wallpaper animals

MacIntyre's recent charting of the relationship between catholic thinking and universities provides a powerful platform for a deep critique of where we are now. Much in line with his thinking about ethics, he identifies an 'un-tethering' process which has led to the current obsession with specialisation and professionalisation, whilst losing sight of anything 'universal'.

"Research universities in the early twenty-first century are wonderfully successful business corporations subsidized by tax exemptions and exhibiting all the acquisitive ambitions of such corporations"

"...the contemporary research university is, therefore, by an large a place in which certain questions go unasked or rather, if they are asked, it is only by individuals and in settings such that as few as possible hear them being asked."

Isn't that ironic considering the technology we now have!

I was thinking about the interview I did with Scott the other day. When we think of amplifying our teaching online, why do we think of one teacher talking to class or one teacher talking to camera? Is it because our face-to-face practice has led us to think of the 'efficiency' of teaching as being one-teacher-per-class? But online, this really doesn't make sense, since the scale of what might be achieved through teaching online is much greater than face-to-face.

So why don't we capture groups of teachers engaged in their own activities around the subject? This may have a number of benefits:
1. it might be less boring than a single teacher talking (although no guarantees here!!)
2. individual teachers might feel less self-conscious about doing online videoed activities if they are not alone
3. it spreads teaching practice and subject knowledge amongst the group
4. it models practices of 'activity engagement' (i.e. 'having a discussion') which can then be replicated by the students
5. it provides opportunities for different kinds of student interaction with the teacher group.

It may be worth a try. But it requires jettisoning the educational conditioning of face-to-face education...

yep, it's definitely monday......
i was exhausted from traveling so i took a super long nap yesterday afternoon.  not such a good idea...i found myself staring at the clock at 2:00 AM...then i found taylor staring at me at 6:30.  coffee please.

*images courtesy of english muse, full house

I'm thinking about a 'wild' university, as opposed to the 'cultivated' (and genetically-engineered) variety that we are so familiar with. Following yesterdays thoughts about custodianship, the implications of a wild university are interesting. The value systems of governments which determine 'fairness', 'fitness', 'rigour', 'value for money' and whose value is transferred to students through qualification is a centrally-controlled value system which privileges normative value and truth-statements: "Joe bloggs is worthy of the award of a degree in Botany from Oxford"; "he is competent in botany". Why does Joe Bloggs need a qualification to make assertions about his ability at botany?

Understanding truth is pretty central this. Bhaskar's truth tetrapolity is useful here. He has four dimensions to it:
1. Normative fiduciary
2. adequating
3. expressive-referential
4. alethic
The qualification is a warrant, making a statement about his botany ability a 'warranted assertion' (adequating). But does the warrant have to come from an institution? Could it come directly from other botanists? This might equate to the 'referential expressive' dimension of truth. Then there is the 'alethic' truth of Joe himself as a botanist in convincing others of his botany ability: maybe this is the 'tacit' botanist in him which other botanists may detect. He needs no institution to have that, although the institution may have helped him develop it. How could Joe's botany ability become normative? How could a statement about Joe's botany be trusted?

It is partly to address these aspects of truth that I think we institutionalise quality in the way we do. If we can think of alternative answers to these questions, then a university in the wild might be a possibility...

With all the talk of tuition fees rising, I've been thinking about different ways of viewing the problem of the funding of education. In particular, I'm wondering about whether we have to see this through the lens of the 'benefits' of learning? What about the benefits of 'institutional membership' and participating in the maintenance of cultural institutions? Why not see students as shareholders in the institution for life reaping dividends (maybe in terms of rising social capital) for their 'investment' rather than purchasers of learning?

It strikes me that universities have been around for 900 years because people have cared for them in the past. That care relationship is not something based on consumption, but rather on custodianship, and students have been the main custodians.

If you pursue this membership model, what then becomes of academic quality and the 'degree awarding' role of the University? If my role in the University is to help take care of it, how does the taking care relate to the achievement of qualifications? These strike me as interesting questions!

Scott Wilson and I made this video discussion yesterday to introduce Open Source Software to students.

Introducing Open Source Software Development from Strategy Workshops on Vimeo.