UCL logo

Debates in Higher Education

This seminar series, organised by UCL's Centre for the Advancement of Learning and Teaching, addresses a wide range of issues in the area of teaching, learning, policy and research in Higher Education.

Academic Session 2008-2009

13 May 2009 3.30pm - 5.00pm
Dr Colleen McKenna/Dr Phyllis Creme

Title: Making spaces for writing in Higher Education
Drayton B06

A space that is empty yet a source: this duality resonates with our thinking about the Writing and Learning Mentors (WLM) programme at UCL which has been running since 2003 with the aim of supporting a network of graduate student mentors to work on writing with undergraduates in their departments as well as exploring with mentors their own writing practices and development. One of the core features of the programme is its capacity for creating space(s) in which to reflect upon writing within the institution. We also draw attention to the transitional spaces occupied by participants at this stage in their academic careers.

In terms of institutional space, the WLM programme allows us to construct a space which is simultaneously populated by many disciplines and none; one in which participants can think beyond or across the discipline(s). For us, this fostering of a space that recognises and embraces such differences has been one of the most rewarding aspects of the programme and we think, too, it's been one of the most enabling for participants.

In terms of space occupied by the participants, they are situated excitingly and perhaps precariously on several thresholds. From the perspective of their own research writing they are often located on threshold between student and professional/authority. Similarly, the WLM programme positions them as subject 'experts', yet much of the early work in the programme tends towards the defamiliarisation of writing practices.

Following a brief description of the WLM programme, this paper will consider ways in which the programme has opened up an interdisciplinary, institutional space in which aspects of writing are explored. We will be asking what type of space this is (that is, is it subversive, playful, neutral, transitional, peripheral?)

We will also consider how the programme helps graduate students articulate the liminal space they occupy as emergent experts in their fields while still being relative novices as professional academic writers. We will also talk about the link between the awareness of these spaces and participants' sense of writerly identity. In particular, we will consider how they might be coming into new identities through writing and their encounters with each other in this space. Theoretically, this paper will draw on work by Seamus Heaney (The Place of Writing), Gaston Bachelard (The Poetics of Space), Land and Meyer (liminal spaces and threshold knowledge) and D W Winnicott (play spaces).

25 March 2009 3.30pm - 5.00pm
Rosalind Duhs

Title: Advancing Learning and Teaching in Global Research-intensive Universities
Taviton 433

Abstract: Debates in HE are often driven by factors which are outside the control of the individuals affected by them. The recent focus on the development of learning and teaching in research-intensive universities is an example of an issue which has given rise to much discussion. This seminar will focus on the contested place of learning and teaching in the life of academic staff, drawing on research into their experience of early career initial teacher education courses. The data was gathered at research-intensive universities in Sweden and England and similarities and differences between approaches to initial courses will be analysed and debated. Bourdieu's field theory will inform and enrich our evaluation of the symbolic capital enjoyed by the diverse fields of the academy. We will attempt to unravel a few strands in the complex web of influences which shape academic life and consider why, in the words of one young lecturer, where teaching is concerned, sometimes 'the culture drags you down'.

25 February 2009 3.30pm - 5.00pm

We regret that this seminar has been cancelled due to the ill-health of the speaker. We hope to reschedule at a later date..

Frederico Braga de Matos

Title: The role of doctoral students: academic independence and the creation of knowledge. A case study of the Social Sciences PhD in a UK research-intensive university.
SB4, 188 Tottenham Court Road (7a on map, not marked - enter next door to coffee shop)


After the publication of Sir Gareth Roberts' Set for Success report and that of the Joint Skills Statement by the Research Councils, main funders of doctoral studies in the UK, there has been a shift in the aims, focus and structure of doctoral programmes in the UK. PhDs should now be completed in a period of up to 4 years otherwise the academic department is at risk of funding cuts from the research councils.

The new 'research training' paradigm changes, according to some, the nature of the PhD. The new PhDs are seen by some as a less significant piece of work than the PhDs produced by the current supervisors. The main stated reasons for the perceived difference in quality between old and new theses are the research councils' imposed deadline and the need to spend time on various, compulsory or otherwise, training courses which are often seen as distracting students from what should be their main (for some, unique) focus: the thesis.

All of these challenge previously accepted individual conceptions of what the PhD should be and should attain. The presentation will focus on different perceptions of what the PhD is: the stakeholders', the supervisors' and the students'.

28 January 2009 3.30pm - 5.00pm
Professor Morag Shiach
Queen Mary, University of London

Title: Culture change and teaching excellence: the importance of a broader perspective
Taviton 433

Abstract: This presentation will present evidence of the ways in which a small-scale project can be used to encourage more widespread cultural change. It will focus on work undertaken by a small team at Queen Mary, on 'managing teaching performance' in the UK, Australia and Sweden, funded by the Leadership Foundation, and will show how this project facilitated a range of initiatives to identify and reward teaching excellence.

10 December 2008 3.00pm - 4.30pm (please note earlier start than usual )
Professor Erik Meyer
Durham University

Title: An analytical perspective on threshold concepts
Taviton 433

Abstract: The conceptual focus of this seminar is on threshold concepts -- a term introduced into the student learning research literature in a seminal paper by Meyer and Land (2003) available online at http://www.tla.ed.ac.uk/etl/docs/ETLreport4.pdf

The basic idea:

A threshold concept can be considered as akin to a portal, opening up a new and previously inaccessible way of thinking about something. It represents a transformed way of understanding, or interpreting, or viewing something without which the learner cannot progress. As a consequence of comprehending a threshold concept there may thus be a transformed internal view of subject matter, subject landscape, or even world view. This transformation may be sudden or it may be protracted over a considerable period of time, with the transition to understanding proving troublesome. Such a transformed view or landscape may represent how people 'think' in a particular discipline, or how they perceive, apprehend, or experience particular phenomena within that discipline (or more generally). (Meyer and Land, 2003, p.412.)

In this seminar Jan will introduce, and provide an overview of, the developing framework of Threshold Concepts. Some properties of threshold concepts will be discussed and a theorisation of students' acquisition of threshold concepts will be discussed in terms of the condition of various stages of liminality. It will be argued that threshold concepts, as a transformative experience involving a possible accompanying transfiguration of identity and ontological shift, provide a new and relatively unexplored lens through which to focus on variation in student learning in the conceptually distinct stages of 'coming into view' and acquisition. The threshold concepts framework has rapidly defined new research agendas in a variety of disciplinary contexts as evidenced in a recently published book edited by Land, Meyer and Smith (2008). Emerging research agendas and opportunities for disciplinary based research will be discussed.

