Knowing in uncertain times: optimism, ignorance
and flexible learning
Peter G. Taylor
Griffith Institute for Higher Education
GRIFFITH UNIVERSITY
p.taylor@gih.gu.edu.au
The paper presents an argument for a dual track approach - innovation
and adaptation - to the challenges of reinventing university culture as
they scramble to position themselves in relation to challenges like
globalisation, commercialisation, and the increasing availability and
capacities of information technologies. The subject of this paper is
how individuals and organisations have responded to these challenges.
The discussion focuses on the response of individualised innovation -
lone ranging. This approach leads to valuable outcomes, but is
inadequate as the institutional response. A second approach - a process
of adaptation - is offered as a strategy for engaging a critical mass
of staff with flexible learning. A five phase process for adaptation is
described, along with several pre-conditions for its success.
New corporate missions, managerial strategies and forms of
communication technology are impinging on academic workers in
unprecedented ways. It is no secret that universities are scrambling to
position themselves in relation to challenges like globalisation,
commercialisation, and the increasing availability and capacities of
information technologies. People who work within them are experiencing
a sense of insecurity and identity crises as they are buffeted by
changes in both demands and the resources they have available to meet
those demands, and as they are caught up in this undignified scramble
(Nixon, 1996). The policy discussion paper of the West Review (West,
1997) includes reference to this sense of crisis: 'There is a feeling
of unease in the universities ... higher education has ... lost its way
and is rudderless in a sea of change' (p. 1). These are indications of
problematic 'new times' in the higher education sector in Australia.
I am using the term 'crisis' to represent a time within which a
situation of deterioration either moves towards improvement, or moves
more rapid deterioration. Thus, it represents a time in which decisions
about how to respond effectively to particular challenges are urgently
sought. However, I am not suggesting that a crisis is necessarily
resolved by a single set of decisions. Decisions may reverse, delay or
even accelerate further deterioration, or cause a new crisis. However,
without them, an intensification in the rate and scope, and therefore
effects, of deterioration can be expected.
In this context, 'knowing' confronts uncertainty. What I am implying
is that, in the context of 'new times', much of the decision making
involves a significant investment of optimism and ignorance. Some of
that ignorance is inevitable - by definition 'innovation' involve going
beyond the usual - the predictable. On the other hand, the actual
approach we adopt at an organisational level can appear overly romantic
and naive. My purpose here is to offer both a critique of the primary
current approach to the challenges noted above, and an alternative
approach which is more in keeping with what Patti Lather (in McWilliam,
Lather & Morgan, 1996) terms 'non-stupid optimism'.
In the context of these challenges, the reference to identity crises
invites a recognition that former practices and roles have decreasing
'survival' value. There is an urgent need to develop and trial
alternatives. Where might we look for such alternatives?
Technology as demon and saviour
One of the most lauded possibilities involves the increased use of
communication and information technologies (CITs) within more
traditional teaching and learning environments. The report of the
Dearing Committee makes such calls. Nearer to home, the West document
offers the view that technology is both demon and potential saviour.
West speaks of the digital revolution as 'happening' in quite a
relentless and totalising way: 'Over the next twenty years universities
will be affected significantly by the revolutionary developments taking
place in information and communication technologies' (p.9, my italics).
Later, the discussion paper includes the claim that 'Over the next
twenty years ... the changes wrought by the digital revolution will be
so pervasive that universities will be forced to fundamentally rethink
every aspect of the way in which they provide their services' (p. 11,
my italics).
The message is clear - former practices and roles have to give way to
the digital juggernaut if institutions are to continue to offer
employment to those who work within them. This is the knowing of
technological determinism.
A 'technology-as-saviour' theme is also evident in the West paper.
This is most obvious in the Foreword, where the following claim is
made:
.. [O]ur eyes are being opened to extraordinary possibilities in the
provision of education through ever expanding technological advance.
