The effort, by university-based scholars, to address other audiences than themselves, may be called 'academic engagement'. To challenge the university obsession with the production of peer-reviewed articles (for other peers to read), and the high value placed on securing lucrative research grants, 'engaged' scholars seek public audiences for their work , and they also see scholarship as world-changing, not necessarily only analytical and critical.
Thomas Hylland Eriksen's work is important in this regard. He is an anthropologist. I have a soft spot from anthropology since, like me, many anthropologists spend a good deal of time in particular places unravelling what is going on. But Eriksen says anthropologists have missed the boat. They are notorious for talking and writing mainly to themselves. And they revel in this. An engaged scholarship, undderstandable and read by the public and by policymakers, is largely absent from the discipline. Those anthropologists who have reached out to a wider audience can be names in a few sentences. His book is worth a read and some is online through Google.
I have witnessed the phenomenon of /anthropological exceptionalism' at first hand. Yes, anthropologists write and posture at conferences for their own kind- as do many academics. But I have seen a knee-jerk, almost visceral response to any criticism of the discipline, and many accusations that so-and-so is 'not an anthropologist' and therefore not one of the club (this is known to happen in other disciplines too, notably in economics). Interdisciplinarity is rarely praised. At our university, Anthropology was small, earmarked for closure, and finally 'saved' by a merger. Synergies within the new School looked good. But several anthropologists retained an exceptionalist mindset. Some actively schemed to regain their autonomy, while the fate of Anthropology was secured by colonising a successful Masters program (that they did not set up in the first place). In 2007 the merged entity collapsed and there has been further departmental restructuring.
Many of the players have now retired, taken redundancy packages, or moved on. But from an organizational ethnography of anthropological practice, we could learn a great deal about the constraints to academic engagement, and the tendency to ignore it by inwardly focussed turf wars.
Saturday, 16 February 2008
Monday, 21 January 2008
British academics getting ill from overwork
Study reported in Telegraph finds British academics getting ill from overwork.
Friday, 11 January 2008
Matthew Taylor on engaged political ecology
From a fellow academic/practitioner.
http://www.geography.du.edu/taylor/Site/public%20good.html
University of Denver, USA, has produced a few papers on what they are calling public good scholarship. http://www.du.edu/engage/faculty/faculty_PGworkingpapers.htm
http://www.geography.du.edu/taylor/Site/public%20good.html
University of Denver, USA, has produced a few papers on what they are calling public good scholarship. http://www.du.edu/engage/faculty/faculty_PGworkingpapers.htm
Wednesday, 9 January 2008
Eric Ringmar's 'Times Higher' article
Eric Ringmar, who resigned from LSE's Government Department some months after uttering a few home truths about his institution on his blog page, wrote an excellent viewpoint in the Times Higher Education Supplement back in 2006. Available here.
He argues the LSE - one of the world's most prestigious research and education institutions in the field that it covers (social science) - does not necessarily offer a great experience to its undergrad students - because the professors are not necessarily endowed with any better teaching skills than their bretheren at lesser institutions across town, like London Metropolitan University. LSE Profs. are, on balance, more likely to be engaged in things other than teaching undergraduates - research, policy work, media broadcasting and so-on (and are offered attractive sabbatical arrangements that take them off campus, too).
I'm one of the few able to respond to this comment, having taught at LSE and the equivalent of LMU. Many of the junior staff in my days at LSE, and a few of the senior ones, were excellent teachers. But not all. My own performance was poor at the outset but improved once I got the measure of the place, but it was hard work. I have also taught at the equivalent of London Metropolitan University and seen some excellent teaching and some less good, done at that type of institution.
An anecdote: LSE faculty in Government/Politics were absolutely livid when a British government teaching quality assurance agency (QAA) inspection took place in 2000, and they were found wanting by the assessors on a couple of criteria. In an otherwise satisfactory report, assessors said there was too much emphasis on examinations ("heavy reliance on examinations as summative assessment"), and that aims and objectives of lectures were not always given to students. More help was needed for students requiring it. Some LSE staff thought they had been insulted by such remarks. They challenged the reputation of the QAA, its assessors from lesser institutions, and its findings.
But much of the (slight) criticism was justly deserved. Teaching could be improved, especially for undergrads, and actually the LSE later acted on much of the commentary from QAA (see later reports on their webpage) and set up a lot more student mentoring. I was there when this begun.
What Ringmar points out, however, is that the undergraduate experience, including a few less-than-great moments and frustrations, does not really matter at LSE. Students attend the LSE for its reputation, for the amazing contacts that they make (largely among fellow students) and the clear social and economic value that their degree gives them. They can probably withstand being taught by one or two temporary lecturers who are unsure of procedures, and similar privations. They find out about these things, and adapt, within the first few weeks or months of their degree. All the students there are very bright - and they usually cope.