19 November 2008 3.30pm - 5.00pm
Janice Malcolm
University of Kent

Title: Whose research, whose curriculum? Educational inquiry as disciplinary work
Rockefeller 337 David Sachs

Abstract: Research on academic practice in the past five years has begun to take much more account of disciplinary pedagogies. To a lesser extent, the same is true of the curriculum of teacher education for university lecturers. In this debate we will consider how and why these developments have occurred, and explore the possibilities in the longer term for disciplinary understandings of academic practice as a whole.

5 November 2008 3.30pm - 5.00pm
Elizabeth Grant

Title: Higher Education Curriculum Development in Sub-Saharan Africa: does it matter to UCL?
Malet Place, Engineering Building 1.20 (map here)

Abstract: This seminar explores the significance that the expansion of higher education in sub-Saharan Africa has for curriculum reform within the UK. I argue that transnational engagement across the development gap is essential for the development of higher education provision that is globally inclusive and locally relevant and propose that such engagement connects the academic, social/cultural, political and economic rationales that underpin the internationalization of UK HE.

Between 2006 and 2008 I led the development of a transnational community of academic practice between the University of Gondar, Ethiopia and the University of Leicester, UK. The aim of this community was to engage in curriculum and pedagogic developments that would be mutually beneficial to both institutions. For Gondar University, there was an urgent need to build capacity enabling pedagogic development and to provide curriculum resources for the rapidly increasing number of students recruited to fill five new faculties established within only three years. For the University of Leicester the benefit was less easily articulated, although academics from a variety of disciplines felt that such engagement offered opportunities in terms of personal research interest or that the project could potentially offer possibilities for disciplinary development.

The process of community development revealed that the motivation for engagement of individual members of staff varied significantly between the two institutions. Moreover, these motivational differences inhibited the establishment of a productive community as they reflected inequalities inherent within the 'global divide'. Transnational consensus on a shared purpose remained nebulous and as a consequence achieving a genuinely inclusive and equitable community became elusive.

However, as dialogue with students and staff developed the purpose of curriculum reforms that would prepare students for an uncertain, interconnected future became clearer as did the necessity of working across the development gap. The role of alternative perspectives on global issues provided by different disciplines appeared to offer a framework for collaboration. Based upon a developing knowledge of 'Education for Sustainable Development' this community refocused its endeavours and began to work on an innovative development that crosses disciplinary and national boundaries. This purpose of this seminar is to report on the outcomes of this project and to reflect upon the process of transnational community development. It will outline key issues for the implementation of such curriculum reforms and implications for the classroom.

Academic Session 2007-2008

July 1 2008 3.30pm - 5.00pm
Dr Helen Chatterjee

College Collections

Title: Object Based Learning: Articulating the Value of University Museums and Collections.
Gordon House 106, Gordon Street (map here)

Abstract: University Museums are outstanding resources and afford a unique opportunity for effective object based learning, the dissemination of subject specific, observational, practical and other transferable skills. Further, they represent sources of inspiration, enjoyment and could play a potentially important role in health, wellbeing and therapy. Critically, therefore, we need to understand the role and value of object handling for learning, knowledge transfer, emotions, wellbeing and health. This paper will report on the outcome of a series of workshops, organised by UCL Museums & Collections in 2006-7, examining the value of touch and object handling. These workshops brought together museum practitioners, researchers and clinicians who are engaged in exploring the value of object handling, touch and sensation and in measuring the impact object handling might have for a variety of emotions, in therapy, general well-being and in enhancing knowledge acquisition. The role of object handling in a variety of contexts was explored, such as the use of handling collections in outreach and for inspiration. Other workshops explored the psychology behind touch, the underlying mechanisms behind physical stimulation and its link with emotions experienced during object handling. The paper will also explore a range of practical and strategic initiatives employed at UCL Museums & Collections to understand the value of object based learning. Numbering nearly 1 million objects UCL Museums & Collections are used widely across the university in subject specific teaching, knowledge transfer and in the acquisition of key and transferable skills. Innovative uses include the assessment of the value of object handling as an enrichment activity in hospitals by medical students, the use of natural history collections as inspiration by fine artists and the development of virtual object teaching resources by computer science students. In summary, the paper will draw together a range of experiences and current research to provide a practical approach to repositioning university museums as fundamental teaching resources.

29th January 2008 3.30pm - 5.00pm
Dr Paul Ashwin
Lancaster University

Title: Conceptualising the Relationship Between Learning and Teaching in Higher Education Research
LT 4, Windeyer Institute, Cleveland Street (please note this a few minutes' walk from the central campus: allow ten to fifteen minutes to get there from the main buildings)

Abstract: In this seminar, I will examine the range of ways that are available for understanding the relationship between teaching and learning in higher education research. In critically reviewing research from phenomenographic, approaches to teaching and learning, academic literacies and social practice approaches, I will argue that each of these approaches separates teaching from learning in some way and in doing so treats academics and students as if they are engaged in separate processes. I will examine the implications of this separation for the explanations that are offered by research into teaching and learning in higher education before considering whether other approaches, less commonly used in research into teaching and learning in higher education, offer a more interactive way of understanding the relationship between teaching and learning.

December 4th 2007 12.30pm - 2.00pm (note change from usual time!)
Professor Brian Street
King's College London

Title: Academic Literacies and the 'New Orders': implications for research and practice
Remax 1.11

