Education, as explored throughout this series, is a lived, relational practice oriented to autonomy, plurality, and co-creation rather than a process of mere content delivery. These qualities unfold through time: they depend on rhythms of dialogue, reflection, and renewal. Drawing on Arendt’s (2018) understanding of education as a space where natality - the capacity to begin anew - meets the plurality of others, we can see how learning requires temporal conditions that allow emergence and encounter. Autonomy demands time to think and act freely; plurality emerges only when diverse voices are given time to meet; and co-creation requires iterative, paced collaboration. When time is compressed, these conditions are weakened. The temporal dimension of pedagogy, therefore, is not incidental but constitutive of its meaning. To foreground time and care as infrastructural conditions of education is to ask what kinds of temporal and relational architectures sustain human learning in the digital age.

To speak of infrastructure is to speak of what undergirds action - both technically and socially. As Star and Ruhleder (1996) and Bowker and Star (1999) remind us, infrastructures are not neutral supports; they shape practices, distribute labour, and embed values. In universities, they organise not only information systems but also temporal regimes: calendars, deadlines, and turnaround targets. Digital platforms extend this logic, often normalising immediacy and constant availability. The result is what Rosa (2013) describes as social acceleration: a structural speeding-up that corrodes opportunities for reflection and shared meaning. Yet the answer is not to abandon technology but to reimagine its tempo - to design infrastructures that create breathing space for human judgment and connection.

Care ethics provides a complementary lens. Tronto (2013) defines care as a political practice of attentiveness, responsibility, competence, and responsiveness. Puig de la Bellacasa (2017) extends this to the more-than-human world, emphasising that care always involves material mediation. In digital education, care takes time: time to notice, to respond, to adapt. When learning platforms quietly impose temporal demands - notification cycles, marking deadlines, “engagement” metrics - they also delimit the temporal possibilities of care. Platforms may quietly script not only what educators do but when they do it, shaping the affective and ethical fabric of pedagogy.

This temporal politics is not abstract. Selwyn (2014) shows how educational technologies are entwined with managerial expectations of efficiency and scale, often displacing the slower, dialogical work of teaching. Bayne et al. (2020) argue that truly digital education must reclaim slowness, presence, and critical reflection as positive pedagogical values. Such reclaiming is inseparable from institutional recognition of care labour - feedback, mentoring, community building - that typically remains invisible within workload models. If infrastructures are social as well as technical, then designing courses is also designing infrastructures of time and relation: pacing patterns, feedback cadences, and moments for pause.

In Post 3: Building Commons in Digital Learning, I argued that shared spaces and governance structures can embody the principles of co-creation. Here the focus shifts from commons of place to commons of time - collectively managed rhythms that protect slowness where needed, synchrony where valuable, and asynchrony where accessibility demands it. Drawing on Ostrom’s (2015) insight that commons flourish through negotiated rules and mutual trust, we might imagine temporal commons sustained by collective agreements about pace, rest, and responsiveness. The challenge is to build educational infrastructures that value care as much as efficiency, and that treat temporal equity as a condition for autonomy and plurality. The following sections explore how these principles can be enacted through design patterns, wellbeing practices, and institutional reform.

The temporal imaginary of education refers to the collective assumptions and structures through which institutions organise, value, and experience time. It is both philosophical and material: a set of expectations about how learning should unfold and how fast it should move. At its most profound level, education embodies what Arendt (2018) calls natality - the human capacity to begin anew. Each generation enters an already made world and, through education, assumes responsibility for renewing it. This renewal requires temporal openness: space for reflection, dialogue, and unpredictability. Learning, then, is not a process of acceleration but one of circulation - an ongoing encounter across generations, made possible by the rhythms of teaching, feedback, and conversation.

