Translating codes

Author: Barry Rogers

What is the relevance of an esoteric term like code to the world of work, academia or even life in general? I would suggest, everything!

At one level it conjures up a whole host of seemingly unrelated images. From complex computer language, the appropriateness of what we wear to secret messaging; all are examples of how codes, in some shape or form, weave their way into our daily lives.

There is an aspect of coding however that is central to enabling change, learning and knowledge. Here, codes become the everyday currency of the pracademic: seeing them, translating them and breaking them. They manifest mostly in forms of language and discourse but go far (far) deeper into how we structure, organise and spend our time.

Let’s start by saying a bit more about how knowledge(s) and codes are related (…oh, and the use of the plural is deliberate 

A code is a socially embedded system of signs, expressions, or actions, something we share with others. These codes are not universal; their meaning comes from how they are specifically used within a particular context or community. The essentially local nature of codes means that they are not the easiest things to see; sometimes they only become visible when we trip over them by mistake.

My wife knows this only too well. She has a particular look, one that is rapidly deployed when I carelessly drop my ‘business professional’ phraseology into our everyday conversations.

This look speaks volumes – it states very clearly that there is a time and place for my business jargon…and it is not now! It alerts me to how I have introduced something that does not ‘fit’ into the way we routinely engage, violating an established code in our relationship.

Herein lies a problem. Codes are often so entangled in our existences that they are simply a part of who and what we are. Many of us have different roles where different codes apply. This leads to an interesting paradox. We are often very conscious of these codes but also live with an assumption that our knowledge and context is, in some way, code-free. Codes are things that apply to others but not to us.

Surprise, surprise this is very rarely the case.

The philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein is helpful in unpacking this problem. In his book, Philosophical Investigations, he claimed that words do not have fixed meanings outside their use. Language occurs, he believed, as part of our social practices with others – in effect it is a game we play. For him meaning arises in the ways language is employed in these contextual playgrounds.

While different language games may lack visibility, they are not random. Codes are often related to one another like members of a family, embedded in forms that reflect different cultural practices, norms, and shared ways of operating. The sociologist Basil Berstein highlighted these ‘families’ in his work when he distinguished between Restricted and Elaborated Codes.

For Berstein Restricted Codes are highly context-dependant and, in general, assume some degree of shared knowledge. This is the type of coding we use in our relationships with friends, family or as part of a particular community or network. These codes are often implicit, economical and group focused. Alternatively, Elaborated Codes are seen as context-free, detailed and explicit. Their structure tends to support abstract thinking and individual, rational expression. This type of code is common in formal education settings and underpins the language and approach we routinely find in academic books and journals.

The distinction between different language families, and the games we play with them, underpins the problematic distinction between academic and real-world knowledge. On one side academics often find themselves falling into the belief that theirs is a form of privileged, ‘origin’ knowledge. This is often accompanied by an additional belief that, because of this status, academic knowledge can be transferred unproblematically to the real-world. Facing off against this, practitioners are confused. They find it difficult to understand why academics cannot speak like ‘all the rest of us’ and explain things in a way that connects more readily with real world experiences. Each side is playing different language games, for different audiences and contexts and is locked into a wider discursive structure.

This is where the pracademic comes in – they unlock the code. Operating at the intersection of academia and practice, a pracademic’s role can be seen as a code breaker; someone who makes sense of one language game and translates it into another. As they do this they actively play with the mode and method of the knowledges to enhance meaning, understanding and use. This involves breaking and then translating knowledge codes so they make sense to those who live and operate in different contexts.

But codes operate at a far deeper level than just language and discourse. Most of my research over the last 20 years has shown how codes are embedded profoundly in the times we live by in our various roles and contexts. This is what is most powerful and fascinating about codes and is a story for another day.

Next, let me say something about how all of us, to be truly effective, need to act as code breakers and translators in our daily lives.

References

Bernstein. (2000). Pedagogy, Symbolic Control, and Identity (Revised Edition edition).

Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.

Wittgenstein, L. (1973). Philosophical Investigations (G. E. M. Anscombe, Trans.; New

edition). Wiley-Blackwell.