Handout and Presentation available for download

Abstract: I would like to consider the implications of what might be termed the 'New 'Orders' - The New Work Order; The New Communicative Order; and The New Epistemological Order - for researching and teaching academic literacies. I will briefly outline a model of academic literacies that emerged from an ethnographic-style research project in the UK that investigated faculty and student perceptions of the writing process. The notion of academic literacies is located within the New Literacy Studies, based on ethnographic approaches to literacy as social practice, and with reference to the distinction between autonomous and ideological models of literacy and the concepts of literacy events and literacy practices (Barton & Hamilton, 1998; Hull & Schultz, 2002; Street, 1995). The academic literacies approach that follows from both this theoretical background and from research based on it (Jones et. al., 2000; Lea & Stierer, 2000; Lea & Street, 1997) considers student writing – and other multimodal forms of representation increasingly required of learners (Kress & van Leeuwen, 2001; Lemke, 1999) - not simply as a set of skills to be acquired, as in the dominant academic socialisation approach , but as a contested site of struggle over meanings and intentions - to be understood in terms of power relations, conceptions of identity and the epistemological assumptions of different fields of study. I will then outline the 'New Orders' (Barnett & Griffin, 1997; Gee et. al., 1996; Winter, 1995) as contexts within which, I argue, theory and practice in academic literacies have to be located. I set out a tabular representation of the relationship between the two domains – New Orders and Academic Literacies – as a heuristic for making explicit assumptions that otherwise remain implicit: for problematising what goes into the categories we use and identifying the boundaries between them. I am not so much providing answers to the question 'what are the implications of these new orders for academic literacies?' as attempting to set up the conceptual and methodological tools within which the question can be framed and perhaps to develop a language of description (Bernstein, 1996). I hope that a context such as this, especially aware of the links between linguistic processes at local level and larger social pressures, can help challenge and refine this framework. Whilst initially derived from research in the UK, I would like to ask this audience how far such a model is transferable across cultural and national boundaries. Some References:

Barnett,R & Griffin,A (eds.) 1997 The End of Knowledge in Higher Education Institute of Education: London

Barton,D & Hamilton,M 1998 Local Literacies London: Routledge

Bernstein,B 1996 'Research and Languages of Description' Ch 6 of Pedagogy Symbolic Control and Identity: theory, research, critique Taylor & Francis: London pp.134-146

Gee,J, Hull,G & Lankshear,C 1996 The new work order: behind the language of the new capitalism Allen & Unwin: London

Hull,G & Schultz,K 2002 'School's Out: bridging out-of-school literacies with classroom practice pp. 11-31. Teachers College Press: NY

Jones,C, Turner,J & Street,B 2000 Student Writing in Higher Education: theory and practice J. Benjamins: Amsterdam

Kress,G & van Leeuwen,T 2001 Multimodal Discourse: the modes of contemporary communication Arnold: London

Lea,M & Stierer,B 2000 Student Writing in Higher Education: new contexts OU Press: Buckingham

Lea,M & Street,B 1997 “Student Writing and Faculty Feedback in Higher Education: an Academic Literacies Approach”. in Studies in Higher Education Vol, 23 No.2. pp. 157-172

Lemke, J ed. 1999 'Language and Semiotics in Education', Linguistics & Education Vol. 10, no. 3

Street,B 1999 'New Literacies in Theory and Practice: what are the implications for Language in Education?' in Linguistics and Education 10(1): pp. 1-24

Street,B 1995 Social Literacies: critical approaches to literacy in Development, Ethnography and Education Longman: London

Winter,R 1995 'The University of Life plc: the 'industrialization of higher education? in Smyth, J (Ed) Academic Work: The Changing Labour Process in Higher Education, Society for Research into Higher Education/Open University Press, pp 129-4


18th October 3.30pm - 5.00pm
Professor Patrick Ainley
University of Greenwich

Title: Breaking the Taboo on talking about the F word (again) - what will raised student fees mean for the future of higher education in England?
Rockefeller 337 David Sachs

Abstract: Having sold the pass by accepting the end of free publicly-funded higher education in 1997, the taboo which silenced any discussion amongst academics of subsequent fee increases in 2006 now prevents any consideration of next year's review of fees. That it is a foregone conclusion this review will recommend raising the current cap if not decapping altogether in 2010 is not sufficient justification for this trahison des clercs. The collective academic delusion that if everyone charges the same there is no market in home undergraduates will no longer hold once fees are differentiated. Already Oxford University needs more than £20,000 per student annually to cover its costs. Rather than imagine all can rise to this level, the consolidation of three groups, currently represented by the Russell Group of internationally selecting and researching universities, the 94 Group of mainly-campus based and nationally recruiting and teaching universities and the Coalition of Modern local/ subregionally clearing and training Universities can be predicted. Indeed, a process of 'market managed consolidation' has already begun closing 'vulnerable' schools and departments but may lead to mergers if not closures of whole institutions, especially given the demographic downturn and increased overseas competition. The situation in HE will then (as ever) soon follow that in FE where 'merger mania' and privatisation currently puts in doubt the future of the sector under pressure not only from ubiquitous school sixth forms but also from 'FE become HE' through Foundation 'degrees' and 'HE become FE' through competence-based 'degree' programmes. Meanwhile, widening participation (presented as a professionalisation of the proletariat) on a reduced unit of resource has turned large parts of HE into FE whilst disguising a proletarianisation of the professions, not least the academic profession. The brief presentation of this scenario seeks responses from staff at the two HEIs at which it will be given.

Academic Session 2006-2007


3 October 2006 3.30pm - 5.00pm
Dr Jo Tomalin
Associate Professor, Theatre Arts, San Francisco State University

Title: Self-assessment and the New Paradigm of Learner-centered Teaching'
Bentham House SR1 (top right of this map)

Abstract: The new paradigm of learner-centered classes in higher education is part of a move away from the traditional teacher-centered model. Teachers must reevaluate their teaching methods, and therefore, the dissemination of content. Many educators consider the teacher-centered model currently utilized in higher education as effective, and (by extension), satisfactory. Learner-centered methods may incorporate self-assessment, peer feedback and the integration of technology. Technology is increasingly available in higher education for communications and also provides opportunities for innovative learning activities. However, there is a continuing debate about the extent to which that technology enhances learning. This talk aims to examine the issues that teachers in higher education need to consider before developing a learner-centered model whether in a face-to-face or online class.

30 January 2007 3.30pm - 5.00pm
Dr Kathryn Ecclestone
School of Education, University of Nottingham

Title: The Effects on Post-16 Assessment Systems on Students' Identities and 'Learning Careers' and Their Implications For Assessment In Universities
Wilkins Garden Room, South Wing (map here)

Please note that a chapter (for background) and a handout are downloadable here for this talk.

