22. Research in Higher Education
Paper
A Neo-Humboldtian Approach to Teaching for Meaningful Learning at the University
Wesley Shumar1, Sarah Robinson2, Martin Lackéus3
1Drexel University, United States of America; 2Aarhus University; 3Chalmers University of Technology
Presenting Author: Shumar, Wesley;
Robinson, Sarah
Theoretical Framework
This paper is a theory paper. It draws on our teaching experience using a model we call the change maker model. The paper explores a more active and student driven model in the context of a more neoliberal and accountability environment that we find in higher education around the world. This neoliberal, global economy-oriented model is not only educationally limited, but like similar instrumental models in primary and secondary schools, it tends to disadvantage students who do not come from privileged backgrounds.
The paper explores a modern version of Humboldt University’s emphasis on research being a co-creative endeavour between teachers and students. When teachers lead a co-creative endeavor with their students to develop new knowledge in the teacher’s field of expertise, it imbues the students with a strong feeling of meaningfulness. This allows the students to become more engaged and motivated, thus triggering deeper learning and more diligent study behaviours. The underlying mechanism that triggers these much-desired effects is that students are encouraged to explore their own interests and to become outwardly focused by creating something of value for others. This allows students to draw on their own backgrounds and knowledge base as they work toward advancing their understanding in a meaningful way.
Like many institutions in contemporary society, higher education has become dominated by instrumental reason (Taylor, 1991). For so many politicians, policy makers and higher education administrators in Europe, and other parts of the world, their vision of the university is single-mindedly focused on creating a workforce for the economy and contributing to economic growth through new innovative products and services. (Wright et al. 2020) explain that the drive in Europe (and other parts of the world) has been to become competitive in the global knowledge economy, itself a product of a collective imagination on the part of global elites. But the original Humboldt vision was a much broader vision of what the university could be, with its emphasis on the relationship between open and free exploration and communication and the processes of creating new knowledge. That original Humboldtian vision was central to many of the advancements in the modern world.
Wright (2014) suggests that many policy makers have embraced a “Humboldtian” vision of freedom for the university, but this vision is only “Humboldtian” through a creative “slight of hand.” While the Humboldtian idea of academic freedom, is about teachers and students pursuing knowledge unfettered by outside influences, contemporary policy makers in Denmark and Europe see freedom in the sense of setting the university free to pursue its place in the market providing knowledge and innovations to corporations and other actors in the economy (Wright et al. 2020). This instrumental market vision, or neoliberal vision, is the very thing that will rob universities of their creative potential. Elites of the world hope the neoliberal approach will usher in a new phase of growth in knowledge and the creation of new and expanding forms of value that are good for people and society. We however suggest that this more instrumental approach will undermine the kinds of economic growth potential the policy makers seek. Further, it will exacerbate inequalities that we already see among students in higher education. Finally, it ignores the larger problems such as climate change, poverty, crime, war that are critical to address for the well-being of all people.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedThe Curricular Model
The paper briefly presents a model of teacher student interaction that we refer to as the change maker model. It is an example of an innovative pedagogy that resonates with a neo-Humboldtian approach. The model puts the student at the centre of learning and encourages collaboration with peers and practitioners outside of the university. The student identifies their own strengths, values and competences and becomes clear about how to articulate these for other people. Understanding that diversity is a strength, the students work together with the common values that bind them to find ways to investigate and solve pressing issues of importance to them and the practitioners. The perspective we are advocating is very much different than the direction most universities in the western world are going.
The change-maker model can be thought of as having five phases. These phases are firstly and most importantly student- centred. The second phase requires collaboration, as a means to develop critical thinking and identity development and supports questioning ‘who do I want to be’ The next phase requires investigation and inquiry of authentic practice, being curious and reflecting with peers. The fourth phase opens up to imagination and understanding divergent and convergent processes in order to experiment and finally, in the last phase, testing and getting feedback, making decisions and reflecting what has been learned. The change-maker model has been developed from the need to focus on the process of learning rather than on learning as outcomes. While the broad goal of ‘creating value for others’ will always be linked to meaningful learning, what is learned along the way and how the learner is ‘transformed’ is determined by the learner themselves. The change-maker process includes participative learning, peer feedback, supervision, formative and summative assessment forms as well as a range of digital technologies that are carefully chosen to support learning processes. Further, these processes can be enacted, although with differences across the university, in the sciences, technical fields, humanities and the arts. Examples of how the change-maker model has been used in a range of disciplines will be discussed.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsSummary
Learning is always centered within a social context and is connected to individual interest. Higher education is currently becoming less democratic, and less focused on a process of meaning making. In this way, it is undermining core principles we know to be true about learning. We attempt here to think of ways to get back to the Humboldt University vision of students and teachers working closely together in a free and unencumbered way. Developing teaching designs that will enable students to critically reflect on authentic situations and empower them to use curricular knowledge in attempts to change and improve the world might seem like a difficult challenge. Meaningful learning addresses this challenge in several ways. Meaningful learning extends what the learner already knows, connecting this knowledge with how people act in the world. Meaningful learning is at the same time cognitive, constructivist, affective, and linked to one’s understanding of practice in a socio-cultural context. And indeed, when learning happens in this way learners become change-makers.