The opportunities for adult learning in the future can be scarcely
imagined. New learning methods must be eagerly embraced to cater for a
far more diverse - more discriminating - student body. (p. vii)
The underlying argument is that only through the increased use of
technology can institutions 'provide services in ways that meet student
expectations at the lowest possible cost' (p. 13). The alignment of
the use of CITs with minimising increases in costs is hardly novel, or
unexpected. The only problem is that this alignment has little
empirical evidence to support it. At this point in time it represents
wishful thinking. The figures quoted in the West paper focus on the
costs of delivery, but it is not clear that the costs of the
development are included. There is a pressing need to broaden the
discussion beyond this simplistic level of analysis.
Flexible learning = student centred?
It seems that every sustained discussions of the future of teaching and
learning in higher education includes a reference to the need for
increased flexibility. The Dearing Committee called for it, and so
does the West discussion paper. The term is almost always implies
disapproval of old 'inflexible', institution and/or academic focused
practices. For example, the West paper argues:
The location, content and mode of delivery of education should be built
on a relationship between the student and the provider, not the views
of administrators concerning what students want and what institutions
are able to provide. Students should be the ones to make decisions
about their study options. (p. 4 - italics in original)
It seems entirely reasonable to suggest that the term 'flexible' is
used primarily to signal a move to a more student/client centred
approach to higher education, as implied in the italicised section of
this extract.
However, the precise meaning of 'student-centred' is unclear in many
such documents. Some commentators use it in ways similar to the West
paper - to indicate an intention to provide students with more choices
(eg, of location, content and mode of delivery). Here
student-centredness has a flavour of a menu of options - a learning
supermarket. Most institutions have already attempted to increase the
range of options (course and subjects, ie, content) available to their
students, while the use of distance education practices has opened
options in terms of location. Use of CITs allows for an expansion in
the range of modes of delivery. In particular, the use of the Internet
opens up a range of new hybrid forms of delivery - part
person-to-person, and part distance (through the use of prepared
learning resources which might themselves be made available via a
course offering's homepage).
More radical versions of 'student centredness' invite students to
collaborate in the construction of their own menus - to construct
options which are more uniquely theirs. For example, students can be
given the opportunity to choose their own learning goals from the
course offering within some constraints, rather than have them imposed
by the course or subject convenor. Students can be allowed to choose
how to be assessed - by an assignment, or by an exam, or both. They
might choose to learn via lectures or tutorials or project work, or any
combination of these; library or Internet; face-to-face contact, or
distance with Internet interaction with staff or other students. These
versions presume some degree of self-awareness, in terms of preferred
learning styles, personal strengths, and so on, and the capacity for
self-direction and self-regulation. This more radical form of student
centredness is exemplified by Silverman (1996), who provides a
rationale for, and exemplification of its use in a university-level
introductory physics course. His underlying rationale is that 'Science
as it is taught should more closely resemble science as it is done by
professional scientists' (p. 357). This is a disciplined view of
student centredness.
However, my intention here is neither to map nor critique notions of
student centredness or flexibility. I want to move to discuss issues of
relevance to the institutional move to 'eagerly embrace' the new
learning and teaching methods which will allow staff to ride the wave
of the 'ever expanding technological advance'.
Before I move on, let me briefly explain what I mean by 'flexible
learning'. For me it involves both an end and a means. As an end it
involves a student-centred approach to education that focuses attention
on the learner's control over learning, with the intention of
increasing their capacity for exercising responsibility and autonomy in
their learning. It recognises the need to ensure that graduates develop
the capacities for, and intentions to engage in, lifelong learning. As
a means, it involves a convergence of the best of face-to-face and
distance education practices with the rapidly evolving capacities of
CITs. This is the relatively well known 'delivery' aspect.
But how are the 'flexible learning' practices being developed, and how
are they understood in the context of both crisis, and institutional
and academic practices? Certainly the digital revolution is happening.
Institutions and individuals are already experimenting with the use of
CITs, with student-centred approaches to teaching, and with flexible
learning (in the sense that I use the term). What can be learnt from
these experiments that might help staff catch this CIT wave?