Rosa (2013) argues that modern life is marked by social acceleration, a structural speeding-up that erodes these rhythms. The “shrinking of the present” compresses experience into immediacy, leaving little room for contemplation or genuine encounter. In higher education, this acceleration manifests in both digital and institutional forms. Learning management systems (LMSs) make time quantifiable - recording logins, turnaround times, and “engagement” metrics. Policies such as the Teaching Excellence Framework’s focus on rapid feedback reinforce a culture of responsiveness over reflection. What appears as efficiency often becomes exhaustion: a redefinition of good teaching as fast teaching.

Crary (2014) describes this as the “24/7” logic of late capitalism, in which no moment remains uncolonised by work or data. Within this economy of attention, educational platforms extend managerial control into the temporal fabric of learning. For students balancing employment, caring duties, or disability, such logics are exclusionary. Berg and Seeber (2016) call this the “speed-up” of academic life - an institutional tempo that privileges constant availability and punishes pause. Temporal compression is therefore not only a cultural condition but an infrastructure of inequality: it rewards those whose lives best conform to the clock of productivity.

Han (2017) interprets this acceleration as internalised pressure: the subject becomes both exploiter and exploited, measuring worth by efficiency. In academia, this self-surveillance is reinforced by dashboards, analytics, and key performance indicators. Time becomes a resource to manage rather than a medium for thought. Biesta (2013) warns that such an approach undermines education’s ethical purpose: to cultivate judgment and subjectivity, not merely deliver outcomes. The pedagogical act - like care itself - requires time, attentiveness, and vulnerability. Slowness and attentiveness are thus temporal forms of care, linking the question of time to the ethics of relational pedagogy.

Reclaiming temporal autonomy means designing for deliberation rather than acceleration. Bayne et al. (2020) suggest that online education, when freed from managerial tempo, can foster presence, reflection, and community. This might involve slower feedback cycles, asynchronous dialogue spaces that reward considered response, or institutional calendars that value pause as much as productivity. Such practices resist the colonisation of academic time and instead cultivate what Mountz et al. (2015) call “slow scholarship”: collective resistance to the erosion of intellectual and emotional life. To reimagine digital pedagogy in this light is to rebuild the temporal commons - shared rhythms of study, rest, and renewal that make learning not just possible but humane.

Designing for slowness is an ethical and pedagogical response to the accelerated tempos described earlier. It recognises that wellbeing and inclusion depend on restoring time for thought, connection, and rest. Slowness is not resistance to change but, as Berg and Seeber (2016) argue, an intentional refusal of the commodified rhythms that reduce teaching to productivity. In digital learning, it means crafting environments that honour attention and relational depth - designing time itself as a medium of care.

Pedagogies of delay exemplify this stance. Delay here does not mean procrastination but deliberate pacing that values depth over immediacy and recognises uncertainty as formative. Biesta (2013) describes education as an act of interruption: a pause that allows the learner to encounter what is genuinely new. In practice, this can mean building temporal friction into learning design - moments where students must dwell with complexity before moving forward. Reflection journals, staggered deadlines, and asynchronous discussions all enact delay as a form of intellectual hospitality, giving students agency over when and how they respond.

Such pacing can also support inclusion. Kahu and Nelson (2017) emphasise that sustained engagement depends on “psychosocial availability”: learners must have the temporal and emotional capacity to engage. Asynchronous discussion cycles, spaced feedback intervals, and reflective check-ins distribute this capacity more equitably, accommodating different life rhythms. Even in synchronous settings, educators can design for slow attention - through extended silences, contemplative questioning, or small-group dialogues that resist the compulsion to fill every moment with speech. In each case, slowness becomes a practice of respect.

Sequenced participation, rather than constant connectivity, is central to Salmon’s (2013) model of e-tivities. Her stepwise structure, when combined with reflective checkpoints, allows online learning to build cumulatively through iteration rather than acceleration. Feedback loops that stretch across days instead of hours encourage students to integrate critique thoughtfully. As Bayne et al. (2020) note, digital pedagogy need not mirror the urgency of social media; it can instead create pedagogical hospitality - spaces that respect human limits and rhythms.