A bit of honesty goes a long way. Ringmar said in Jan of 2008, writing on the new Times Higher university rankings
"But what good is a “reputation” if all your classes are taught by overworked PhD students? Or if, as a professor, your salary is low and you’re bullied by your superiors? "
But honesty like this is rarely appreciated in the corporate university sector.
LSE, and LMU, will continue to recruit the type of students they currently have. And academics at each place will continue to be afraid to rock the boat, in case they make their jobs untenable, or actually lose them. Little is likely to change.
He argues the LSE - one of the world's most prestigious research and education institutions in the field that it covers (social science) - does not necessarily offer a great experience to its undergrad students - because the professors are not necessarily endowed with any better teaching skills than their bretheren at lesser institutions across town, like London Metropolitan University. LSE Profs. are, on balance, more likely to be engaged in things other than teaching undergraduates - research, policy work, media broadcasting and so-on (and are offered attractive sabbatical arrangements that take them off campus, too).
I'm one of the few able to respond to this comment, having taught at LSE and the equivalent of LMU. Many of the junior staff in my days at LSE, and a few of the senior ones, were excellent teachers. But not all. My own performance was poor at the outset but improved once I got the measure of the place, but it was hard work. I have also taught at the equivalent of London Metropolitan University and seen some excellent teaching and some less good, done at that type of institution.
An anecdote: LSE faculty in Government/Politics were absolutely livid when a British government teaching quality assurance agency (QAA) inspection took place in 2000, and they were found wanting by the assessors on a couple of criteria. In an otherwise satisfactory report, assessors said there was too much emphasis on examinations ("heavy reliance on examinations as summative assessment"), and that aims and objectives of lectures were not always given to students. More help was needed for students requiring it. Some LSE staff thought they had been insulted by such remarks. They challenged the reputation of the QAA, its assessors from lesser institutions, and its findings.
But much of the (slight) criticism was justly deserved. Teaching could be improved, especially for undergrads, and actually the LSE later acted on much of the commentary from QAA (see later reports on their webpage) and set up a lot more student mentoring. I was there when this begun.
What Ringmar points out, however, is that the undergraduate experience, including a few less-than-great moments and frustrations, does not really matter at LSE. Students attend the LSE for its reputation, for the amazing contacts that they make (largely among fellow students) and the clear social and economic value that their degree gives them. They can probably withstand being taught by one or two temporary lecturers who are unsure of procedures, and similar privations. They find out about these things, and adapt, within the first few weeks or months of their degree. All the students there are very bright - and they usually cope.
A bit of honesty goes a long way. Ringmar said in Jan of 2008, writing on the new Times Higher university rankings
"But what good is a “reputation” if all your classes are taught by overworked PhD students? Or if, as a professor, your salary is low and you’re bullied by your superiors? "
But honesty like this is rarely appreciated in the corporate university sector.
LSE, and LMU, will continue to recruit the type of students they currently have. And academics at each place will continue to be afraid to rock the boat, in case they make their jobs untenable, or actually lose them. Little is likely to change.
New book by Marc Bousquet on 'How the University Works'
Marc Bousquet's "How the University Works" is published this week, with an attendant blog page.
Great account of how, in the USA, decent long-term or tenured academic jobs are giving way to temporary teaching positions occupied by "adjuncts". This suits American university managers - who now hold more power than ever, and are generally well paid - just fine, since it reduces wage bills and costs.
One criticism: Bousquet seems to miss in the parts I read, is that outside the USA, the tenure/non-tenure track/untenureable divide is less strong, or even absent. It is my view that tenure in the USA disadvantages contingent, adjunct lecturers and teachers. In the UK and Australasia, non-permanent staff with no chnace at a permanent job at least get paid a decent wage and there is some prospect of further contracts and mobility in the sector. Also the 'permanent' staff can still be kicked out with persistence, if they do little or no work. This is fairer. We all end up on not-so-great-wages, but there generally more equality.
The book should really be renamed "How the American University Works" although it is too late for that. In general, very few commentators on academic labour in the USA seem to acknowledge that different labour systems, often without the tenure/no tenure divide, operate elsewhere. They aren't necesarily better, but the absence of a 'tenured class' outside the USA reduces the awkward fact that, in the States, only a chosen few get to the top of a greasy pole that many people with PhDs never even get to approach. Life for the latter is not all that great.
Great account of how, in the USA, decent long-term or tenured academic jobs are giving way to temporary teaching positions occupied by "adjuncts". This suits American university managers - who now hold more power than ever, and are generally well paid - just fine, since it reduces wage bills and costs.
One criticism: Bousquet seems to miss in the parts I read, is that outside the USA, the tenure/non-tenure track/untenureable divide is less strong, or even absent. It is my view that tenure in the USA disadvantages contingent, adjunct lecturers and teachers. In the UK and Australasia, non-permanent staff with no chnace at a permanent job at least get paid a decent wage and there is some prospect of further contracts and mobility in the sector. Also the 'permanent' staff can still be kicked out with persistence, if they do little or no work. This is fairer. We all end up on not-so-great-wages, but there generally more equality.
