|
|
Papers from the Colloquium
Introduction: Toni Griffiths
A broad question which will undoubtedly be raised in all kinds
of ways during the Colloquium concerns the changes in universities
as they respond to demands that they serve in various ways the
putative needs of globalised knowledge societies. But a question
for our new Centre and this Colloquium is - as universities become
increasingly marketised and directed towards practical, entrepreneurial
objectives, do they run the risk of losing sight of their purposes
and traditions, including that of the pursuit of truth for its
own sake? As they go through these transitions, contradictions
and tensions inevitably arise - between, for example, the need
to be competitive, the need to be of the highest quality and the
need to widen participation. The sounds of clashing ideologies – ‘pernicious’
and ‘virtuous’ (Barnett 2003) – are heard in
the academy. The President of the Latin American Council of University
Presidents, Professor José Raymundo Martins Romêo,
told this story in the context of university change at a UNESCO
conference last year: ‘Two men are running away from a tiger.
One says to the other: “It’s no good, we will not be
able to run faster than the tiger.” The second replies, “I
am not trying to run faster than the tiger, I am trying to run
faster than you”’ (Romêo 2003). Transitions can
be dangerous.
Working in a genuinely interdisciplinary way is extremely challenging,
possibly dangerous. The shape of the disciplines is not inevitable;
they have developed over time as organised bodies of knowledge,
and modes of investigation for producing and testing new knowledge,
that deserve respect; even though they may be fallible they are
still the best means we have for learning about the world. A researcher
who wishes to engage another discipline is thus involved in a complex
task: enough should be known enough about the other discipline
so that it is not used in ways that will seem inappropriate to
its own practitioners. And, of course, contestation necessarily
abounds within the disciplines as well as between them. Overall,
care needs to be taken lest the new interdisciplinarity be simply
a kind of cafeteria of the theories where there is freedom to choose
whatever may turn out to be useful for particular projects. The
criterion in such cases may be little more than usefulness to the
researcher, something which has been described as the criterion
of ‘comfort’
(Esterling and Riebling 1993).
By contrast, to engage sufficiently with the other discipline
is a tough process, one which leads to new understanding. Further,
being able to hold in mind what is important from the other discipline
during the process of research requires what I think of as a strenuous
internal dialogue – which makes a demand not only upon the
researcher but also upon the research audience. It is obvious that
this has implications for the form as well as the substance of
the research or the critical engagement. Mutual learning in this
sense is an active and rigorous and certainly not a passive process.
In the broad field of higher education research, there is every
reason to draw on a wide range of disciplines - philosophy, psychology,
history, the sciences – in order to think better about the
processes of political or social change and to subject those processes
to a different and more rigorous examination. If the butterfly
effect of Chaos Theory calls into question the idea that minor
individual actions are necessarily overwhelmed by giant systems
(whether physical or social), then there is much to be said for
epistemic modesty and for recognising that what gets left out of
a grand system –
the ‘surplus’ – may be the matrix from which
new understandings can emerge. In establishing our new Centre at
UCL, there is a unique opportunity for knowledge and insight which
lie beyond the Higher Education field itself to make a significant
and new kind of difference to how that field is developed – whether
in policy or epistemology. In this process, we would do well to
note the recent warning by that excellent sociologist of education,
Jo Muller (2003), of ‘the potential vulnerability of the
HE field to discursive fads and fashions from intellectual parent
disciplines which are recontextualised in the HE field not so much
as contending accounts but as fixed rival positions with a special
afterlife long after the positions have achieved a more sophisticated
rapprochement in the parent disciplines’.
During the lifelong learning theme tomorrow – and probably
today - the question of what constitutes knowledge and skill will
undoubtedly arise. There is a disturbing trend in policy making
to conceive of knowledge and skill as commodities to be built into
curricula, acquired, converted into people’s private property
and used mechanistically to inform conduct. The movement –
or transition - from HE to work, for example, is not simply a matter
of building employability skills, as policy makers would put it:
the point is rather to assist those in transition to respond to
the diversity of forms of knowledge, whether in formal or informal
learning contexts. These transitions involve changes in identity
as well as changes in knowledge and skill: they involve the full
person and are not just learned attributes or techniques which
are context-free. These connections of course suggest challenges
for what is meant by lifelong learning and the role of different
sites of learning, including HE, in that process. Tensions and
contradictions must inevitably arise as learners cross boundaries – and
the transition from school to university understanding of mathematics
is just one case in point. The macrosystemic approach to innovation
in education and training avoids, however, this engagement in that
it offers the comforting but misguided solution that the redesign
of management arrangements will guarantee reform of learning, ignoring
the more difficult question of how individuals actually learn.
What therefore can policy research learn from the ‘counsel
literature’
of the Renaissance in which confronting rulers, often dangerously,
with painful truths – rather than reassurance - was understood
as the way forward?
Some critics (eg, Dawson 2003) have searched recently for a perspective
on lifelong learning that is not reducible to the imperatives of
the market or the certainties of managerialism and have sought
a framework of understanding which stands in tension with the dominant
policy discourse, rejecting the idea of the learner as a consumer
or customer and expressing the idea of the learner as a whole person
engaged in the lifelong process of trying to live in the world
fully and engage with its paradoxes and contradictions. T. S. Eliot’s
searching questioning in the Four Quartets of the ambiguous relationship
between meaning and purpose is drawn upon to express this difference:
‘And what you thought you came for is only a shell, a husk
of meaning from which the purpose breaks only when it is fulfilled,
if at all. Either you had no purpose, or the purpose is beyond
the end you figured, or altered in fulfilment’. These lines
much more nearly express what can go on in the learning process
than the ‘fix and tick’ outcomes approach to which
universities as well as schools are exhorted. The pedagogy of compliance
is more irritating but easier than that of critique. The hard work
of searching for meaning often does not proceed to the anticipated
ends in the anticipated manner and this is a necessary expression
of the university. Indeed, such transitional states are the true
field of engagement for lifelong learning, a process of grappling
with major questions about disciplinary and personal identity, ‘costing
not less than everything’.
George Eliot says in Adam Bede that, ‘no story is the same
to us after a lapse of time; or rather, we who read it are no longer
the same interpreters.’ Her books have been approached from
a variety of perspectives during the last 40 years: archetypal,
psychoanalytical, Marxist, structuralist, feminist, deconstructive,
cultural and biographical. Each age reinterprets such works for
itself and the process of interpretation never ends. Epistemic
modesty may thus be an appropriate stance as we think about transitions
of different kinds in the context of interdisciplinarity.
References
Barnett, R. (2003) Beyond all Reason: living with ideology
in the university, SRHE/Open University Press
Dawson, J. (2003) ‘Lifelong Learning and T.S. Eliot’s
Four Quartets’ in Studies in Continuing Education,
25,1, 113-124
Esterling, N. and Riebling, B., eds. (1993) After Poststructuralism:
Interdisciplinarity and Literary Theory, Illinois: Northwestern
University Press
Muller, J. (2003) Review of Barnett, R. (2003) Beyond all Reason:
living with ideology in the university, SRHE/Open University Press,
in Teaching in Higher Education, 8,4, 590-594
Romêo, J.R.M. (2003) ‘Higher Education in Latin America’
in Higher Education in Europe, 28,1, 41-49
|
|
|