June 14, 2009

Can Teaching and Research Be Integrated in Today's University?

It’s a commonplace to describe the functions of the modern university as the integration of teaching and research. The original idea was for this integration to take place in each professional academic, whose duty to push back the frontiers of knowledge was matched by an equal obligation to make that knowledge available to the widest audience possible. In The Sociology of Intellectual Life, I discuss these two phases as constituting the creative destruction of social capital. Here’s what I mean.

Research involves the accumulation of social capital, as academics, investors and clients create the networks needed to produce and maintain new knowledge. Most, if not all, of these people are motivated by the desire for competitive advantage in the economy, the intellectual field or society more generally. However, the Enlightenment norms of the university prescribe that this knowledge not be limited simply to those able to pay for it; hence, the pedagogical imperative. For its part, teaching requires the translation of knowledge claims into a language comprehensible by those who were not directly involved in its production or, for that matter, are likely to extend it in the directions intended by those so involved. In other words, teaching aims to destroy whatever initial competitive advantage the researchers had. This in turn triggers a new cycle of knowledge-based social capital creation, which will be itself overturned over time, etc. The overall result is a constant stream of innovation that ensures the dynamism of the social order.

Or, so that’s the theory….

The problem with this picture – which I believe is highly desirable – is that it’s becoming harder to integrate teaching and research. The contrasting demand structures and performance standards required of teaching and research pull academics in opposing directions that most universities end up resolving by segmenting the academic labour force into those who are primarily ‘teachers’ and those who are ‘researchers’. The teachers are driven to sustain courses that maximize student demand, which tends to be increasingly vocational, while researchers follow funding priorities and specialist fashions. So then where, if anywhere, can the fabled ‘integration’ of teaching and research occur?

The answer is supposed to lie in that elusive beast known as the curriculum committee, where academics bid to turn aspects of their research into course offerings. What should non-specialists know about specialist topics? Asked at the broadest level – as has been the case in many American universities – we come upon the idea of General Education, which many would consider the soul of the university. In its grandest conception, in early 19th century Germany, it was imagined that the student would be locus of integration as they selected from a variety of courses to complete their development as fully autonomous human beings.

I want to explore the idea of General Education in a subsequent blog – and what it might mean now, especially given the forces that go against integration in today’s university. How would such a curriculum be organized?


- 2 comments by 1 or more people Not publicly viewable

  1. Thomas Basbøll

    Great post, Steve! People sometimes suggest do our research for our own entertainment (and each other’s). If we wanted to prove otherwise we would have to find a way to communicate our results (in the social sciences) back to “the field” or “the practioners”, i.e., the people we study. I usually counter that academic research is a serious activity, with its own dignity and legitimacy, and that much of this is rooted in the fact that we communicate our results to our students. They then go into the world and “put our ideas into practice”. We study the results. And the cycle continues.

    15 Jun 2009, 15:16

  2. Paul Youdell

    Hi

    I was an Economics PhD attending on the Keynote speech today at the Festival of Social Science.
    And I blogged a response:
    http://blogs.warwick.ac.uk/paulyoudell/entry/vcs_headline_lecture/
    I had assumed that my reply would be hard to reference with the views of other Social Scinetists. But seeing as your entry above mentions both Teaching and Research and I did the same maybe the gap between economics and sociology is not so wide after all.

    16 Jun 2009, 22:18


Add a comment

You are not allowed to comment on this entry as it has restricted commenting permissions.

June 2009

Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa Su
|  Today  | Jul
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30               

Search this blog

Most recent comments

  • Unfortunately it seems your undergrads have missed the crux of the argument i.e. The possibilities t… by Luke Robert Mason on this entry
  • Philosophers are supposed to be wise. The problem here seems to be related to the conflict with this… by Dr. Akira Kanda on this entry
  • If metaphysicians were allowed to enjoy the status that they should have – being critics and propone… by Tom Milner-Gulland on this entry
  • Hi, I would like to hear opinions of kids to the advertising of products. Why do they buy the produc… by Kay zum Felde on this entry
  • Thanks, Lawrence, for this comment. I didn't know Nutt was unpaid. But as your comment already sugge… by Steve Fuller on this entry

Blog archive

Loading…
Not signed in
Sign in

Powered by BlogBuilder
© MMXVII