Institutional calendars and course templates can reinforce these values. Introducing quiet weeks, transparent workload guides, or optional catch-up periods signals that reflection and rest are legitimate parts of academic life. These design moves enact what Tronto (2013) calls the politics of care: attentiveness, responsibility, competence, and responsiveness distributed across systems rather than left to individual goodwill. When institutions acknowledge that time scarcity is unequally experienced - particularly by students with caring responsibilities or disabilities - temporal justice becomes part of inclusion.

Every technical parameter in a learning platform encodes ethical choices. Timers, release dates, and pacing guides express assumptions about who is expected to wait, hurry, or rest. Ross (2022) argues that such digital configurations materialise values about participation and presence. A fast-moving, always-on course privileges those whose circumstances allow constant connection; a course built around pauses and revisitations values multiplicity, care, and renewal. Designing for slowness therefore means designing for justice. As O’Neill (2014) observes in his reflection on The Slow University, reclaiming time is not mere indulgence but a necessary act of institutional wellbeing - a rebalancing of intellectual life against the metrics of constant performance. Similarly, Shaw, Cole and Russell (2013) describe slow pedagogy as the deliberate re-tempering of curriculum, assessment, and professional development to create space for reflection and ethical attentiveness. Through deliberate pacing and reflective architectures, digital pedagogy can cultivate this collective capacity to dwell attentively with ideas and with one another, resisting acceleration not to preserve the past but to create time for the future.

If time provides the conditions for care, then pedagogy is where care becomes lived. Designing for slowness creates space, but it is in relational practice that the ethical dimension of education becomes tangible. Relational pedagogy understands learning as an encounter between people, not a transaction of information - a view that positions education as a moral and dialogic practice grounded in responsiveness and mutual recognition. Biesta (2021) frames this as world-centred education, in which teaching involves opening a shared space of attention and responsibility rather than transmitting knowledge. Gravett (2023) extends this idea within higher education, describing relational pedagogies as ways of nurturing “connections and mattering,” where learning emerges through relationships of trust, care, and belonging. To speak of care in practice, therefore, is to understand teaching as attentiveness and responsiveness to others’ presence and difference. Digital mediation does not erase these possibilities; it reshapes how they are expressed. Noddings (2013) emphasises that genuine care arises through reciprocal relation - the meeting of carer and cared-for in mutual recognition and responsiveness - while Held (2006) situates this relational ethic within broader political and institutional contexts, arguing that care must be sustained through social structures as well as personal intention. In online learning, this reciprocity must be intentionally cultivated through feedback, presence, and communication structures that sustain trust.

Accessibility and inclusion are among the clearest enactments of digital care. Kress (2010) reminds us that all representation is modal - every design choice privileges certain learners. Accessibility is thus not merely a technical compliance issue but a relational one (Seale, 2006). Designing inclusively is an ethical commitment to anticipate difference rather than accommodate it belatedly. This might mean multimodal resources, flexible deadlines, alternative assessments, or captioned video content, but it also means openness to adaptation and dialogue. The Universal Design for Learning guidelines (CAST, 2018) extend this principle by linking accessibility to agency: designing for flexibility enables all students, not just those with declared needs, to learn on equitable terms.

Digital wellbeing continues this thread of relational ethics. Bayne et al. (2020) suggest that presence online should not mean constant connectivity but meaningful responsiveness. Presence is affective and ethical: a matter of tone, timing, and authenticity. Educators who model attentiveness in feedback or who check in during stressful periods demonstrate that care persists even when mediated by screens. Stommel (2014) defines critical digital pedagogy as an orientation that privileges human relationships over technological efficiency, situating teaching as dialogue and care rather than content delivery. Building on this foundation, Bali and Meier (2014) advocate asynchronous learning as an ethical design choice - one that allows time for reflection, accessibility, and emotional pacing. Extending this argument, Bali (2015) describes a pedagogy of care that can flourish even at scale when educators prioritise empathy, transparency, and mutual support. Zembylas (2011) deepens this view through his notion of strategic empathy - a pedagogical stance that recognises empathy as an intentional, reflexive practice that navigates emotional complexity and power relations. In related work, Zembylas (2007) situates empathy within the politics of trauma and reconciliation, reminding us that caring responses are shaped by context, history, and vulnerability. Taken together, these perspectives frame online empathy as a dynamic act of reflexivity and ethical awareness - acknowledging emotion, naming uncertainty, and cultivating mutual recognition. Such gestures transform digital interaction from information exchange into relation.