ReferencesReferences
Taylor, C. (1991). The Ethics of Authenticity. Boston: Harvard University Press.
Wright, S. (2014). ‘Humboldt’ Humbug! Contemporary Mobilizations of ‘Humboldt’ as a Discourse to Support the Corporatization and Marketization of Universities and Disparage Alternatives, in The Humboldtian Tradition : Origins and Legacies, edited by P. Josephson, et al., BRILL.
Wright, S., Carney, S., Krejsler, J. B., Nielsen, G. B., Ørberg, J. W. (2020). Enacting the University: Danish University Reform in an Ethnographic Perspective. Springer Nature B. V. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-024-1921-4
22. Research in Higher Education
Paper
University-Industry Collaboration in Sweden: A Critical Analysis of Swedish Policies and Practices
Sepideh Nikounejad1, Nematollah Azizi3, Per-Olof Thång2
1University of Kurdistan; 2University of Gothenburg; 3University of Glasgow
Presenting Author: Azizi, Nematollah
University-industry collaboration refers to the interactions between industry and any part of the higher education system involving knowledge or technology transfer (Bekkers & Bodas Freitas, 2008; Siegel et al., 2003). Collaboration between academia and industrial sectors has always been one of the most important issues which could facilitate the knowledge transfer activities between academia and industry that has undeniable positive effects for both sectors such as facilitating the social and economic development of nations (Dellano and Del Guides, 2015; Anatan, 2015; Safari, Ghazizadeh and Taheri, 2013; Omar, Shanableh and Hamad, 2010; Fayouzat and Taslimi Tehrani, 2007).
During recent decades, the developed nations have identified cooperation between industry and public research institutions as a major policy priority (Abramo, D'Angelo and Di Costa, 2011; OECD, 2007). Therefore, responding to societal pressure to enhance HEIs’ contributions to local and national economic development, academia around the world have substantially expanded their collaborations with business, (Bertoletti and Johnes, 2021; Al-Tabbaa & Ankrah, 2016) resulted in a faster growth rate for joint applications with industry (Eurostat, 2020). Despite this, the great disparities among European regions show that there is no one-size-fits-all policy to promote university-industry collaboration thus requiring a deep understanding of the regional institutional context.
In Sweden establishing a strong connection and collaboration between government, business and the tertiary education has been a long lasting history and it has been recognized as an effective strategy to increase employment rate, productivity and social cohesion (European Commission, 2011). Swedish major policies on university-industry cooperation date back to World War II (Perez Vico, & Hallonsten, 2019). So as Sweden has established a successful cooperation between these two parties, it can be helpful for experts in other countries, specially developing countries, to figure out how university-industry cooperation works in Sweden. That could provide a good pathway and inspired strategies for them to improve collaboration between university and industry in their countries.
This paper therefore, aims to investigate the effectiveness of university-industry collaboration policies and strategies in Sweden based on which we try to answer the following questions:
- How universities are connected to industry in Sweden (Policies, Mechanisms and Strategies)?
- How effective is the Swedish UIC policies and practices?
- What are the most concerning challenges in connecting universities to industry in Sweden?
In regards to the chosen theoretical background, this study is based on Quintuple helix model of cooperation and interactions between the universities and industry. This model was created through developing Triple helix model by Otzkowitz & Leydesdorff, and then Quadruple Helix model by Carayannis and Campbell by adding a fifth helix, which is natural environment, to the model of knowledge and innovation. In Quintuple helix model, 5 institutes including university, industry, government, society and environment are involved in collaboration between university and industry (Otzkowitz & Leydesdorff, 1995 & 2000; Carianians & Campbell; 2010; Carayannis, Barth & Campbell, 2012). In this model, an attempt is made to establish a stable balance between these 5 institutions for development. Therefore, the society is dependent on the environment. In addition, the society can be developed by establishing relations and interactions with the environment (Zarghami, 2017). Furthermore, In Quintuple helix model, environment and society are considered as the key elements and subsystems in producing knowledge and innovation. Leydesdorff (2012) has stated that there is not necessarily a suitable model with specific involved institutions for university-industry relations, but any other institution can be involved in this type of relations according to the circumstances and also it can play an important role in it. In order to answer the research questions, researchers try to figure out if Sweden was conducting Quintuple helix model of cooperation and interactions between the universities and industry.