Abstract: Compliance, commitment and comfort zones: the effects of assessment on young people's learning careers in the UK Principles associated with formative assessment or 'assessment for learning' have moved from the field of academic educational research into mainstream policy and practice through various assessment regimes in the UK's education and training system. There is widespread support at all levels of the system for the idea that well-executed, well-designed formative assessment raises achievement and enhances motivation, autonomy and engagement with learning. There is also strong theoretical and empirical evidence, particularly from research in the compulsory school sector, that supports assessment for learning. In further (tertiary) and higher education, the rise of criterion-referenced or outcome-based assessment regimes is predicated strongly on the idea that access to criteria, specifications and processes for generating evidence of achievement is conducive to motivation and autonomy. In a context of widening participation, these ideas have become especially important for motivating more people to stay in formal education and to achieve qualifications. Recent empirical research on assessment in the UK's post-compulsory education system shows that outcome-based systems enable teachers to use techniques associated with assessment for learning in order to raise achievement for young people and adults who see themselves as 'second chance' learners. Students engage with the assessment criteria and have a strong sense of autonomy. Yet, behind these positive characteristics are important questions about the nature of motivation, autonomy and achievement gained through these processes. This paper draws on two English studies of the assessment experiences of 16-19 year olds in vocational and general advanced level qualifications. It argues that we need precise meanings of 'achievement', 'motivation' and 'autonomy', and to consider the complex socio-cultural and political factors that affect students' 'learning careers' and their attitudes to assessment, instrumental forms of assessment for learning. Without these considerations, assessment is likely to develop limiting forms of all three outcomes. In this scenario, disadvantaged students gain higher levels of formal achievement but do not enhance their capacity for lifelong learning. The paper concludes by outlining some implications of the arguments for assessment in other countries.

13 March 2007 3.30pm - 5.00pm
Professor Sir David Watson
Professor of Higher Education Management, Institute of Education

Title: The university and its communities
Council Room, South Wing

Abstract: In the early twenty-first century hardly any university, anywhere in the world, would dare not to have civic engagement as part of its mission. David Watson will explore where this imperative has come from, what it means for the concept of the university, and the practical implications which follow. His book, "Managing Civic and Community Engagement" will be published by the Open University Press in early 2007.

Biography: David Watson is an historian and Professor of Higher Education Management at the Institute of Education, University of London. He was Vice-Chancellor of the University of Brighton (formerly Brighton Polytechnic) between 1990 and 2005. His academic interests are in the history of American ideas and in higher education policy. His most recent books are "Lifelong Learning and the University" (1998), "Managing Strategy" (2000), "New Directions in Professional Higher Education" (2000), "Higher Education and the Lifecours" (2003), and "Managing Institutional Self-Study" (2005).

He has contributed widely to developments in UK higher education, including as a member (from 1977 to 1993) of Boards and Committees of the Council for National Academic Awards. In 1988 he was appointed to the CNAA Council and the Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council, in 1992 to the Higher Education Funding Council (England), and in 2002 to the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority. He was a member of the Paul Hamlyn Foundation's National Commission on Education (whose report "Learning to Succeed" was published in 1993), of the National Committee of Inquiry into Higher Education chaired by Sir Ron Dearing (whose report "Higher Education in the Learning Society" was published in 1997), and of the Roberts Review of Research Assessment in 2002-03. He chaired the Longer Term Strategy Group of Universities UK between 1999 and 2005. He is a Trustee of the Nuffield Foundation and a Companion of the Institute of Management. He was knighted in 1998 for services to higher education.

23 April 2007 3.30pm - 5.00pm
There will be no Debates session in April: Mark Weyers will be arranging a different CALT seminar for April as part of the Scholarly Teaching Lecture Series. Professor Graham Gibbs of Oxford University will speak on How Assessment influences student learning at the University. The session will be at Malet Place, Engineering Building 1.20 (opposite Foster Court), 3 to 5 pm.

Click here for further information.

5 June 2007 3.30pm - 5.00pm
Dr Barry Stierer
Centre for Higher Education Research, University of Westminster

Title: University Lecturers 'Writing Education': Issues of professionalisation, academic practice, academic identity and academic literacy
Malet Place, Engineering Building 1.20 (opposite Foster Court)

Abstract: The identities of university lecturers derive substantially from their allegiances to their academic disciplines and/or their professions. A significant feature of their expertise is their familiarity with the kinds of academic writing commonly used within their specialist areas, even if they are not themselves entirely confident or successful academic writers. With this in mind, it is interesting to observe the growing range of contexts in which today's lecturers need to write in `Education' - a field that, for many, is far removed from their home territory. To operate effectively in these contexts, lecturers must utilise forms and styles of academic/professional writing typically associated with domains such as learning and teaching, curriculum and assessment, and reflective practice. Contexts in which lecturers are required to `write Education' include: schemes for recognition and reward; processes of course approval and validation; accountability and quality assurance systems; teaching-related research, development, and scholarship activities; and certain forms of teaching and student support. In some respects there should be nothing peculiar or problematical about lecturers using the specialised language of `Education' in their writing. They are, after all, teachers in higher education and in this sense may be described as Educationists. However, few lecturers describe themselves in this way, and few have backgrounds that prepare them to write effectively and confidently in this field. For many of them, `Education' as a set of specialised knowledge and language practices is a `strange land' - indeed, as strange a land as an unfamiliar subject area can be for typical university students (McCarthy, 1994). In this session I will discuss findings from a programme of research investigating the experience of university lecturers `writing Education'. The research uses methodologies and analytical frames from research and scholarship into `Academic Literacies' (Lea and Stierer, 2000). Data comprise texts produced by, and recorded interviews with, academics in a number of UK HE institutions.


Lea, M.R. & Stierer, B. (2000) Student writing in higher education: New contexts. Buckingham: SRHE/Open University Press.

McCarthy, L. (1994) `A Stranger in Strange Lands: A College Student Writing Across the Curriculum' in C. Bazerman \& D. Russell, (eds) Landmark Essays on Writing Across the Curriculum. Davis, CA: Hermagoras Press, pp 125-159.

Academic Session 2005-2006


4th July 2006 3.30pm - 5.00pm
Dr Jason Davies

Title: Postmodernism - An Introduction
433, 1-19 Torrington Place

Abstract: Postmodernism is still the black sheep of the intellectual family, it seems: in some quarters, it is still the-discourse-that-must-not-be-named. Others have celebrated the end of postmodernism, and continue to do so at regular intervals. Postmodernism appears not to have noticed its own demise, for the most part. One of the attributes of postmodernism from a mainstream perspective seems to be that it is probably more discussed than read, more decried than attended to and more simplified for these purposes than is probably wise. This talk aims, therefore, to simply go back to the beginning and lay out a central postmodernist position and attempt to address the issues that are repeatedly attributed to it: its supposed lack of morality, its relativism and what it stands for (what makes it distinctive from other positions.) It would be impossible to cover everything that has been called postmodern: the talk is a beginning not a completion of anything. It will begin (at least) by outlining the position(s) espoused by Richard Rorty, who is widely acknowledged as one of the main proponents of postmodernism in academia.