Yet the labour sustaining this care often remains unseen. Lynch (2010) identifies carelessness as the hidden norm of higher education: a structural undervaluing of emotional and relational work. The feminised and precarious nature of much teaching amplifies this invisibility. Responding to student distress, moderating forums, or maintaining community are time-consuming practices seldom recognised in workload models. Han (2015) links this invisibility to burnout, as educators internalise expectations of perpetual availability. Tronto (2013) argues that sustaining care requires institutional as well as interpersonal support; the conditions of caring labour must themselves be cared for. Recognising and resourcing the emotional work of teaching is therefore a political as well as a pedagogical imperative.

Practical expressions of relational care can be intentionally designed. Scaffolded communication channels - dedicated Q&A forums, office-hour bookings, or moderated chat spaces - create clarity and reduce emotional overload. Peer-support structures distribute care horizontally, encouraging students to mentor and reflect collectively. Feedback rituals, such as appreciative comments or reflective self-assessment, affirm learning as relationship rather than judgment. Collaborative reflection tools - shared documents or asynchronous discussions - extend what Puig de la Bellacasa (2017) calls matters of care: the entanglement of affect, materiality, and ethics. Ultimately, care in digital pedagogy is not an adjunct to design but its organising principle, linking the micro-practices of teaching to the institutional infrastructures that sustain them - a bridge to the next question of how care might be built into the systems themselves.

If care is enacted through the micro-practices of teaching, its sustainability depends on the infrastructures that frame them. Infrastructures are not neutral backdrops; they distribute visibility, authority, and time (Star and Ruhleder, 1996; Bowker and Star, 1999). When a learning management system privileges response rates over responsiveness, or when course templates enforce uniform pacing, they silently script whose labour matters and whose time is expendable. The ethical question is therefore institutional as much as pedagogical: do our systems recognise care as central to academic work, or do they extract efficiency from it while keeping it invisible?

Workload models, promotion criteria, and performance metrics often render care unquantifiable. Feedback, mentoring, and community maintenance are framed as personal virtues rather than skilled, time-intensive practices (Lynch, 2010). “Timeliness” targets reward speed, not depth; analytics dashboards measure throughput, not thoughtfulness. The institution benefits from the outcomes of care - retention, satisfaction, belonging - while the individuals who perform it absorb the cost through overwork and emotional exhaustion (Mountz et al., 2015; Ahmed, 2021). Feminist theorists of care remind us that this invisibility is structural, not accidental: Tronto (2013) and Puig de la Bellacasa (2017) both emphasise that care must be sustained by systems as well as individuals. Without institutional recognition, caring becomes a hidden subsidy to the university’s efficiency agenda.

Recognising care means redesigning the mechanisms of value. Institutions can begin by making care legible - codifying advising, accessibility, mentoring, and community-building as explicit, remunerated duties rather than voluntary goodwill. Evaluation rubrics and teaching awards can privilege attentiveness and inclusion as indicators of quality, not sentiment. Bayne et al. (2020) demonstrate how critical digital pedagogy already foregrounds presence, empathy, and accessibility as scholarly practices. Workload models should allocate time for pastoral and reflective work, and peer review of teaching can include evidence of relational practice. Redistributing responsibility also matters: formalising team teaching, mentoring credits, and co-assessment schemes ensures that emotional and administrative loads are shared across departments rather than concentrated on a few.

