One of the closing themes of my degree was the questioning of the place of geography as a discipline within academic institutions - in its sometimes uncomfortable position between the arts and sciences. Debates around this question are a common feature in academic journals (see Progress in Human Geography, Transactions, AAG), few clear conclusions are reached. However, a common suggestion implicit in this debate is that the current disciplinary structure of academic institutions might not be ideal, particularly for a subject like geography with a wide-ranging subject matter. In a recent lecture, Sir Crispin Tickell described this structure as a akin to a series of large boxes placed side by side, each containing a separate academic discipline. Although the boxes are open at the top, those working in each discipline are so far down that the walls of the boxes prevent any meaningful interaction between those from different schools. Sir Crispin's point echoed the (oh so common) call to 'think outside the box' - a call repeated by some geographers who see interdisciplinary work as the answer to the current discomfort in geography departments.
The broader question here might be: does the current practice of compartmentalising learning and knowledge-acquisition facilitate or hinder the understanding of 'the nature of things' (leaving aside for now questions of whether we can ever 'know' a 'reality')? I believe the answer is probably that the current structure of academic institutions may well hinder the development of sound understandings, particularly in the awkward case of geography. However, is this simply reflective of the way we tend to think? To divide, categorise and compartmentalise - are these practices fundamental to our way of knowing the world?
This approach, I feel, is also echoed by many environmental organisations, which tend to divide up the 'environmental problems' of the world into categories such as climate change, food, waste, energy, habitat loss, etc, and then to organise campaigns and actions centred on one of these
elements. However these issues are all clearly interlinked - all a part of the unsustainable living situation that humans have created on earth - and I would question whether the cause of 'environmentalism' is aided by presenting them to the public as separate domains.
Anyway, some thoughts that I hope to develop, particularly those concerning how well our education institutions are equipped at present to produce academics/professionals/leaders to see the bigger picture, and to address 'environmental problems' as inherently 'social problems' which must be addressed in a holistic rather than piecemeal fashion.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Good posting...
I've been thinking about the idea of reorganizing universities into a "project-based focus", somewhat akin to the "problem-based learning" approach a growing number of universities adopt as a pedagogical tool (I've written this up a little in my "21st Century Consequences" blog, but my thinking is not yet strongly organized... I have more questions than answers). Instead of having disciplinary departments, which have a highly conservative function, we might have a more mutable "project-based teams" approach, to deal with the really big questions we're faced with today.
The project-based approach has the disadvantage of being more transient ... although the big problems don't get solved so easily, there will be some tendency to dissolve groups and form new ones... although our departments also operate in this way in the present university structure. But such an approach might help break down some of the often frustrating parochialism and isolationism of even recently created disciplines.
Of course, research centres and other structures often have a problem-based focus, but these are research-oriented, not primarily teaching oriented.
I see disadvantages to the "problem-based approach", not the least the difficulty of getting university professors and administrators to tackle these issues... the inertia against change in universities is huge. However, many universities are now entering various forms of crisis and these are going to grow over the next few years. There will be some incentive to change, therefore.
Time to take the blinkers off our ideas about operational structures in universities and begin considering other organisational arrangements. Good posting for a topical issue... too bad our audience is still so small!
http://21stcenturyparadoxes.blogspot.com
http://21stcenturyconsequences.blogspot.com
Great to have some feedback and comments. Your observations about the different organisation patterns of the teaching and research elements of higher education institutions are telling - the research elements are clearly far more adaptable and responsive to their contemporary setting, and as such have tended to form problem-based groups rather than remaining organised by discipline. Teaching, however, is much more difficult to alter to reflect these realities, and remains stuck in the same basic disciplinary structure which characterised these institutions 100 years ago. I guess the central questions might ask 'what is the purpose of higher education teaching today?', 'why has teaching not adapted in similar ways to research?' and 'how could this adaptation be encouraged?' (if we think it would enhance the ability of education to meet its aims).
Post a Comment