Education.zip V learning.zip: The potential impact of generations on the creative knowledge economy within a higher education context.

Bernadette Walker-Gibbs

Paper presented at the British Educational Research Association Annual Conference, University of Warwick, 6-9 September 2006

“As the twenty-first century progresses, the most successful economies and societies will be creative ones”. (State Department of Development and Innovation, 2005, p. 4). Working in the Creative Industries, or as part of the creative knowledge economy increasingly contributes to Australia’s strategic directions for the future. Complicating these discourses is the increasing rhetoric around different generational understandings of the world. As Grose, (2005) argues “The world is increasingly crowded, as an alphabet soup of generations exist side by side in workplaces, families and within the community. Longer life spans now mean that more generations are living and working with each other (p. 1). ”

In a world where creative people are in high demand, today’s generation of student’s have needs that lay beyond the 'old University structure' and delves more into an educational experiences not unlike a ‘noodle bar’ where you can take the ingredients, mix together and design a degree of your choosing. Some of tomorrow's best careers and jobs will be based on the students’ ingenuity, creativity and ability to communicate and thrive across performance, audio-visual, design and media disciplines where there's a convergence among art and visual culture, communications, music and sound, fashion, entrepreneurship and digital media.

This paper explores the impact of the creative knowledge economy and generational theories on how the higher education sector is trying to respond to the changing educational landscapes. A case study of one rural Australian university’s attempt to blend these two discourses within an undergraduate Creative Industries degree that is based on the new economy of learner is outlined. It is argued that a degree that operates within the creative knowledge economy will nurture innovation and enhance creativeness by exposing students to information and methods that will not only prepare them for a ‘portfolio’ career but give them the lifelong skills needed to adapt to quickly changing technology, information and media cultures.

What is a generation?

The concept of generations and generational difference is not a new one (Rowan, Knobel, Bigum & Lankshear, 2002), especially within Western contexts. As Kenway and Bullen (2001, p. 55) noted: “Since at least the 1970s, the social sciences have addressed issues of generation. Across time, understandings of the concept ‘generation’ have varied, as have the debates within which it has been immersed”. Although general categories of human experience are not fixed and static, they can serve as a useful guide by which we can illustrate potential ways in which the world may have changed in recent times.

The actual length of a generation is a commonly debated issue but in most cases a generation can be defined as twenty years (Howe & Strauss, 1993), which suggests that a generation is defined according to one’s journey from birth to adulthood, with twenty-one signalling one’s arrival into adulthood, and therefore the arrival of the next generation. For the purpose of this discussion, although I acknowledge the fact that biological categories can be used as an indicator for a generation, it is the social, cultural and economic indicators of change that I will focus on (Hagood, Stevens and Reinking, 2002) in this paper. More specifically, I will link the idea of generation to technological and media change and argue that, as Kenway and Bullen (2001, p. 55) argue:

… generations can be seen to represent different cultural phases in the development of particular societies. It is notable that the concept seems to come into prominence in inquiry during periods of dramatic social and cultural change – particularly technocultural change. It seems that at such times the understandings, practices and mores of one generation are not easily applied to or accepted by the upcoming generation and vice versa.

Rather than being able to learn to understand today’s generation, they are significantly different because of changing mediated realities, and therefore not able to be understood in the traditional sense of the word.

Constructing youth

When discussing notions of generational difference and changing society, it is important to discuss how the concept of childhood or youth has been socially constructed and the place of youth in the changing world in which we are now live. What I am interested in exploring when it comes to how youth is constructed is how this is linked closely to major social change and the ways in which today’s youth negotiate this change. It is also important to note that these constructions of youth are defined by adults. The definition is usually from the perspective that there has been a loss of innocence, and an increase in the degradation of morals and stability in society (Buckingham, 2000).

Some debates about youth centre on them being the innocent or endangered, or conversely threatening and, if not evil, at least morally wanting. Some adults are concerned with their lack of discipline, the rise in juvenile crimes and the corruptness of youth in regard to drugs, sex, music and violence (Buckingham, 2000).

Regardless of how we conceive of youth, it is unlikely that we would argue against the fact that the world in which youth operate has changed, boundaries have become unclear (Buckingham, 2000) and the passage of youth has become uncertain. What this means to me is that, even more than before, it has become difficult to reach a generalisation about how childhood is constructed. The implications for this are that youth are less and less able to be guided according to the linear and ordered structure of the modern world as demonstrated by previous generations and that they are beginning to explore new ways of confirming and understanding their identities (Giroux, 1994), and their futures.

Youth, authority and gaps

As discussed previously, it can be argued that today’s youth may be better equipped to understand the current world than previous generations who were introduced to this world and the complexities of today’s society. As a consequence of this, Tapscott (1998, p. ix) argued, “For the first time in history youth are an authority on an innovation central to society’s development. We can learn from him [sic] and his [sic] generation. And they are an unprecedented force for change”.

