September 2022
This month’s reports summarises four articles that in/directly relate to the impact of universities. The first paper is a reflection on. The first paper reflects upon the role of tacit knowledge in the research impact process (Mitchell et al. 2021). The second paper reflects the tension between that of a technical university idea and that of the concept of a university more broadly in the Swedish context (Geschwind & Broström, 2022). The third paper contests that a refocusing of higher education alongside wider social goals undermines the education of the individual (Miller, 2022). The last paper addresses the growing epistemological crisis within the social sciences and humanities due to the universities own success (Doidge, et al. 2020).
[1]) They make the argument that there is a lack of understanding the research impact process from proponents of the impact agenda in this conceptual article. Based on examples from the management research they subdivide their argument into four different dimension. Firstly, there is the need of person-to-person interactions, as not everything can always be articulated into words. Secondly, the meeting of different spheres of backgrounds (academic/non-academic) represents an important dimension as to draw out and make things explicit. Thirdly, while explicit knowledge dissemination is important (ppts, publications, podcasts, webinars etc.) they are: “mostly time-limited which restricts their ability to use reflexivity and dialogical-sensemaking, or emulation, repetition and feedback.” Lastly, all explicit articulations of impact are always a simplification.
[2]) In this conceptual paper, they contest that the idea of a technical university, based on two twenty-first-century cases, is largely driven by external stakeholder interest. These organisational categories influences how both internal and external stakeholders view the process of knowledge making in relation to its role for society and need of higher education. They highlight how such definitional boundary work imprints into higher education institutions “an important element of association between the new organisation and existing organisational categories and templates.” Where is imprinting becomes a driver for organisational change and re-prioritisation of strategic objectives of rather inertia.
[3]) The paper represents a reflection on recent debates amongst philosophers of higher education that expressed concern about the shift from personal to political change as goals of education. The author argues that whilst such notions are coherent with postmodern theoretical ambitions of aiding ‘the other’, they presuppose an ethically idealised version of human relations and understanding of the individual as part of a “collective will or consciousness” devoid of any personal egoistic impulses. In real-terms, such idealised notions then undermine the formative and socialising function of education in how the next generation is inculcated as responsible citizens.
[4]) The authors contrast themes from key strategic reports of higher education with critical literature from the social sciences and humanities. They argue, whilst ambitions exist aplenty to marry university conduct to for cutting edge issues (e.g. big data and the digital revolution), these can be in conflict with a self-reflexive set of cultural values unique to institutions that are a complex product of their long-history stretching all the way back to medieval times. Historically, Anglophone universities – albeit being a part of the British empire – adhered to liberal values that promoted and was dedicated towards equal opportunity for all. As Asian universities become more prominent on the world stage, university ambition shifts to a commitment to maximising impact, extension of non-government sources of income and building a bureaucratic army of research managers to ensure compliance.
[1] Mitchell, V. W., Harvey, W. S., & Wood, G. (2022). Where does all the ‘know how’go? The role of tacit knowledge in research impact. Higher Education Research & Development, 41(5), 1664-1678.
[2] Geschwind, L., & Broström, A. (2021). To be or not to be a technical university: organisational categories as reference points in higher education. Higher Education, 1-19.
[3] Miller, A. (2022). The existential turn in philosophy of education: In defence of liberal autonomy. Journal of Philosophy of Education.
[4] Doidge, S., Doyle, J., & Hogan, T. (2020). The university in the global age: reconceptualising the humanities and social sciences for the twenty-first century. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 52(11), 1126-1138.