The book should really be renamed "How the American University Works" although it is too late for that. In general, very few commentators on academic labour in the USA seem to acknowledge that different labour systems, often without the tenure/no tenure divide, operate elsewhere. They aren't necesarily better, but the absence of a 'tenured class' outside the USA reduces the awkward fact that, in the States, only a chosen few get to the top of a greasy pole that many people with PhDs never even get to approach. Life for the latter is not all that great.
Wednesday, 19 December 2007
Welcome - policy-relevance and engaged scholarship among academics
Welcome.
Universities are changing. Many are short of cash. They compete with each other for students and, particularly, for prestige. They are often large, they are big employers, and public money is now scarce in many of them.
While some argue the role of 'academics' (who people with PhDs who write stuff and teach?) is to do 'scholarly' work and to transmit their wisdom to students in classrooms and tutorials, some don't think this is enough. Many universities have a 'public' orientation, and are strongly locked into the needs of the social services, the health sector, local employers, and even NGOs and progressive organisations who need their research and employ their graduates. Academics end up advising governments and other organisations, for good or bad reasons.
This work should be valued. By doing it, it does not mean academics are 'selling out' or being 'non-objective' (although this does happen sometimes). It does mean they behave like real people - juggling activities, talking to different people, expressing a view without writing a paper with a barrage of footnotes or references to long-dead theorists and writers. Writing reports rather than papers. In sociology, this view of what academics are about is increasingly prevalent, although contested.
I work at an established research university, one of the best in the world, and I have relatively secure employment (although no academic job is really secure, outside a few of the top universities in the USA). The path to public work rather than scholarly recognition, is made difficult there (although not totally rejected). It was once commonplace in such establishments, particularly in the radical 1960s years, and remains so in the health sciences.
I think it is possible to transcend this issue. Teach. Publish great work in your specialist field. But, also, have a conscience, reach out, devote time to work that serves a difference audience, and which may possibly get you into trouble or will at least be listened to. This is a form of 'engaged' scholarship. That 'engagement' actually improves teaching and research, too. And it may, ultimately, save your discipline, or you and your colleagues, from redundancy and cutbacks. Because that is the way things are heading in many universities. Irrelevance is becoming a greater sin than relevance.
Most of my work concerns access and use of natural resources in developing countries. The issues are hardly neutral, politically. They dominated much of the discussion at the 2007 climate conference in Bali, for example. 'Engagement' - actively or through research and scholarship - seems particularly vital in this field.
Hence this blog (a medium that conventional universities are suddenly having to recognize, following the recent debacle at LSE where a blog attracted the employer's ire).
Universities are changing. Many are short of cash. They compete with each other for students and, particularly, for prestige. They are often large, they are big employers, and public money is now scarce in many of them.
While some argue the role of 'academics' (who people with PhDs who write stuff and teach?) is to do 'scholarly' work and to transmit their wisdom to students in classrooms and tutorials, some don't think this is enough. Many universities have a 'public' orientation, and are strongly locked into the needs of the social services, the health sector, local employers, and even NGOs and progressive organisations who need their research and employ their graduates. Academics end up advising governments and other organisations, for good or bad reasons.
This work should be valued. By doing it, it does not mean academics are 'selling out' or being 'non-objective' (although this does happen sometimes). It does mean they behave like real people - juggling activities, talking to different people, expressing a view without writing a paper with a barrage of footnotes or references to long-dead theorists and writers. Writing reports rather than papers. In sociology, this view of what academics are about is increasingly prevalent, although contested.
I work at an established research university, one of the best in the world, and I have relatively secure employment (although no academic job is really secure, outside a few of the top universities in the USA). The path to public work rather than scholarly recognition, is made difficult there (although not totally rejected). It was once commonplace in such establishments, particularly in the radical 1960s years, and remains so in the health sciences.
I think it is possible to transcend this issue. Teach. Publish great work in your specialist field. But, also, have a conscience, reach out, devote time to work that serves a difference audience, and which may possibly get you into trouble or will at least be listened to. This is a form of 'engaged' scholarship. That 'engagement' actually improves teaching and research, too. And it may, ultimately, save your discipline, or you and your colleagues, from redundancy and cutbacks. Because that is the way things are heading in many universities. Irrelevance is becoming a greater sin than relevance.
Most of my work concerns access and use of natural resources in developing countries. The issues are hardly neutral, politically. They dominated much of the discussion at the 2007 climate conference in Bali, for example. 'Engagement' - actively or through research and scholarship - seems particularly vital in this field.
Hence this blog (a medium that conventional universities are suddenly having to recognize, following the recent debacle at LSE where a blog attracted the employer's ire).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