Digital infrastructures can embody these same values. Platforms can be configured to encourage humane communication rhythms - scheduled “quiet weeks,” flexible submission windows, and transparency in expectations. Open-source and federated systems, such as institutional repositories or community-driven LMS projects, illustrate how commons-based governance can align technology with human rather than market priorities. Reimagining educational infrastructure as care infrastructure means designing for interdependence, not extraction. Temporal policies might establish a commons of time - shared norms for response windows, protected reflection periods, and institutional calendars that avoid deadline clustering (O’Neill, 2014; Mountz et al., 2015). The analogy with Ostrom’s (1990) work on commons governance is instructive: just as commons thrive on mutual accountability and shared stewardship, care infrastructures depend on distributed responsibility rather than hierarchical control.

Such systems must also support complaint and critique as forms of institutional learning. Ahmed (2021) insists that the ability to speak about harm is itself an expression of care for the collective. When policies value this voice, care becomes a civic, not private, practice. Linking back to earlier posts on autonomy and commons-building, the recognition of care becomes both cultural and structural: autonomy requires temporal and relational supports, while commons persist through shared maintenance. To treat care as a first-order design constraint - visible in workload, rewarded in promotion, and encoded in the digital architectures that organise learning - is to move from celebrating care to sustaining it. This is the threshold between ethical pedagogy and just institutions: an infrastructure calibrated for human flourishing rather than institutional convenience.

“What would our infrastructures look like if care, not efficiency, were the organising value?” This question gathers the threads of this post and of the series so far. Across universities, digital systems are celebrated for streamlining teaching - but what if those systems were redesigned around reciprocity rather than throughput? The provocation is both practical and utopian: it asks not only how we might design differently, but how we might imagine education itself otherwise. Throughout this series, care has been explored as temporal, relational, and institutional - a mode of attention that resists the flattening logic of acceleration. To place care at the centre of digital pedagogy is to reclaim time and relation as the basic resources of learning. Care is not inefficiency; it is a reorientation of what we deem worth sustaining.

The paradox of digital care lies in its mediation through tools that were not built for it. Learning management systems, data dashboards, automated grading tools, and AI writing detectors all embody values of control and quantification. As Knox, Williamson and Bayne (2020) argue, the datafication of education has given rise to a form of machine behaviourism, where learning is reimagined as a measurable process of optimisation and prediction. In such systems, pedagogical relationships risk being reduced to algorithmic traces - inputs to be monitored rather than encounters to be cultivated. Yet, as Knox (2018) notes, learners and educators continue to co-produce meaning with and through algorithms, finding spaces for agency within automated environments. The challenge, then, is not to reject technology but to humanise it - to ensure that data, automation, and analytics serve reflective and relational ends. Luckin (2018) similarly contends that artificial intelligence should augment rather than replace human intelligence, supporting critical judgment, empathy, and creativity. Bayne et al. (2020) and Ross (2020) remind us that digital pedagogy is most ethical when it foregrounds the labour, emotion, and context that platforms seek to standardise. Within these mediated spaces, a pedagogy of care must therefore be both technical and moral - concerned with how automation structures attention, how analytics mediate trust, and how interface design shapes recognition and inclusion.

To enact care in digital pedagogy means reconfiguring time, relations, and recognition. The slow practices discussed earlier - reflective pauses, dialogic pacing, and the recognition of emotional labour - are not tactical responses to overwork but philosophical commitments. Han (2015) argues that acceleration produces the “achievement subject,” whose value is measured by output rather than relation. Care contests this by legitimising pause, vulnerability, and interdependence. Noddings (2013) characterises caring as receptivity: an openness to others that interrupts self-containment. This receptivity translates online into attentiveness to diverse rhythms, emotions, and forms of participation. It is enacted not only by educators but also by the infrastructures that allocate time, visibility, and value (Tronto, 2013; Ahmed, 2021). When institutions build policies that protect reflection, recognise care work, and resist the quantification of relationship, they enact care not as sentiment but as system.