Caution - lone rangers at work
The overwhelming evidence is that the move towards the use of CITs, and
student-centred approaches to teaching and flexible learning has been
energised and enacted primarily by lone rangers - individual staff
members who are energetic, early adopters of innovation, and who are
motivated by a desire to innovate and/or improve the quality of their
teaching. The CAUT and CUTSD processes have given enormous momentum to
those who wanted to engage in innovation. This is an innovation driven
approach to the development of new practices. But what are the
outcomes?
There are some positives, and some negatives. The positives tend to
cluster around the achievement of intentions - improvement in student
learning, improvement in retention rates, improvement in the quality of
teaching and learning. Some individuals even gained promotion. But
the most important outcome is that these lone rangers have laid a
foundation for new teaching methods based on the available CITs. In
this sense, they have done much to create the potential to catch the
CIT wave, and to make it pay off for students in substantive ways.
These are extremely important outcomes, and should be celebrated and
protected.
But there is also a downside. This approach has tended to produce
innovation at the level of particular course offerings, but there has
been a lack of institutional support and a failure to institutionalise
the outcomes. In fact innovation often occurred in spite of this lack
of institutional interest. Because of the lack of integration between
their innovation and the institutional practices or the work of their
colleagues, innovator-led approaches have tended to produce pockets of
isolated activity. Well developed evaluations of such initiatives are
rare. Where evaluations have been conducted, and reports written,
little notice was or is taken of their findings or recommendations.
The lone rangers approach has emphasised the importance of investing
creative energy, but has done little to articulate that investment with
the broader institutional context. This is a high cost, low return
strategy. And the costs are largely born by the individual lone rangers
themselves.
Lone ranger's caution 'don't fence me in'
I would like to suggest that there are several reasons why lone ranging
will continue to fail to lead fundamental rethinking of every aspect of
the way in which universities provide their services - to reinventing
university cultures.
First, lone rangers can't be 'fenced in'. Academics-as-innovators have
largely worked as lone rangers - in isolation from their colleagues,
and certainly unimpeded by administrators. They have not worked within
policy frameworks - they have worked against and/or in spite of them.
Their approach is entirely consistent with the tradition of academic
autonomy. These are not team players. They are unlikely to welcome any
systematic, institutional policy framework. They welcome support, but
not direction.
And this tradition of autonomous individualism is not limited to
academic workers. In 'new times' we are seeing a trend to the
development of relatively autonomous cost-centres within each
university. Thus, the survival of each cost centre depends on its
financial well-being, considered in isolation from the larger
organisation. Thus cost-centres are under pressure to develop
strategies for their individual survival, strategies which may militate
against collaboration with colleagues who are located in other
cost-centres, unless that collaboration has measurable and positive
financial implications for both cost-centres. In many instances this
means that utilising the services of colleagues who have expertise in
areas like instructional design or staff development may be seen as
economically unjustifiable for 'academic units', even though the use of
their skills may be educationally desirable. Lean and mean can be
anti-team!
Lone ranging may be a very effective way of developing innovative
practices. However, the challenge is to move beyond innovation at the
level of individual subject or organisational element to change at the
institutional level - the reinvention of cultures. Until this happens,
the very innovative practices that we need to support will be
inconsistent with - even at odds with - the broader institutional
practices. Lone ranging is a radically bottom-up approach to
innovation, and historical studies of innovation in education, such as
those of Goodman (1995), suggest the weight of tradition will not be
moved in any profound way by this approach. We need to recognise that
the challenge is not limited to the development of innovation, but
extends to include the institutionalisation of the outcomes of
innovation.
And there are other reasons for moving beyond lone ranging. Lone
ranging is also inconsistent with more effective approaches to the
development of innovative methods of teaching, which tend to be
characterised by collaboration between individuals with complementary
expertises. In support of this claim I cite the empirical research of
Taylor, Lopez and Quadrelli (1996), who investigated the experiences of
staff involved in the move to develop more flexible modes of delivery,
including the use of CITs. In the concluding chapter of their report
they expressed the belief that:
The move to flexible education is a move to greater collaboration.
