This article is concerned with developing a philosophical approach to a number of significant changes to academic publishing, and specifically the global journal knowledge system wrought by a range of new digital technologies that herald the third age of the journal as an electronic, interactive and mixed-media form of scientific communication. The paper emerges from an Editors' Collective, a small New Zealand-based organisation comprised of editors and reviewers of academic journals mostly in the fields of education and philosophy. The paper is the result of a collective writing process.

This paper proposes a political theory of social innovation. The paper begins by introducing and reviewing recent claims made for the ways in which social innovation can co-create public goods and services by utilizing forms of collection intelligence (CI) and CI Internet-based platforms. The paper provides a discussion and classification of the literature on collective intelligence before investigation the question of new forms and ways of delivering public goods and services through forms of co-creation and co-production.

This article explores the ideological drivers behind learning environment discourses with a particular focus on the built environment and the ways in which the built environment narrates explicit and implicit ideology. The built environment reinforces ways of thinking in the day-to-day ordinary activities of the school space. However, it is important to recognise that both space and place are more than the built environment. In part, this paper’s task is to show how a theorisation of the relationship between policy and the built environment opens up a politics of space and place. The paper draws together the work of Penetito on place and Rancière on politics to provide a critique and theorisation of the experiences of school communities when subjected to the discourses of new learning environments. In order to engage in opening up to new ideas for policy making, the paper turns to space and place in design thinking. We look then to our knowledge of architecture, art and design to explore possibilities that remain somewhat under-imagined in contemporary theorisations of learning environments.

ABSTRACT. This is the second text in the series collectively written by members of the Editors' Collective, which comprises a series of individual and collaborative reflections upon the experience of contributing to the previous and first text written by the Editors' Collective: 'Towards a Philosophy of Academic Publishing.' In the article, contributors reflect upon their experience of collective writing and summarize the main themes and challenges. They show that the act of collective writing disturbs the existing systems of academic knowledge creation, and link these disturbances to the age of the digital reason. They conclude that the collaborative and collective action is a thing of learning-by-doing, and that collective writing seems to offer a possible way forward from the co-opting of academic activities by economics. Through detaching knowledge creation from economy, collaborative and collective writing address the problem of forming new collective intelligences.Keywords: collective writing; collective authorship; collaborative writing; Editors' Collective; collective intelligence; co-production; public goods; academic labour IntroductionPetar: This is the second paper in the series of texts collectively written by members of the Editors' Collective -a small New Zealand-based organisation comprised of editors and reviewers of academic journals, most in the fields of education and philosophy. 1 The first paper in the series, 'Toward a philosophy of academic publishing' (Peters, Jandrić, Irwin, Locke, Devine, Heraud, Gibbons, Besley, White, Forster, Jackson, Grierson, Mika, Stewart, Tesar, Brighouse, Arndt, Lăzăroiu, Mihăilă, Benade, Legg, Ozolins, and Roberts, 2016) was an experiment in the collective writing process. The experiment consisted of two stages. In the first stage, each contributor (or group of contributors) was invited to write 500 words on a topic that was initially arrived at through discussion and sequenced by agreement. The idea behind the process was for contributors individually or in groups to submit their work to a moderator (Richard Heraud) who sequenced the

No abstract