Making care infrastructural means moving from the ethics of intention to the ethics of design. Calendars, dashboards, and workflows are moral architectures that distribute time and attention. Following Puig de la Bellacasa (2017), care must be understood as both affective and material - a matter of maintenance, repair, and ongoing negotiation. Infrastructures built on attentiveness would privilege reciprocity over extraction, dialogue over compliance, and collective wellbeing over competition. They would measure not just outputs but sustainabilities: the capacity of communities to endure together. Such a vision does not oppose efficiency but redefines it as the flourishing of people and ideas rather than the acceleration of processes.

Post 5, Pedagogy as World-Making, will extend this inquiry from care to creation, exploring how the ethics of attention and interdependence can become the basis for imaginative, collective world-building in digital education. If this post has examined how care reshapes infrastructures of learning, the next will ask how those same principles can animate the imaginative institution - how educators and students might co-create new worlds through speculative design, narrative, and collaboration. Where care provides the ethical ground, world-making offers the creative horizon: an enactment of education as the renewal of the world through shared imagination and responsibility.

• Adam, B. (2004) Time. Cambridge: Polity Press.
• Ahmed, S. (2021) Complaint! Duke University Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv1v7zdh2
• Arendt, H. (2018) The Human Condition. Second edition. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
• Bali, M. (2015) ’Pedagogy of Care - Gone Massive’, Hybrid Pedagogy, 20 April. Available at: https://hybridpedagogy.org/pedagogy-of-care-gone-massive/ (Accessed: 27 October 2025). Hybrid Pedagogy
• Bali, M. and Meier, B. (2014) ’An Affinity for Asynchronous Learning’, Hybrid Pedagogy, 4 March. Available at: https://hybridpedagogy.org/affinity-asynchronous-learning/ (Accessed: 27 October 2025). Hybrid Pedagogy
• Bayne, S., Evans, P., Ewins, R., Knox, J., Lamb, J., Macleod, H., O’Shea, C., Ross, J., Sheail, P., Sinclair, C. and Johnston, K. (2020) The Manifesto for Teaching Online. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/11840.001.0001
• Berg, M. and Seeber, B.K. (2016) The Slow Professor: Challenging the Culture of Speed in the Academy. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/manchester/detail.action?docID=4669664
• Biesta, G. (2021). World-Centred Education: A View for the Present (1st ed.). New York: Routledge. https://doi-org.manchester.idm.oclc.org/10.4324/9781003098331
• Biesta, G. J. J. (2013) The Beautiful Risk of Education. Boulder, CO: Paradigm Publishers.
• Bowker, G.C. and Star, S.L. (1999) Sorting Things Out: Classification and Its Consequences. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/6352.001.0001
• CAST (2018) Universal Design for Learning Guidelines version 2.2. Wakefield, MA: CAST. Available at: https://udlguidelines.cast.org/more/downloads/#v2-2
• Crary, J. (2014) 24/7 : Late Capitalism and the Ends of Sleep. London : Verso.
• De La Bellacasa, M. P. (2017) Matters of Care: Speculative Ethics in More than Human Worlds. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5749/j.ctt1mmfspt.
• Gravett, K. (2023) Relational Pedagogies: Connections and Mattering in Higher Education. London: Bloomsbury Academic. https://doi.org/10.5040/9781350256743
• Han, B (2015) The Burnout Society. Palo Alto: Stanford University Press https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/manchester/detail.action?docID=3568958
• Held, V. (2006) The Ethics of Care: Personal, Political, and Global. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/0195180992.001.0001
• Kahu, E. R. and Nelson, K. (2017) ’Student engagement in the educational interface: understanding the mechanisms of student success’, Higher Education Research & Development, 37(1), pp. 58–71. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2017.1344197.
