Really Useful Knowledge in a Postdigital Age
Abstract
This chapter presents a close reading of Richard Johnson’s seminal work 'Really useful knowledge', 1790–1850. Published 40 years before writing this chapter, Johnson’s work has left a huge legacy in radical education until day. The chapter moves on to reinventing and reimagining Johnson’s ideas for the postdigital context through a complete rewrite, mirroring the exact structure of Johnson’s work. This methodological choice is burdened by two limitations: there is no way to know whether presented interpretations of Johnson’s themes are at all faithful to Johnson’s ideas, and Johnson himself would surely not write the same text today. These limitations are counter-balanced by an honest approach to the rewrite, in which the author reveals the importance of randomness, chance, and human emotion, in postdigital research, and it welcomes new workers, human and non-human, into knowledge work. The chapter concludes by reinventing and reimagining Johnson’s work in the concept of postdigital really useful knowledge which is a concept in flux, a set of practices, and a battlefield for social justice, that can be found in streets, art galleries, activist organizations, libraries, the academia, and many other places. Mirroring Johnson’s seminal work, it is hoped that his important messages will be taken forward into today’s postdigital context.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The rapid pace of adoption of GenAI tools has significantly exacerbated many socio-technical issues researchers have connected to education technologies in general and algorithmic harms related to GenAI more specifically.
“The rapid pace of adoption of GenAI tools, when it comes to similar concerns, have significantly exacerbated the many socio-technical issues researchers have connected to education technologies in general [160, 311] and algorithmic harms related to GenAI [317] more specifically.”
From Navigating the Ethical and Societal Impacts of Generative AI in Higher Computing Education (2025) · cites this paper as [160]
Cites
Still being checked.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Navigating the Ethical and Societal Impacts of Generative AI in Higher Computing Education
Mak, J., Nakatumba-Nabende, J., Clear, T., Clear, A., Abluwi, I., Andrei, O., Angeli, L., MacNeil, S., Oyelere, S. S., Hale Rattigan, M., et al. (2025) · Proceedings of the 2025 Working Group Reports on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education · doi:10.1145/3760545.3783975 · Cited by 12 · see citing works
- Authors
- Jandrić, P.
- Corresponding author
- Jandrić, Petar
- ORCID
- Jandrić, Petar
- Venue
- Building the Post-Pandemic University
- Publisher
- Edward Elgar Publishing
- Published
- 2023-07-21
- Pages
- 38-59
- OpenAlex
- W4384821377
- Cited by
- 0
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 0.00
- Type
- book chapter
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Edward Elgar Publishing eBooks (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Digital Education and Society
- Social Sciences › Education › Critical and Liberation Pedagogy
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Literature and Literary Theory › Postmodernism in Literature and Education
- Keywords
- Richard Johnson, radical education, emotions, social justice
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review