Flexible modes of delivery will require access to new skills and/or
expertise. Those skills and expertise can effectively be accessed
through, and developed within, collaborative teamwork. Teaming may
change work practices and roles, as new partnerships are forged across
what were once disparate domains in the institution. (p. 101; their
italics)
Clearly cost/income pressures associated with 'new times' may put the
formation of those partnerships at risk unless careful attention is
paid to both collaboration and financial management issues. However,
the reality is that most university staff are not used to 'putting a
dollar value' on their work. Indeed, the expectation that they might do
so is likely to alienate many, while the necessity to do so may, for
some, exacerbate their fear that the move to flexible learning is
primarily motivated by financial rather than educational priorities.
Lone ranging is also, as noted above, practice-focused rather than
knowledge-focused. Lone rangers are often interested in achievement of
new ways of using CITs, but they are less interested in understanding
how those innovations make a difference to student learning. I noted
earlier in this paper that well developed evaluations of innovations
are rare. This may seem incongruent with the view of universities as
knowledge producing communities, but that knowledge building is almost
always focused on disciplinary knowledge, rather than pedagogical
knowledge. That is, the scholarship of academics tends to be focused
on their discipline rather than the teaching of their discipline. But,
in my experience, when it comes to introducing new approaches (ie,
flexible learning), sceptical questions such as 'does it work', 'what
effect does it have on student learning', and the like, have to be
answered in ways that are convincing. Staff want to be assured that
these practices are understood - that the explanation for why they
'work' involves more than the energy and enthusiasm of the lone rangers
who developed them.
Post-lone ranging
When the West committee speaks of the need to achieve fundamental
rethinking of every aspect of the way in which universities provide
their services, I interpret them to be speaking of the need to
mainstream flexible learning, that is, to extend the level of
involvement from the margins, towards the centre of institutional
practices.
Extending the 'level of involvement' means involving a 'critical mass'
of staff in flexible learning. The term 'critical mass' is, of course,
another piece of rhetoric which is in need of clarification. In his
address to The Virtual University? Symposium at the University of
Melbourne, Iain Morrison, the Assistant Vice-Chancellor Information
Technology of that university, quantified this challenge. He suggested
that the lone rangers represented about 10% of the staff. He suggested
that another 10% of staff - the early adaptors - would readily follow
in the footsteps of these pioneers. His concern was to capture the
attention of the additional 10% necessary to achieve 30% participation
- his sense of 'critical mass'.
I find Morrison's comments useful for several reasons. First, the
concept of 'critical mass' suggests that once you have 30% of staff
actively engaged in flexible learning, then the institution would
undergo a paradigm change in its educational practices. This quantifies
the target. Second, Morrison clarifies the challenge. Institutions
cannot make this change on the backs of the lone rangers - they are
essential, but not numerically sufficient to achieve 'critical mass'.
Institutions have to engage the attention of 'the unconverted', rather
than continue to focus on 'the easily or already converted'. This
identifies the target.
In my view much of the energy and enthusiasm of those involved in staff
development is focused on the first 20% - preaching to the converted
and/or easily converted. This is not a waste of time - lone ranging
colleagues have told me that they find it extremely useful to meet with
like-minded individuals, and to feel valued. Of course this may reflect
their marginal status within their own institutional settings - we know
that there are few rewards for many lone rangers, especially because it
so often involves a conscious decision to forego involvement in
research. It seems that they can not convert their interest in
innovation into research outcomes that are actually valued. But
'preaching to the converted' is not going to achieve 'critical mass'.
We need to be very careful in extrapolating from the work of lone
rangers to the more general academic community. That community is a
very broad church - as implied by Morrison's view that as small a
proportion as 30% represents an unassailable convergence of belief. To
push the congregational metaphor a little further, the very singularity
and strength of the faith of some of 'the believers' can be as much an
impediment as an asset in any process of 'conversion'. The 'certainty'
of their knowledge can heighten the scepticism of the 'the
unconverted'.
