Don't they already spend huge slabs of time, effort and money on exactly this? Or more exactly, reporting this?
Publicly funded institutions are required to account for their grants.
Private Universities have to make a convincing case to students and benefactors - usually by way of "League Tables".
Academic Freedom is basic to Research, as is "The Scientific Method" to most fields of study. (Post modernists aside).
So who applies The Scientific Method to the work of Academics, Researchers or Scientists?
Who actively seeks to answer:
What works in Academic Research & Creativity?What institutions actively seek to identify "Their Best" in each of the 3 basic disciplines and the techniques used? None that I've come across.
In the way that the Australian Institute of Sports (AIS) seeks to do with Sports. Improve the selection, training, health and nutrition of athletes, the technique & methods of coaches and study the science of sports, training, coaching and athlete management & performance: physiological, psychological, mental and emotional.
Would you be surprised to know that Rest and Recreation are critical success factors?
Over training leads to poorer results and even illness (Chronic Fatigue Syndrome).
Every University I know has some Centre for bringing the latest theories of education & instruction to their teaching academics and for training those new to teaching... But not the area I'm discussing.
In the courses I've come across in the last 5 years, there is huge variability in instructor knowledge and use of the tools provided. Providing training and support/help where needed to reduce the range is a simple, obvious step & relatively cheap - but not done. Universities I know of don't actively assess teaching delivery of all staff and work to improve performance and student outcomes.
Where do Academics find their Computing skills? Taught the basics, then left to their own devices is what I've observed. Shouldn't they be keen to learn new tools, techniques and processes to improve their performance in all fields? My direct experience is very few spend any effort in examining their use & performance with tools and technology. I've seen no institution do more than provide basic tools, and let individual schools & faculties create their own 'templates'.
My guess is they don't want to be dictated to. But how would you know unless it was formally researched?
Computing is a "Cognitive Amplifier" and a perfect fit for the work of Academics, the prototypical Knowledge Workers. (Should the field be called "Knowledge Engineering"?)
Proficiency in the "academic tools of trade" should be mandatory - like mechanics and plumbers being proficient with their tools. Especially new gadgets & techniques that radically increase productivity.
There is a systemic bias at work. What's the cause or reason?
I suspect Universities, organisationally and as individuals, confuse "Academic Freedom" with absolute freedom.
There is one academic that dared to ask & address what I think is the basic reflexive Academic Question... That his work is under valued & seldom applied is pretty much what I'd expect.
He started by asking the question:
What do Nobel Prize winners do differently?So why isn't that a core discipline and activity of every University & College?
Applying their own Methodology to their own work... What could be so hard about that?
Books by Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi in Amazon
2009 Good Mentoring: Fostering Excellent Practice in Higher Education
by Jeanne Nakamura, David J. Shernoff, Charles H. Hooker and M.C.
2008 Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience.
2007 Everyday Creativity and New Views of Human Nature: Psychological,
Social, and Spiritual Perspectives
by Ruth Richards and M.C.
2006 A Life Worth Living: Contributions to Positive Psychology
by M.C. and Isabella Selega Csikszentmihalyi
2006 Experience Sampling Method: Measuring the Quality of Everyday Life
by Joel M. Hektner, Jennifer A. Schmidt, and M.C.
2004 Good Business: Leadership, Flow, and the Making of Meaning
2003 Creativity and Development (Counterpoints)
by R. Keith Sawyer, Vera John-Steiner, Seana Moran, and Robert J. Sternberg
2002 Flow: The Classic Work on How to Achieve Happiness [1991 repub]
2002 Good Work: When Excellence and Ethics Meet
by Howard Gardner, M.C. and William Damon
2001 Becoming Adult: How Teenagers Prepare For The World Of Work
by M.C. and Barbara Schneider
2000 Beyond Boredom and Anxiety: Experiencing Flow in Work and Play
1999 Flow in Sports: The keys to optimal experiences and performances
by Susan Jackson and M.C.
1998 Finding Flow: The Psychology of Engagement with Everyday Life
1997 Living Well: The Psychology of Everyday Life
1996 Creativity: Flow and the Psychology of Discovery and Invention
1994 FLOW - Living at the Peak of Your Abilities
1994 Changing the World: A Framework for the Study of Creativity
by David Henry Feldman, M.C. and Howard Gardner
1993 The Evolving Self
1992 Flow: The Psychology of Happiness
1992 Optimal Experience: Psychological Studies of Flow in Consciousness
by M.C. and Isabella Selega Csikszentmihalyi
1991 The Art of Seeing: An Interpretation of the Aesthetic Encounter
by M.C. and Rick E. Robinson
1990 Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience
1990 Television and the Quality of Life:
How Viewing Shapes Everyday Experience
by Robert William Kubey and M.C.
1986 Being Adolescent: Conflict And Growth In The Teenage Years
by M.C. and Reed Larso
1981 The Meaning of Things: Domestic Symbols and the Self
by M.C. and Eugene Halton
1979 The value of leisure:
Towards a systematic analysis of leisure activities
(Research paper/Research Group on Leisure and
Cultural Development, University of Waterloo)
1976 The Creative Vision: Longitudinal Study of Problem Finding in Art
by Jacob W. Getzels and M.C.
1974 FLOW: Studies of enjoyment
No comments:
Post a Comment