23 May 3.30pm -5.00pm 2006
Carole Leathwood
Institute for Policy Studies in Education, London Metropolitan University
Title: Gender, Equity and the Discourse of the Independent Learner in Higher Education.
Malet Place Engineering Building (opposite Waterstones) 1.20 (map here)

The 'independent learner' is a key construct within discourses of educational policy and practice in the UK. Government policy statements stress the importance of developing learner independence, and higher education pedagogical practices tend to rest on the assumption that students are independent learners. This paper draws on research with undergraduate students in a post-1992 university to offer a critical appraisal of the discourse of the independent learner. The paper examines students' perceptions of independence in both their first year of undergraduate study, and in the later years of their degree courses. Support for learning and issues related to asking for help are discussed. Whilst students tend to both expect and want to be independent, it is suggested that dominant constructions of the independent learner are gendered and culturally specific, and as such are inappropriate for the majority of students in a mass higher education system.

Academic Session 2004-2005


14th October 2004 3.30pm -5.00pm
Michael Rustin
Professor of Sociology, University of East London and The Tavistock Clinic
Title: Going in the wrong direction? Psychodynamic aspects of changes in higher education
Room 110, Engineering Building, Torrington Place, London WC1 (opposite Waterstones)

Michael Rustin is a Professor of Sociology at the University of East London, and a Visiting Professor at the Tavistock Clinic. Among his books are The Good Society and the Inner World (1991) and Reason and Unreason: Psychoanalysis, Science, Politics (2001). He has written on university education., e.g. A Degree of Choice: Education after Eighteen contributed and edited with Janet Finch), Penguin Books, l986; 'Flexibility in Higher Education', in R. Burrows and B. Loader, Towards a Post-Fordist Welfare State, Routledge. l994; 'The Perverse Modernisation of British Higher Education', in David Jary and Martin Parker, The New Higher Education: Issues and Directions for the Post-Dearing University, Staffordshire University Press, February 1998, also in Soundings 8, 1998.

25th November 2004 3.30pm - 5.00pm
Ian McNay
Emeritus Professor, Higher Education & Management, University of Greenwich, UK
Title: Scenario development and strategic planning: possible futures in higher education
Venue: Room 110, Engineering Building, Torrington Place, London WC1 (opposite Waterstones)

Ian McNay started his career as an administrator and policy advisor in the UK and on the continental mainland. After 10 years as an academic with the Open University he became professor and head of the Centre for HE Management at Anglia Polytechnic University, later moving to head the School of Post-Compulsory Education and Training at Greenwich. His experience covers over 25 countries,and he now works with a range of universities in the UK, Ireland and Switzerland.

His interests are in policy analysis and the strategic management of HEIs. He served on the CE sub-panel for the RAE in 2001, on the panel for National Teaching Fellowships for 4 years, and was an assessor for Phase 3 of the Teaching and Learning Research Programme of the ESRC.

3rd February 2005 3.30pm - 5.00pm
Roberto Di Napoli
Imperial College, University of London
Title: Modern languages: Which identities? Which selves?
Room SB2, 1-19 Torrington Place (Entrance on Tottenham Court Road no. 188 between Barclays and Cafe Nero)

Roberto completed his undergraduate studies in Italy before moving abroad. He first taught as a language assistant and then Lecturer in Italian at Cork University, Republic of Ireland. He then moved to London where, at the Institute of Education (University of London), he completed all his postgraduate studies, at different stages of his professional life: PGCE, Master's (in Applied Linguistics) and PhD (in Higher Education Studies). He taught briefly in the secondary school sector (also in Madrid, Spain) before joining the University of Westminster, where he first worked in the Modern Languages School, then in the Educational Initiative Centre. He currently works as Senior Lecturer in Educational Development at Imperial College, University of London. He has an interest in academic identities and cross-cultural studies. Among his publications, there is a the co-edited volume (with Loredana Polezzi and Anny King) 'Fuzzy Boundaries? Reflections on Modern Languages and the Humanities' (London: CILT, 2001). He is currently working on an edited book with Ronald Barnett on voices and identities in higher education.


The world of Modern Languages is in crisis, or so it seems to be, in the current higher education system in the UK (Nuffield Report, 2000): departments close or are amalgamated into wider units, the teaching of culture is progressively making space to the teaching of language for utilitarian uses, academics see their work changing or lose it altogether. This presentation is based on the results of empirical research conducted in the Modern Languages departments in three UK universities and aims at making some sense of the changes affecting Modern Languages, starting from the analysis of academic identities and selves in this disciplinary field.

The analysis is built around a tripartite model. In definitional terms, with the word ‘identities’ I refer to the ways in which modern languages academics interpret and construct both the institutional and epistemological arrangements of the field. Identities represent the ways in which the academic staff cognitively construct and interpret both the field and its institutional arrangements. The term ‘self’ points towards the personal and professional sense modern languages scholars develop about themselves over time, in relation both to their field and the institutional structures in which they operate. This is a complex self that derives from the interlacing of institutional and epistemological patterns with individuals’ life histories, values and beliefs. In this sense, it constitutes the affective factor that academics inject into their professional life. I argue that ‘academic identity’ is a composite cluster that is dynamically formed at the interface between institutional and field identities, and the self. In other words, academic identity is the all embracing, supple concept that defines the interplay between cognitive constructs (identities) and affective ones (selves). The challenge is to untangle these constructs, while, at the same time, illustrate the richness deriving from their intertwining.

The main questions to be asked (and answered) are: what kind of institutional and epistemological identities do modern languages academics construct? What sense of self do these scholars develop in relation to the field and the institutional settings in which they operate? Under what conditions do academics manage to construct a sense of self that affords them the opportunity to contribute to the development of both those disciplinary structures and institutional roles in which they find themselves? Conversely, under what conditions do selves become non-agentic and passive?

The talk aims at answering some of these questions. Concurrently and more widely, it endeavours to illustrate a complex model of ‘academic identitiy’ that could help to make sense of the life of other disciplinary fields, other than Modern Languages. Finally and as importantly, it attempts to make a commentary on the current higher education system in the UK, and suggest possible ways forward.

