very soon. His limp is nearly gone, and he is working VERY hard to get better.

Sunday, January 8, 2012

Knees have a political economy? Since when?

A pawprint from a perfectly-functioning cranial cruciate ligament!

Humphrey is feeling much better with rest and anti-inflammatories. However, he felt very compelled to seek out other things that might help him recover better and faster. He spent more time than he should have looking at peer-reviewed veterinary journals (a fringe benefit of a university-employed guardian!), and he learned lots and lots of new words. He also found out a lot of the political economy of knee health!

For starters, a 2005 article in the Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association reports that in the US, the annual expenditure by dog owners on cranial cruciate ligament surgery (CCL, a fancy name for a certain part of the knee) and follow-up is a whopping $1.32 billion!  Wow, perhaps his plan to become a CEO earlier in the week was premature. He may wish to join the ranks of canine surgeons instead.

Back in the 1980s,[1] some studies were done to compare dogs treated with rest only versus those who had surgery. The “gold standard” of this research seems to be a 1984 study by Dr. P.B. Vasseur, published in Veterinary Surgery. Dr. Vasseur’s finding that the size of the dog impacts outcomes appears to be often quoted (but not cited) among practicing vets. Among dogs weighing under 15kg, over 85% fully recovered from a CCL rupture on average within 8 months, treated only with rest and restricted movement (“on leash walks” only). By contrast, only 19% of dogs over 15 kg (or roughly 30 lbs) recovered without surgery. 

What’s especially fascinating about all Humph's research is that best sort of surgical treatment for CCL injuries remains questionable! A 2005 meta-analysis of peer-reviewed research on this topic published in the journal Veterinary Surgery found that no single surgical procedure that has enough data to recommend that it can consistently return dogs to normal function after CCL injury. And yet, the meta-analysis coupled with Dr. Vasseur's conservative treatment findings seem to have little effect on the political economy of the Cruciate Ligament Industrial Complex.

So, this all leaves a bunch of questions in Humph’s inquiring mind:

(1)   If most dogs under 15kg recovered fully without CCL surgery, are we to assume that the number of large dogs requiring CCL surgery account for a $1.32 billion market? Is this a valid example of a political economy within veterinary care?

(2)   What accounts for the absence of control groups with no surgical interventions?

(3)   How does all this relate to the alarming growth of pet healthcare markets, and the healthy injection that pets infuse into “big pharma”?

(4) How long till we eat?

For the time being, Humphrey will continue to try very, very hard to stay still (you have no idea how difficult this is), and to expend his energy on constructive, non-physical pursuits such as refining his ability to use scholarly databases. He will do his best to stay away from terms like "political economy" and "industrial complex," but he suspects this might be a side effect of the Metacam NSAID he's on.

Update: An 11-year study of outcomes for patellar surgery in 91 small dogs conducted by Drs. Linney, Hammer & Schott in the Journal of the American Veterinary Association (2011, 238[9], 1168-1172) found that there's no great benefit to small dogs over time when they have patellar surgery - this is different from CCL surgery, but it seems that studies seem to result in evidence against knee surgery in small dogs.


[1] Notably absent: any recent studies on non-surgical intervention, which leaves Humphrey questioning the girth of the political economy, funding sources, and researcher bias in their methodology! How can efficacy studies ignore a control group of injured dogs with no intervention????

Friday, January 6, 2012

Dogs and Drugs

Humphrey's course of meds - one hopes they will provide him with a bit of recreational value.
Humphrey had to get more anti-inflammatory medication for his knee, and also antibiotics for a small cyst at the site of a prior insect bite. Looking at all the packaging reminded Humphrey of his favorite corporate person, Prescott Pharmaceuticals ("the tingling tells you it's working, the class action lawsuit tells you it's Prescott").

The American Pet Products Manufacturers Association (APPMA) proudly boasts that in 2007, American pet owners spent $ 41.2 billion on their animals, up 7 per cent from the previous year. Quite astoundingly, during the 2008 financial meltdown, food and pet supplies were the only two categories out of 17 that showed significant spending increases (WSL Strategic Research Survey). Perhaps this comes as no surprise to any of the Willowdale Dogs, who will confirm that their guardians would definitely reduce spending on themselves to make sure the dogs have what they need, as did 52% of pet owners in the APPMA survey.