What happens is that the combination of constant change and growing uncertainty leads to ever widening gaps in which the child is the authority (Mackay, 1997). This shift to the child as authority or holder of more (or different) knowledge than (or from) the teacher or adult can be disconcerting for all concerned. Buckingham (2000, p. 41) acknowledged that this shift has been conceived as problematic but thankfully a more positive attitude has begun to surface:

In particular, new media technologies are seen to provide children with new opportunities for creativity, for community and for self-fulfilment …. Far from urging adults to reassert their authority over the young, advocates of this view typically call on adults to ‘listen to’ – and ‘catch up with’ – their children.

The main issue here is that learning in this era occurs in places other than in schools and universities and usually within media and popular cultural spheres (Giroux, 1997; Lankshear & Knobel, 2003) which embraces the complexities of creativity and creative careers. The dilemma for formal educational institutions is that they are not ready or able to understand how to deal with these complexities (Giroux, 1994) and changing futures.

I will therefore preface my discussion in the next section of this paper by declaring that the main assumptions I am making in this paper are as follows: no longer can children’s development be seen as occurring in simple, linear stages (Luke, 1999); the framing of generations and therefore youth has to be seen as complex, contradictory and inevitably incorrect (Green & Bigum, 1993); and the changes in generational understandings are linked to shared experiences of electronic media (Luke, 1999).

The next section of this paper outlines characteristics of a creative student or as Florida (2005) classifies them, a member of the ‘creative class’, and examines the issues of a challenging demographic of learner for the various sectors.

The creative class

As discussed previously, there has been a plethora of research on different generational understandings, particularly in relation to popular culture and media (Prensky, 2001; Walker-Gibbs, 2004). According to Hartley (2005) there has also been a shift where:

Instead of seeing students as not quite fully-formed persons, betraying a “lack” or “need” that can be remedied by providing them with knowledge that is in the authorized possession of the professional, learning becomes a creative experience driven by the student herself. (emphasis in original, pp. 25-26).

Educational institutions therefore, cannot continue to be seen as archaic holders of knowledge and must become responsive to student needs with learning. This shift in learning is linked to what Florida (2005) refers to as the “creative class lifestyle” which “comes down to a passionate quest for experience. The ideal … is to “live the life” – a creative life packed full of intense, high-quality, multidimensional experiences … [that] reflect and reinforce their identities as creative people” (p. 134).

Industries such as the creative industries have traditionally relied on “hands on” experience and the transferring of knowledge from the expert to the novice. This tacit knowledge is:

… not written down and is hard to articulate. It is often learned by osmosis, over long periods, in very particular context…. traditional industries, dominated by craft skills, this motion is slow, constrained by tradition. In innovative, radical fields, ideas circulate at high velocity. (Leadbeater, 2005, p. 127)

Herein lies the appeal of the construction of creative industries where partnerships are at the core. Knowledge can be innovative, shared and perpetually renewed in ways previously unable to be envisaged. Universities become more than a place for lecture halls and ‘chalk and talk’ and more like “hubs, …[where] young people with time on their hands who are just hanging around are just as important to the creative sector as more traditional forms of investment”. (Hartley, 2005, p. 25). For example, as one Bachelor of Creative Enterprise (BCE) student stated:

Basically I see it as a young peoples space that could foster creativity and provide somewhere where local bands/drama/whatever else could perform that’s not an eisteddfod at a community centre. In other words … it's really about making a creative cluster like the many in Brisbane, helping to create a youth culture, and providing a reason for people to stay in the local region.

Or as Florida (2005) argues, “Members of the Creative Class are not looking for a life delivered through a modem. They want one that is heart-throbbingly real” (p. 134). The next section of this paper explores the creative industries and the implications for this shift towards these industries on the higher education sector.

Defining creative industries

Before we can begin to discuss implications of creative industries, it is important to understand what is meant by this concept. As with many key concepts there are a proliferation of definitions surrounding the concept of creative industries. The United Kingdom Department for Culture, Media and Sport define creative industries as “those industries which have their origin in individual creativity, skill and talent and which have a potential for wealth and job creation through the generation and exploitation of intellectual property” ( The State Department of Development and Innovation (2005) elaborates further and describes creative industries as “ Vital. Original. Persuasive. Informative. Entertaining. Knowledge driven, talent-rich and often technologically sophisticated” (p. 5).

At the core of defining creative industries is the notion that you can link creativity with social and economic change where the shift or change is on the consumer placing value on the end product being produced by the creative worker and that creativity will be the driver of this change (Bilton and Leary, 2002; Hartley, 2005).According to Flew (2003) “The linking of culture and creativity with economy and industry … range from the discovery of urban nightlife as a factor in the location decisions of information technology businesses, to the use of Shakespeare as a training tool for corporate managers” (p. 89). Creative industries therefore join the two separate entities of creativity and industry in order to develop innovative and entrepreneurial practices for the creative professional.