17th March 2005 3.30pm - 5.00pm
Dr Sushrut Jadhav
Senior lecturer in Cross-cultural Psychiatry, Royal Free and University College Medical School and Honorary Consultant Psychiatrist at the Mornington Psychiatric Intensive Care Unit, Camden and Islington Community Health Services NHS Trust
Title: Cultural context of Indian Psychiatry: the Guru-Chela relationship re-visited
Venue: SB2 (New Examination Hall ), University College London entrance at 188 Tottenham Court Road. (Directions)


A hierarchical patriarchal Guru-Chela relationship continues to underpin the interaction between senior Indian psychiatrists and their junior trainees. Although commonly cited in the context of Indian psychotherapy, this subject also dominates the academic personal relationship between senior Indian psychiatrists and their more junior trainees. In most instances, the alliance between autocratic Fathers and submissive Sons is fraught with tensions that are rarely verbalised freely. Thus, Sons of Fathers of Indian psychiatry cannot mount a challenge, or for that matter, confront received theory or practice unless the Guru has given his blessings to the Chela.

Whilst not devaluing the tremendous learning utility and potential of this historical cultural template, the paper will critically examine the destructive aspects of such a relationship, on both production of organically rooted and culturally sensitive psychiatric knowledge as well as for individual career development. The paper argues that through a process of collusion between internalised colonial authority and more grounded ancient cultural prescriptions that legitimise and bestow power on the Father figure, the submissive psychiatry trainee and his patient suffer from damaging consequences of such cultural dynamic.

If, as an extreme scenario, declaring a Gurus sacred teaching as profane is fraught with grave personal social consequences, what creative alternatives are available to the budding junior psychiatrist? Guided by literature and field work with Indian mental health professionals, the paper will conclude with a discussion on various culturally accepted modes of resolution, and identify common and distinctive features amongst a range of Father-Son relationships (Guru/Chela, Colonial/Post-colonial, Doctor/Patient) both within India and across cultures.

2nd June 2005 3.30pm - 5.00pm
Dr Linda Hoyle
Principal Consultant, Tavistock Consultancy Service, Tavistock Centre
Title: Building Leadership Insight in Educational Settings
Venue: Gordon House 106

Dr Linda Hoyle is a Principal Consultant at the Tavistock Consultancy Service. Linda is a Chartered Psychologist with a PhD in Organisational Change and Consultancy. She is Director of the portfolio of Tavistock Consultancy Service development programmes, which includes the Change Agent Development Programmes, an Executive Coaching Programme that has also been delivered internationally, and a Leadership Development Programmes for social care and educational leaders. Linda also co-facilitates the UCL Advanced One-to-One Programme for PhD Supervisors with Anne Paton. Before joining the Tavistock Consultancy Service she worked as a Change Management Consultant for PWC Management Consultants and as an independent organisational consultant. Linda has lectured in Organisational Psychology and Organisational Development at the University of Hertfordshire.


In recent years all educational settings, ranging from universities to nursery schools, have experienced dramatic changes. These changes have mostly been driven by government initiatives and have resulted in the need for internal structural change, changes in culture and the necessity to work more across organisational boundaries with other agencies and organisations. Further revolutionary changes are on the horizon with the implementation of The Children Act: Every Child Matters and workforce reform. The role of leadership in educational settings has become even more crucial than before.

The focus of this seminar is on the idea that leaders will be better able to address the pressure of change if they develop leadership insight. This means having increased self awareness, improved emotional intelligence, being psychologically present and being attuned to the dynamics within the organisation. Evidence will be presented to illustrate that through this insight they exercise their authority more appropriately, enable others within the organisation to take up more responsibility, and are clearer about the strategy necessary to manage change.

This presentation will illustrate the development of leadership insight through case studies from organisational consultancy and leadership development with schools, universities and nursery schools. The theoretical models used in this work, which involve an integration of process consultancy, psychoanalytic theory and systemic thinking, will also be presented. In particular, it will be proposed that it is crucial to understand the emotional experience of individuals and groups within the organisation as ‘organisational countertransference’, i.e. emotional data to gain insight about the whole organisational dynamics.

Academic Session 2003-2004


1st July 2004
Dr Joanne Brown

Senior Lecturer in Psychosocial Studies, University of East London and The Tavistock Clinic
Title: Reflexivity in the Research Process: A Psychosocial Approach

This paper explores how the relatively new field of psychosocial studies deepens our understanding of reflexivity in the research process. It introduces a psychosocial approach which is strongly influenced by clinical psychoanalysis, describes how psychoanalytic observation methods are taught at the Tavistock Clinic in London (UK) and discusses the philosophy of method they represent (to learn from experience). The paper goes on to discuss whether psychoanalytic methods can be imported into the academic social research process, and shows that psychosocial studies combines two different research traditions, models of learning and writing practices. It describes the kinds of challenges that arise when conjoining academic analysis and experiential learning by reference to an analysis of love and by reflection on the researcher’s place in the research process. The paper stresses the importance of, and limits to, reflexivity in social science research.

20th May 2004
Student funding and finances; the challenges ahead
Professor Claire Callender, Department of Humanities and Social Science,
London South Bank University

The introduction of variable tuition fees in Britain in 2006 represents one of the biggest shake-ups in student funding. However, there has been little hard evidence on which to base these reforms or assess their likely impact; nor evidence on their implications for the government's aims of widening participation, promoting excellence, and ensuring the costs of higher education are redistributed equitably and student financial support goes to those most in need. This paper will outline recent reforms of student financial support in Britain. It will explore how students' finances have changed since tuition fees were first introduced and student grants were abolished in 1998/9, calling on the findings of a variety of studies conducted by Professor Callender. It will then examine the potential impact of the current reforms going through Parliament, in the light of these research findings.

18th March 2004
Working with pupils, working with patients: emotional experience between
the study and the consulting room.

Martin Golding,
Fellow and Director of Studies in English, Peterhouse, University of Cambridge

Martin writes: I have been teaching undergraduates at Cambridge for over thirty-five years in supervisions – that is, in hour-long sessions with one or two students at a time – at first in History, now mostly in English, and in particular in Practical Criticism. For eight years in the 1970s and early 1980s I was also a Tutor, taking overall responsibility for a large number of students in different disciplines in my College whom I looked after pastorally. Following that I was for sixteen years Tutor for Admissions. In the early 1980s I began a personal psychoanalytic education which continues to the present, in the course of which I have trained as a psychoanalytic psychotherapist. I now combine supervising undergraduate pupils with working - mostly in intensive long-term psychotherapy - with patients; and with writing mainly about art, sometimes in relation to psychoanalytic themes.