• Knox, J. (2018) ’Beyond the “c” and the “x”: learning with algorithms in massive open online courses (MOOCs)’, International Review of Education, 64(2), pp. 161–178. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11159-018-9707-0
• Knox, J., Williamson, B. and Bayne, S. (2020) ’Machine behaviourism: future visions of “learnification” and “datafication” across humans and digital technologies’, Learning, Media and Technology, 45(1), pp. 31–45. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2019.1623251
• Kress, G. (2010) Multimodality: A Social Semiotic Approach to Contemporary Communication. London: Routledge. https://www.vlebooks.com/Product/Index/69199?page=0&startBookmarkId=-1
• Luckin, R. (2018) Machine Learning and Human Intelligence: The Future of Education for the 21st Century. London: UCL IOE Press. https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/10178695/
• Lynch, K. (2010) ’Carelessness: A hidden doxa of higher education’, Arts and Humanities in Higher Education, 9(1), pp. 54–67. https://doi.org/10.1177/1474022209350104.
• Mountz, A. (2015) ’For Slow Scholarship: A Feminist Politics of Resistance through Collective Action in the Neoliberal University’, ACME: An International Journal for Critical Geographies, 14(4), pp. 1235–1259. https://doi.org/10.14288/acme.v14i4.1058.
• Noddings, N. (2013) Caring: A Relational Approach to Ethics and Moral Education. 2nd ed. Berkeley: University of California Press. http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1525/j.ctt7zw1nb.
• O’Neill, M. (2014) ’The Slow University: Work, Time and Well-Being’, Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 15(3). https://doi.org/10.17169/fqs-15.3.2226.
• Ostrom, E. (2015) Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (Canto Classics). https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316423936
• Puig de la Bellacasa, M. (2017) Matters of care : speculative ethics in more than human worlds Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5749/j.ctt1mmfspt.
• Rosa, H. (2013) Social Acceleration: A New Theory of Modernity. Translated by J. Trejo-Mathys. New York: Columbia University Press. https://ebookcentral-proquest-com.manchester.idm.oclc.org/lib/manchester/detail.action?docID=1103424
• Ross, J. (2022) Digital Futures for Learning: Speculative Methods and Pedagogies (1st ed.). Routledge. https://doi-org.manchester.idm.oclc.org/10.4324/9781003202134
• Salmon, G. (2013) E-tivities: the key to active online learning, 2nd edition. New York: Routledge. https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/manchester/detail.action?docID=1221514.
• Seale, J. (2006) E-Learning and Disability in Higher Education: Accessibility Research and Practice. Abingdon: Routledge.
• Selwyn, N. (2014) Distrusting Educational Technology: Critical Questions for Changing Times. New York: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315886350
• Shaw, P.A., Cole, B. and Russell, J.L. (2013) ’19: Determining Our Own Tempos: Exploring Slow Pedagogy, Curriculum, Assessment, and Professional Development’, To Improve the Academy, 32(1), pp. 319–334. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2334-4822.2013.tb00713.x.
• Star, S.L. and Ruhleder, K. (1996) ’Steps Toward an Ecology of Infrastructure: Design and Access for Large Information Spaces’. Information Systems Research 7(1):111-134. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.7.1.111
• Stommel, J. (2014) ’Critical Digital Pedagogy: A Definition’, Hybrid Pedagogy, 17 November. Available at: https://hybridpedagogy.org/critical-digital-pedagogy-definition/ (Accessed: 27 October 2025).
• Tronto, J.C. (2013) Caring Democracy: Markets, Equality, and Justice. New York: New York University Press.
• Zembylas, M. (2007) ’The politics of trauma: empathy, reconciliation and peace education’, Journal of Peace Education, 4(2), pp. 207–224. https://doi.org/10.1080/17400200701523603.
• Zembylas, M. (2011) ’Pedagogies of strategic empathy: navigating through the emotional complexities of anti-racism in higher education’, Teaching in Higher Education, 17(2), pp. 113–125. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2011.611869.