As readers well know, Willowdale guardians have a knack for outfitting their dogs in finery – cashmere, rhinestones, merino wool, all things Coach. But regardless of where a dog lives or how much bling she has, healthcare is an important canine expenditure. There are about 21,000 pet-focused veterinary practices in the United States alone (American Veterinary Medical Association). In the US, veterinary care spending increased by 40% between 2002 and 2007 – but the amount spent on pet drugs in that same timeframe increased by 52% (Fountain Agriculture). That amounts to about $3.5 billion dollars on pet (not agricultural!) medication in the US alone! This figure does not include the additional, estimated $261 million in sales of over-the-counter, retail pet medication. No wonder Pfizer can count on pets for 40% of its revenue (as noted in a report from the Action Group on Erosion, Technology and Concentration).  That's pet products - not including those from agricultural animals. Among the choices in its product line are Slentrol (for canine anti-obesity treatment) and Anipryl (for canine dementia). Of course, they are (luckily) the makers of anti-depressant Zoloft, which guardians might need in light of the costs and heartache associated with companion animal illness!

Side effects include: rectal dyslexia, involuntary narnia adventures, vein seizures, bearded thalamus, abdominal salad shooters, argyle pattern baldness, autonomous nipple syndrome, braintooth, eyearrhea, fallopian tapeworm, abdominal migration, and jimmy crack corneas. In rare cases, severe side effects may include: lou ferrignose and increased risk of vampire attack. (These, of course, are only side effects of various Prescott Pharmaceuticals products).

An interesting aside:

Wednesday, January 4, 2012

Humph Contemplates Economics (while convalescing)

With a recently-pulled ligament in his hindquarters, Humphrey has been couch-bound (and traveling in his carrier), but mainly catching up on his reading since he's not yet ambulatory.
Humphrey in his carrier - he is very frustrated that he can't walk, jump and climb.
The Globe & Mail quoted Bill Gross, the manager of the world’s largest bond fund Pimco ($244-billion in holdings!) in a fit of metaphoric brilliance. “It’s as if the Earth now has two moons instead of one and both are growing in size like a cancerous tumor that may threaten the financial tides, oceans and economic life as we have known it for the past half century. Welcome to 2012.”

What???

But that wasn’t the only one today. The Globe & Mail’sTara Perkins compared investors’ recent awakenings about financial markets to learning the hard truths about Father Christmas:

“…with the turbulence continuing, long-cherished beliefs are being questioned and middle-aged investors are being hit with hard truths, much like children learning about Santa Claus. It turns out that house prices don’t always go up.”

Humphrey is very confused about how any of this could possibly be news to anyone. Really, were people so caught up in the fantasy of high finance? Did they really believe the fairy tale of the Invisible Hand of the Market?

Humphrey, of course, has a tendency to over-estimate human ability to understand things that are obvious to him.

Now, Humphrey’s investments are modest (in the one-figure range), but the latest news suggests that hard work (if you’re a CEO) is your best bet, not investments. On Monday, a report released by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives (CCPA) reported that Canada’s highest-paid CEOs earn the equivalent of the average Canadian annual wage in less than a day!  Based on the 2009 wages of Canada’s best paid 100 CEOs, they got an average of $6.6-million, despite the recession, compared with the average income of $42,988 and the average minimum-wage worker’s income of $19,877. And of the 100 top-paid CEOs, guess how many were women? One!

Astounding! Especially when you consider that these rates of pay are being lavished on people while many of their companies are not exactly doing well!

This reminded Humphrey of some research that Mark Kingwell described in his book, The World We Want: that people want to have things and wealth relative to what other people have, not for themselves. For example, most people say they would prefer to earn $50,000 while others earn $25,000; instead of earning $100,000 while others made $250,000. This kind of result holds even when it is true that a flatter income distribution level would be better everyone. As long as people measure themselves against other people, we are caught in the “smart for one, dumb for all” trap.

So, after this week's financial news, Humphrey as decided that he will immediately abandon any and all investments, and update his CV to apply to be the Chairman of a major financial institution as soon as he ligament heals. He figures he has a better shot at corporate chiefdom than his female guardian, given the statistics. Competent headhunters dealing in high-level canine occupations are welcome to contact him.