Any like-minded group tends to develop its own language, based on
attitudes, beliefs and values which are largely taken-for-granted
(Taylor, 1997a). Where those assumptions are not opened for discussion
(and that is not an easy process in universities for a number of
reasons), conversion is unlikely. Indeed, in my experience, the
unconverted are more likely to have their sense of scepticism converted
to cynicism in such settings. Genuine inter-denominational
communication needs to occur, and that communication must 'encourage
discussion of the local traditions, preferences and prejudices, values
and beliefsÑnot as an aside, but as the point of departure' for any
attempt to fundamentally rethink any aspect of the way in which
universities provide their services (Taylor, 1997a, p. 126).
If lone ranging is unlikely to provide sufficient 'mass' to achieve
fundamental change, then how might we build on the experiences of the
lone rangers and 'convert' the necessary proportion of staff to
flexible learning? Let me step carefully towards a response to that
question.
An alternative - the adaptation track
We have relied too much on lone ranging. That reliance suggests that we
have assumed that what we needed was simply more lone rangers. That
assumption is unhelpful, and needs to be abandoned. What we need is
more people using flexible practices, but they don't have to invent
those practices. Thus, I am wanting to distinguish between the
necessary practices of innovation, of knowledge construction, and of
adaptation. My argument is that we need to increase the proportion of
staff who are adapting practices which have been developed by others,
and which are well understood. Importantly, though, I am arguing for
both innovation and adaptation - a dual track approach.
Staff face multiple challenges in making a transition to flexible
learning. The use of the concepts and tools associated with flexible
learning requires that they rethink and refocus their practices. (This
is equally true for students.) New skills are required, as are new work
attitudes. In the case of flexible learning, skills in the use of
information and communication technologies are needed, but changes are
also required in many existing expectations and routines - in roles.
Thus, changes will not be limited to the delivery of information. In
fact those changes which focus on delivery are, in some senses,
peripheral.
The implementation of flexible learning requires changes in the roles
of staff and students. For this reason, adaptation will involve a
process that allows staff to tap into robust practices, rather than to
innovate, as a point of departure for this transition. Adaptive
development for flexible learning should be staged, and be based on an
expectation of evolutionary change. The point of departure for such a
process has to be the taken-for-granted attitudes, beliefs and values
associated with their existing intentions and practices, and the
institutional intentions and practices (Taylor, 1997a). As I have
argued elsewhere, reform which adequately addresses the challenges
facing universities, must be based on the development of learning
communities, and these communities should offer experiences which:
engage the pre-existing ideas, orientations, ways of thinking and
perspectives of academics;
probe the intelligibility, plausibility, and fruitfulness of those
knowledge structures; and
support the enactment of more intelligible, plausible, and fruitful
practices. (Taylor, 1997b)
This view of effective professional development is consistent with
research on staff development in other educational settings. For
example, Darling-Hammond and McLaughlin (1995) emphasise that both
staff and institutional capacities have to 'develop' in order to
respond to the 'era of reform'. They suggest that staff development
should 'engage [staff] in concrete tasks ... be grounded in inquiry ...
be collaborative ... be connected to and derived from [their] work with
their students ... be sustained .. [and] .. be connected to other
aspects of [institutional] change' (p. 598).
Kolb (1984) provides a very robust model of a staged process of
experiential learning. Paraphrased, that model distinguishes between
concrete experience versus abstract conceptualisation, and active
experimentation versus reflection on experiences. My understanding is
that these four stages need to be extended, in this context, to include
a focus on sustainability, an issue that is of central importance in
the institutionalisation of new practices (Taylor, 1997a).
The process of adaptation would then involve the following five stages.
Orientation: where staff are encouraged to consider approaches to
teaching which are consistent with University expectations,
technological capacities and the educational requirements associated
its programs.