The reason for this change from ‘just creativity’ and ‘just business’ is associated with the concept of the knowledge based economy in which creative industries are seen to “build on indigenous talent and are characterized by rapid growth, high added-value and positive social inclusion” (Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure, 2000, p. 15). The importance of this change “suggests the possibility of moving beyond the elite/mass, art/entertainment, sponsored/commercial, high/trivial distinctions that have bedeviled thinking about creativity in policy as well as intellectual circles.” (Hartley, 2005, p. 6)

The connection between traditional creative entities, such as art, design, fashion, film and video etc., and the move towards creativity as business relies heavily on the various sectors working together closely. As Harley (2005) argues:

… [W]hile it [creative industries]has its corporate aspect, the creative industries idea allows for a broadening of/ participation in the possibilities offered by new interactive media in the so-called new economy …. It means seeing success in collaboration and ingenuity rather than big business and capital, However, this is dependant upon a supportive environment and education.(Hartley, 2005, pp. 22- 23)

The success or failure of partnerships, impact heavily on the rhetoric of creative industry policy and how it is then implemented in practice. These changes to how creativity and industries are joined are part of the broader changes currently impacting on the University sector. The next section of this paper explores the changing face of Universities and how this is linked to the knowledge economy and higher education.

The knowledge economy, university and industry partnerships

It is argued in this paper that today we live in the knowledge economy, a term coined by the Organisation for Economic Co-Operation (OECD) in a report entitled The knowledge based economy (OECD, 1996). According to this report the economy has become a hierarchy of networks fuelled by the rapid rated of change in all aspects of life, including learning, which in turn has compressed the world encouraging the merging of the world’s economic and cultural systems. According to the Knowledge Economy Project:

Within the last twenty years information and knowledge have been replacing capital and energy as primary wealth creating assets.... In such an age, there will be several capacities that will need to exist in all local communities if a Knowledge Economy is to be vital and sustainable. Of all these capacities, four will be at the core of economic development:

  • The capacity to develop a futures context
  • The capacity to innovate continuously
  • The capacity to identify and utilize cutting-edge technology
  • The capacity to unlearn, relearn, and up learn… become a learning community (

Within this new economy as Hartley (2005) posits, “Internally, universities are grappling with the question of whether and how they can educate for the new economy” (p. 25). This is compounded by the fact that externally “Educational institutions are routinely excluded from policy discourse because they are not understood as “industry partners”, even where they contribute substantially to the revenues of a city or town.” (Hartley, 2005, p. 25). The barriers between the sectors can be significant, but as Florida (1999) argued “In the new economy …. [t]he university becomes more critical than ever as a provider of talent, knowledge and innovation in the age of knowledge-based capitalism” (p. 68). What seems to be lacking however, are real mechanisms to ensure that partnerships between universities and industry don’t become a token commitment rather than a real partnership for real purpose (Cooling, Graham, Moore and Walker-Gibbs, 2003).

According to Macklin (2006)

Around the world, higher education systems are being re-shaped through greater competition among established institutions, the growth of new providers, including not-for-profit and proprietary providers, domestic and foreign, and the growing capacity of on-line learning. There are multiple ways of obtaining qualifications, such as through product vendors, professional associations and training houses of global corporations. (p. 20)

Benefits of collaboration and partnerships in industry include helping universities to be put more closely “in touch with the innovative and creative needs of the cites industry and culture” and “enabling the university to develop research contracts and the skills to teach up to date courses relevant to the rapidly changing profile of the creative industries” (Abbott, 2005, p. 50). The benefit for industry can be in having a greater say in the development of skills in students that reflect the needs of their industry. Eyre (2002) caution, that these kinds of partnerships are not without problems when she argues “ What will public education come to mean if students are viewed first and foremost as consumers, if education is about universities and government accommodating powerful corporate elites with global agendas?” (p. 74) . Therefore, in order to balance the benefits and potential difficulties of partnerships between universities and industry there needs to be a balancing of the needs of the student (or learner) of creative industries. The next section of this paper outlines one Australian Universities attempt to address the above issues in a rural community.

BCE: a case study in creative industry

Conversations with industry partners indicated a need to develop a program that focused on skilling people and giving them opportunities to stay in the local region. General industry trends are that we need to “continue to innovate or stagnate” (Queensland Government, 2005, p. 3). Part of the rhetoric of the Bachelor of Creative Enterprise degree is that it will nurture innovation and enhance creativeness by exposing students to information and methods that will not only prepare them for a career but give them the lifelong skills needed to adapt to quickly changing technology, information and media cultures ( According to Hartley (2005):