In the seminar I should like to offer a tentative account of how the experience of these different educational engagements has been affected both by undergoing and by practising psychoanalysis. I will draw in part on teaching Practical Criticism. This involves a concentrated reading of relatively short texts, usually without context, in which using one’s own associations, and allowing oneself to register sometimes very complex feelings both in the text and in oneself, is an important constituent of one’s ability to understand both the emotional experience the text is communicating, and what kind of experience that becomes in the reading. There are certain points of contact here with psychoanalytic ways of thinking. I hope that exploring these may lead to a broader discussion in the seminar of how we might think about the emotional lives of undergraduates and what may facilitate or obstruct their ability to draw as much as they can from their studies.

Thursday 15 January 2004, 3.30pm to 5.00pm
Research / Uncertainty / Creativity
Carlos Sapochnik, Principal Lecturer, School of Arts, Middlesex University

Carlos writes: One of the tensions that postgraduate students have to face in their research is the binary opposition between emotion and rationality. Our culture, haunted by the legacy of positivist thought that is, a belief in a single truth and definite causality considers the subjective as questionable, because it confuses subjective with irrational. So, how is creativity to emerge, by reasoning or by intuition? In this seminar participants will try out an actual experience, the purpose of which is to consider the role of imagination in the research process. Learning from experience has both an active and a passive component, as we must 'do' (or make) something but also 'undergo' the experience of doing or making, allowing what we have done to produce an impact on us. It is only through the interaction of both these aspects (and an awareness of their interaction) that reflective (as opposed to mechanical) learning can take place by exploring our own exploration.

Thursday December 4th 2003
Teaching science and learning creative writing: how one informs the other.
Professor Norman Staines, Director of the Graduate School for Health Sciences, King's College London.

Norman writes: During a lifetime of scientific research I have taught many students and research staff how to communicate their science verbally and in writing. As the author of research papers, reviews, books and reports of many types I have written with enjoyment, confidence and a style that is (sometimes) been appreciated by my peers and my students. I now have a responsibility for developing communication skills(amongst others) in about one thousand postgraduate research students whom I discover can write with little confidence or skill.

The experience in recent years of working in creative writing groups and taking various courses as a student has given me a contrasting experience and has begun to inform an approach to my own students and research staff. In a strictly non-educationalist way, I will reflect upon the processes of scientific and non-scientific writing, how their form and content are dealt with, and on some games we might play with students.

I am keen to develop writing programmes for postgraduate science students because I see the need to help them improve their skill. How is this to be done in a group of people who are encouraged - even required - by the editors of scientific journals to write in the third person passive imperfect? Can the creative processes of writing poetry, fiction and drama be used to advantage in scientific writing?

Will my audience (whom I hope will come with their own pen and notebook) be able to tell me why science students so often have such stunted language skills?

Thursday October 2nd 2003, 3.30pm - 5.00pm
Towards a Unified e-Learning Strategy: Proposals for the future of e-learning in the context of lifelong learning at home, at work, and in the community
Professor Diana Laurillard,
Head of the DfES e-Learning Strategy Unit, will lead this seminar on the new DFES consultation document. Information on the document is available from http://www.dfes.gov.uk/consultations2/16/.


Spring 2003


'Disciplining the Personal: Personalising the Discipline'
Dr Jan Parker,
Institute of Educational Technology, Open University.

Jan writes: Previous EPD debates have raised the question of the relationship of personal to 'academic' writing. I'd like to report on work I've done with third year Cambridge English students: on the problems and delights of their coming to reflective, creative and 'synthetic' writing for the first time, and most importantly, how it affected their subsequent understanding and academic writing - their 'making sense' of and in the discipline.

The issues I want to raise are about the place and challenge of discipline-specific 'responsive' writing: the place in disciplinary practice (its value and evaluation) and the challenge it poses to the discipline community. This latter goes far beyond that of simply 'accepting' such writing and involves changes in disciplinary identity, function and models of epistemology and pedagogy: such writing also has potential to transform the discipline's understanding of its judgement- and knowledge-making.

Theresearch into using 'Patchwork Texts' with English students was part of a three year interdisciplinary research project involving teachers of undergraduate, MA and professional courses (see Integrating Assessment: the 'Patchwork Text' in Innovations in Education and Teaching International, eds Winter, Ovens and Parker SEDA May 2003) We found that intervening in one area of disciplinary practice - writing involved significant changes in others: teaching, learning and assessment, and in our sense of ourselves and our students as practitioners and of our disciplines' place in Higher Education.

Yet, in the US at least, those whose own writing overtly challenges disciplinary norms (eg the contributors to Cornell's Writing and Revising the Disciplines [ed Monroe, Cornell 2002]) do so untransgressively, it seems, as disciplinary academics, teachers and researchers. How is this?


'The Aims of Education and Academia: From Knowledge to Wisdom'
Dr Nicholas Maxwell, Education and Professional Development, University College London

Nick writes: Two great problems of learning confront humanity: learning about the universe, and learning how to live wisely. The first problem was solved with the creation of modern science, but the second problem has not been solved. This combination puts humanity into a situation of unprecedented danger. In order to solve the second problem we need to learn from our solution to the first problem. This requires that we bring about a revolution in the overall aims and methods of academic inquiry, so that it takes up its proper task of promoting wisdom. This in turn has major implications for those concerned with Academic Education.


Winter 2002 - 2003


'Commodifying the cultural practice of learning: student experiences of ICT in higher education'
Dr Charles Crook, Department of Human Sciences, Loughborough University

Charles writes: The talk will describe research concerned with how access to networked ICT resources re-mediate study in a conventional university context. The pattern of findings are then deployed to provide a psychological perspective on arguments regarding the commodification of learning. The findings are also used to articulate a cultural practice view of study and learning.

'Student academic writing as participation in higher education: an argument for a dialogic pedagogy'
Dr Theresa Lillis, Lecturer in Language and Education, Centre for Language and Communications, The Open University

Theresa writes: In this seminar I would like to do three things. Firstly, and principally, to talk through the ideas in a paper (see abstract in box) focusing on the relevance of Bakhtin's notion of 'dialogism' for thinking about student writing as a potential and important site of active participation in higher education. Secondly, to outline one attempt -and its inherent limitations- to turn the position developed in the paper into a codified pedagogical tool. Thirdly, and very briefly, to outline a new research project I am involved in, which explores the academic literacy experiences of international scholars. Key themes emerging from this project confirm for me that issues about students- particularly 'non traditional' students- and their meaning making in writing raise fundamental questions about the academy and academic knowledge construction.