Adoption and adaptation: where staff adapt their intentions and
practices to this new teaching and learning environment, largely on the
basis of advice and robust practices adopted from others.
Evaluation: where staff reflect on their practices, both as they are
being developed, and as they are being implemented, and seek to make
judgements about the strengths and weaknesses of those practices.
Innovation: where staff seek to re-develop their practices from a basis
of increased familiarity with the new environments, and of the
strengths and weaknesses of the practices which they initially adopted.
Institutionalisation: where staff, particularly those with managerial
responsibilities, pay attention to the need to ensure that flexible
learning practices are sustained in the medium to long term, and thus
become 'traditional'.
Through staged support, based on this meta-view of the adaptive
process, the 'unconverted' can be offered a much less demanding
experience of the transition - risk can be minimised, anxiety can be
decreased. However, the intention is not to generate a narrow,
predictable, technicised role for staff. Innovation is expected, but
that follows the development of familiarity with and confidence in the
new flexible learning environment that they have adopted.
The types of support required at each phase can be predicted.
Orientation - opportunities to reflect on pre-existing ideas,
orientations, ways of thinking and perspectives; time to probe the
intelligibility, plausibility, and fruitfulness of existing and
possible practices, to plan as a team, and develop a 'shared vision' of
and commitment to their preferred practices.
Adoption and adaptation - nuts-and-bolts training and technical
support, including resource development, necessary for the successful
implementation of that 'shared vision'.
Evaluation - the introduction of educational theory as a language for
discussion of observations, together with discussions which focus on
their actual practices and student reactions to them, including
consideration of alternative practices.
Innovation - support in the re-design of their adopted practices,
repeating the previous three stages on the basis of new familiarity
with the flexible learning environment and their personal insights into
the possibilities that it offers.
Institutionalisation - (loose) coupling of practices with policy
settings, including recognition and reward systems, encouragement for
staff to share their experiences with peers, though publication,
mentoring and the like.
Some caveats
Few organisations take the time to institutionalise the innovations, or
to transform the learning of individual innovators into organisational
learning - to formally construct new knowledge. Indeed, there appears
to be a form of institutionalised 'cargo cultism', where only 'outside
experts' are seen as having valuable knowledge. Systems need to be put
in place that maximise the value to the organisation of the learning of
the internal lone rangers. A systematic process of knowledge
construction through which robust practices can be identified and
documented is a necessary pre-condition for the process I have
proposed.
Systems also need to be established to ensure that the technology
infrastructure which academics are being encouraged to utilise is
available, accessible and maintained. I see this as an issue of
aligning individual and institutional expectations and intentions. The
reports I have read suggest that when academics do 'move', the size and
scope of that movement often come as a surprise to planners.
Getting staff to engage with the adaptation track may require more than
well-intentioned invitations. Institutions need to commit to flexible
learning - or some equivalent notion. Commitment is likely to lead to
engagement if it is an inclusive commitment - all staff are to
involved. Taylor et al (1996) provide evidence that the choice of
'opting out' can be very counterproductive - with staff energy being
wasted on arguing 'why I shouldn't be involved (for the time being)'.
Traditional staff development tends to focus on only the first two
phases of this five phase model. The success of adaptation depends on
the provision of support for staff during all five phases - to
continuously link the practices of innovation, knowledge construction,
and adaptation.
Given the uncertainty in these 'new times', the last three phases of
the five phase model must be supported and repeated on an ongoing basis
- the process must remain open, evolutionary. Knowing in uncertain
times invites us to constantly review and extend out understandings. We
need to avoid inflexible forms of flexible learning.
The strategies outlined here offer opportunities to build on the
innovative work of the lone rangers, and offer a less risky track to
flexible learning for other members of staff. However, the adaptive
path itself requires significant institutional commitment and support.
Thus, academic managers who have adopted a 'hands off' approach to
managing lone rangers will have to adopt a much more interventionist
approach, as indicated by the preceding caveats. Academic managers will
have to manage both approaches - innovation and adaptation -
simultaneously, and for their mutual benefit.
