#02 Bacchus reading group summary
This month’s reading: Ingold, T. (2020). On building a university for the common good. Philosophy and Theory in Higher Education, 2(1), 45–68.
Notes of the comments made during the discussion:
The problem described by the paper, is multidimensional and presumably the solution also requires implementation at different levels within a university hierarchy. All the way from the top, to local decisions and everything in between.
The implementation of administrative measures to control off campus work, was mentioned as an example of how this backfired and undermined trust between academics and faculty.
In the sense, that the academic needed to log the minutes they were not on campus AND seek approval for their absence form their head of department..
Furthermore, it also contributed to the feeling that there is no “time off” which can have adverse influences on the passion one has for their subject area. Where the expectation is that one always has to engage with it.
Likewise, it was mentioned that the university leadership most likely does not have a unilateral vision of what the purpose of a university is. Where some individuals with background in academia may have aspirations of inspiring lifelong learning. Other’s may have visions of industry collaboration, student accreditation or something else entirely.
Rene made a point, that the paper explicitly references a paper by Kant in that the value foundation is within Enlightenment values
Furthermore, Kant’s argument is that the philosophical faculty needs to rule, as (the passion for learning it inculcates) sets the baseline for how the community of different interests can come together
Rene made a comment, that the conceptualisations of what constitutes “good” (as in ‘the common good’) have indeed Enlightenment roots, but also Christian overtones. In that if not explicitly, it is this type of heritage we are dealing with the ideas of ‘vocation’, ‘scholarship’ and the ‘university’ as an institution in itself.
A good comment was raised, in that the value ideals of freedom, trust, education and community undeniably have positive connotations and noble overtones. Nevertheless, it is within their specific context where the exclusion criteria of what is not mentioned manifest themselves, this applies today and historically.
STEM, humanities or social sciences are not contradictory in that one is creative or has any sort of inherent value over the other. They all represent useful and creative avenues of intellectual pursuits.
What is useful, and the notion of utility, are always context dependent and may change given the timeframe in question.
The immediate local region, and the engagement drawn from it is important for the future and sustainability of a university. The university used to draw much of its student population from the local area, but this has changed over time.
In order to inspire the students, draw them into the university and inculcate the fire of learning (i.e. lampada ferens), the researchers/teachers themselves need to be inspired
The notion of utility of being a cog in a larger machine, is given on to the next generation. While there is nothing per se wrong with it, it is important not to forget their individual differences (more than just sexual preference)
NOTE: the paper wasn’t peer reviewed, in that it went to argue for community but itself shirked a hallmark of the community it purportedly wants to promote