'Aligning the curriculum to promote good learning'
Professor John Biggs, University of Hong Kong

Further details of the paper presented at this seminar are available by contacting EPD.


'Flexibility or Myth? New technologies and post-Fordism in higher education'
Professor Sue Clegg, Sheffield Hallam University

Abstract: The seminar will explore the notion of 'flexibility' within the university sector. Drawing on literature from industrial sociology, I will examine the nature of the shift in higher education towards more flexible modes of delivery attributed to developments in new learning technologies. In the context of the UK government's widening participation programme and its lifelong learning agenda, a truly 'flexible' education is posited as being increasingly available to all. However, as in industrial sociology, where claims about 'flexible' post-Fordist production processes have been questioned, I will suggest that the notion of flexibility within an educational context requires further analysis. The paper, therefore, will attempt to deconstruct a range of debates around flexibility, and suggest we need a phenomenology of flexibility in order to ground conceptualisations of flexibility in the lifeworld.


'Who's Complaining? Narratives and research on the doctorate'
Dr Sara Delamont, Cardiff University

Abstract: Research on PhD students has been largely interview-based, especially research on the supervision and examination of the thesis. Studies of the professional doctorate may be following this pattern. There are issues about the authenticity of narratives that make reliance on interviews in the absence of other forms of data problematic.


Seminars in Session 2001-2002


'Reconstructingprofessionalism in university teaching'
Dr Melanie Walker, University of Sheffield

Abstract:The seminar recounts the story of a higher education project in which a group of lecturers at the University of Glasgow spent two years working as a collobarative inter-disciplinary with Melanie Walker.  Central to their work together was an exploration of how they might enact a critical professionalism in their everyday lives in teaching and learning, how they designed and conducted educational action research into student learning in their own classes, and how they developed  shared conversations which sought to 'speak back' to managerialism and performativity. Download a copy of this paper (Word, 62KB)


'The implications of policy change in the UK for academic identities'
Mary Henkel, Brunel University

A copy of the paper presented at this seminar is available to download (Word, 86KB).


'Redirecting research agendas through qualitative research'
Dr Angela Brew, University of Sydney

Abstract: In this seminar I suggest that by questioning traditional research discourses, qualitative research can and must be a powerful force for change in what we understand research to be. To question the discourse is a prerequisite for transforming research agendas so qualitative research has an important role in changing the nature of research in higher education which goes way beyond the particular studies conducted.

Conversations about research take place in many arenas and within many different social, political and historical contexts. The ways in which people talk and write about research defines the discourse of research. For Foucault, the discourse describes the phenomenon. It creates a world and defines what is possible and desirable and what is not. What is not said is an important clue to what is suppressed. For power, says Foucault, is only tolerable when it masks part of itself. Discourse sustains power by making it invisible. The discourse considered acceptable is the discourse which supports the interests of the powerful.

In this seminar I outline the discourses that frame research agendas in higher education. I argue that their focus on the language of science, the prevalence of sporting and war metaphors and the predominance of colonialist ideologies as well as the gendered nature of the discourse all point to the need for change.

The findings of an empirical qualitative study of the variation in ways senior researchers experience and talk about research provide a framework for examining the role of qualitative research in questioning and then redirecting the language and metaphors which are appropriate in a variety of research contexts. The seminar provides examples of how qualitative research, by breaking the boundaries of traditional research practice, is beginning to change the discourse and how this is being heeded.


'Enjoyability and Assessment'
Dr Peter Knight, University of Lancaster

Abstract: The curriculum that students experience tends to be that which we assess. That which is unassessed tends to get ignored. This has long been recognised and there have been lots of efforts to extend the range of assessment methods in use to cover outcomes of learning that were missed by longer-established methods. That has not quite solved the problem. For one thing, tutors have found it difficult to use some innovative methods and get the reliable data that are needed for high-stakes, summative, grading purposes. For another, some outcomes of learning seem to resist reliable and affordable assessment.

In this session Peter Knight, who currently works in the Department of Educational Research at Lancaster University, will say that recent developments have made things worse. Governments and employers are expecting universities to promote more complex learning outcomes, such as those contributing to student 'employability'. How, he asks, are we to assess such complex learning, especially if continue to hope that students will enjoy at least some of their work? His response centres on the claim that programme-wide, differentiated assessment planning is a necessity, illustrating it with some evidence from a four-university project running in the North-west.


'Who are successful online learners? The construction of learner identities within an online learning environment'
Dr. Gwyneth Hughes, University of East London

Abstract: While researching gender and the science curriculum, I developed an anti-essentialist approach to exploring scientist identities that enabled my study to move beyond male/female scientist/non-scientist binaries (Hughes, 2001). My attention has now turned to learning technologies where I find current research methodologies are inhibited by limiting conceptions of gender and other identities. Building on my previous work, I argue that learner identities are constructed in the learning environment and influenced by wider social contexts. Learners do not have essential characteristics that enable them to become online learners or not, they are constituted as un/successful online learners through the discourses and practices of online learning.

Using this contextualised learner perspective, I conducted a pilot evaluation study. The study was performed on a module that was taught as part of a campus based IT degree pathway. The module made novel use of WebCT (Web Course Tools) for a CMC (computer mediated communication) activity and for a bulletin board.

The evaluation aimed to explore how different learners engage with, and learn from, such a CMC activity by considering identity issues such as: orientation towards ICTs, gender and approaches to learning. Learner engagements were then analysed in relation to the learning context, in this case with particular emphasis pedagogic design of the activity. In the seminar I shall present the results of the study and discuss the value of this theoretical approach in understanding why some learners are more motivated by a new online activity than others are.


Hughes, G (2001) Exploring theavailability of student scientist identities within curriculum discourse: an anti-essentialist approach to gender inclusive science Gender and Education 13(3): 275-290


'Screen or Monitor? Surveillance and disciplinary power in online learning environments'
Ray Land, Universityof Edinburgh, and Sian Bayne, Queen Margaret University College, Edinburgh

Further details of the paper presented at this seminar are available by contacting CALT.

Centre for Interdisciplinary Studies of Higher Education - cishe@ucl.ac.uk - UCL - Gower Street - London - WC1E 6BT - Telephone: +44 (0)20 7679 2000 - Copyright © 1999-2006 UCL

Search by Google