Conclusion
From collegiality to digitality, institutional and academic practices
are being re-invented, with real short-term effects and uncertain
long-term consequences. Many of the strategies being utilised to
respond to those demands are themselves innovative, and therefore
relatively unproven. Thus we have institutions responding to novel
demands with strategies which are also novel. This focus on innovation
has, until now, tended to privilege the lone ranger approach while not
necessarily rewarding the individual involved. However, that reliance
on innovation will not lead to the desired cultural changes.
The issues of uncertainty and crisis cannot be resolved, but we can
adopt strategies which maximise the possibility of survival. Lone
ranging tends to undervalue the experience and knowledge of others - to
be based on poorly informed optimism - and to ignore the need to
construct new knowledge carefully. The adaptive strategy places a
premium on the experience of the lone rangers, but invites us to think
more creatively about how we construct and make systematic use of
knowledge based on their experiences. We must recognise the value of
robust models of appropriate practices as a resource for individual and
institutional survival in uncertain times.
References
Darling-Hammond, L. and McLaughlin, M.W. (1995) Policies that support
professional development in an era of reform. Phi Delta Kappan 76:
597-604.
Goodman, J. (1995) Change without difference: school restructuring in
historical perspective. Harvard Educational Review 65: 1-29
Kolb, D.A. (1984) Experiential Learning. Prentice Hall: Englewood
Cliffs (N.J.).
McWilliam, E., Lather, P. & Morgan, W. (1996) Field Work, Head Work,
Text Work: A textshop in new feminist research. Centre for Policy and
Leadership Studies, QUT: Brisbane.
Morrison, I. (1996) The Digital Revolution - An Enabling Factor in
Change. Address to The Virtual University? Symposium, The University of
Melbourne, 21-22 November.
Nixon, J. (1996) Professional identity and the restructuring of higher
education. Studies in Higher Education 21: 5-16.
Silverman, M.P. (1996) Self-directed learning: philosophy and
implementation. Science and Education 5: 357-380.
Taylor, P.G., Lopez, L. and Quadrelli, C. (1996) Flexibility,
Technology and Academics' Practices: Tantalising Tales and Muddy Maps.
Report 96/16 of the Evaluations and Investigation Program. AGPS:
Canberra.
Available at
http://www.deetya.gov.au/divisions/hed/operations/eippubs.htm
Taylor, P.G. (1997a) Preparing for internationalisation: messages from
an EIP project. In Learning and Teaching in Higher Education: Advancing
International Perspectives. Edited by Rosalind Murray-Harvey and Halia
C. Salins. Precedings of the Higher Education Research & Development
Australasia Conference held in Adelaide, South Australia 8-11 July. pp.
115-127.
Taylor, P.G. (1997b) Creating environments which nurture development:
messages from research into academics' experiences. International
Journal for Academic Development 2 (2): in press.
West, R. (Chair) (1997) Learning For Life: Review of higher education
financing and policy - a policy discussion paper. AGPS: Canberra.
Available at http://www.deetya.gov.au/divisions/hed/hereview
I recently worked with the staff of a non-education school in my
university. I asked why they didn't see any point writing about the
innovative practices which they had described to their peers earlier in
the day. That sharing had generated enormous interest. The primary
reason given was that cv entries had to focus on the research of the
discipline. They explained that their next job or promotion would
depend on their subject-focused expertise (including their research
profile in specific subject areas). The Head of the School (who
happens to be a very innovative leader and teacher) agreed, suggesting
that staff who indicated an intention to research their teaching would
be counselled against such an intention when they met with him as part
of the academic staff review procedure.
Drawing on the empirical work in Taylor et al (1996), I have explored
some of these reasons in terms of the concept of the non-literate
nature of the educational culture in universities - see Taylor, 1997.
I am referring here to a tendency, at least in Australia, to invite
(and pay) 'outsiders' to present staff development workshops while
'insiders' with equal (or greater) expertise are ignored.