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedA case study has been conducted in order to provide methodology. One large-scale public and international industry was selected as the case and 4 universities in the west and south of Sweden which had collaboration with the selected industrial sector were chosen as well. Participants were selected based on their job and professional experiences. They included 15 experts in university-industry cooperation including heads of the HR and R&D Units and university professors as well as the students who all were engaged with this collaboration closely. A purposive sampling technique was used for picking the participants in the research in which they were chosen by theoretical sampling method which was followed by implementation of snowball approach throughout the process. Data were collected via semi-structured interview protocol and the interviews continued until theoretical saturation was reached. The Interview protocol had 3 sections including the model of cooperation and interaction, evaluation of the collaboration as well as obstacles and challenges of cooperation between university and industry. For gathering the data from participants, the interviews we conducted in person, by making a phone call and also as a written questionnaire which were chosen based on their preference. All the interviews were noted and recorded under permission of participants in the research and in order to consider the ethics of the research, all data which were gathered from participants are presented anonymously. At the end, theoretical saturation reached out by 7 interviews which has been conducted from people working at the industrial sector and 8 participants belonged academic sectors. 3 additional interviews were also performed. For data analysis, categorization and coding (open coding, axial coding, selective coding) were applied. In the first stage of data analysis, 225 primary codes (open codes) from transcription of interviews were extracted. In the next step, by removing, merging and modifying the initial codes, 84 codes were considered as the axial coding. Then, based on the similarities and in order to answer the research questions, codes were grouped and categorized by the selective coding. So, in each category, 1 to 10 main categories were identified. Four criteria of validity or reliability, transferability and verification introduced by Goba and Lincoln have been applied to evaluate the quality and accuracy of data (Salamat, Mir Sepaci and Reshadatjou, 2020; Mohammadpour, 2011).
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsThe results of interviews in Sweden which contained answer for research questions have shown that in Sweden the dominant model used in university-industry cooperation is Quintuple helix model consisting of university, industry, government, environment and society. While participants acknowledged that a single model is not used for all the relationships. They use variety of different models depending on their goals and missions in every collaboration as well as the circumstances and types of cooperation such as Triple model and Quadruple helix model. In Sweden, the relations and interactions between universities and industry are diverse and frequent. As an example industrial branding, industrial and academic doctoral courses, student support, foundation-based industrial schools, partnerships, research collaborations, services and facilitation, educational collaborations and employment collaborations are some of these interactions. While these interactions are bilateral and active, it means that each type of relationship is based on the needs of the university or industry bilaterally, and also in all types of communication, both industry and academia play active role. Analyzing the data indicated a satisfactory, efficient and effective cooperation between university and industry which has been supported very well by the Swedish government. Some of the most concerning challenges in connecting universities to industry in Sweden consist of bureaucracy, failure of communication networks, time management, structural differences, restricted rules and restrictions on establishing some collaborations. In order to improve the quality of the collaboration between the university and the industry in Sweden, certain strategies have been used which involve opting optimism towards these cooperation, having strategic planning and foresight, database of basic data, existence of job opportunities and the possibility of employment for the students and graduates, flexibility, active two-sided cooperation, formation of cooperation based on network of relationships.
ReferencesAbramo, G., D'Angelo, C.A., and Di Costa, F. (2011). University-industry research collaboration: a model to assess university capability. Higher Education, 62(2), 163-181. DOI: 10.1007/s10734-010-9372-0
Anatan, L.(2015). Conceptual Issues in University to Industry Knowledge Transfer Studies: A Literature Review, Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, (211), 711 – 717.
Bertoletti, A., and Johnes, G. (2021). Efficiency in university‑industry collaboration: an analysis of UK higher education institutions. Scientometrics, 126:7679–7714. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-021-04076-w
Carayannis, E.G., Barth, T.D. & Campbell, D.F. (2012). The Quintuple Helix innovation model: global warming as a challenge and driver for innovation. Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, 1, (2), 1-12, https://doi.org/10.1186/2192-5372-1-2
DellÁnno, D, and Del Giudice, M.(2015).Absorptive and desorptive capacity of actors within university-industry relations: Does technology transfer matter?, Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, (4), 1-20.
Etzkowitz, H. (2008). The Triple Helix: University-Industry-Government Innovation in Action. Abingdon-on-Thames: Routledge.
Etzkowitz, H., Leydesdorff, L. (2000). The dynamics of innovation: From National Systems and ‘‘Mode 2’’ to a Triple Helix of university-industry-government relations. Research Policy, 29 (2), 109–123.
European Union (2020a). University-Industry Collaborations: A Policy Brief from the Policy Learning Platform on Research and innovation. European Regional Development Fund: Interreg Europe Project.
European Commission. (2020b). Types of Higher Education Institutions. Eurydice, (https://eacea.ec.europa.eu/national-policies/eurydice)
European Commission (2011).Council conclusions on the role of education and training in the implementation of the ‘Europe 2020 strategy. Official Journal of the European Union (2011/C 70/01).
Perez Vico, E & Hallonsten, O.(2019). How industry collaboration influences research: The case of the Swedish interdisciplinary materials consortia, 1990–2000. Industry and Higher Education, 33, (5), 289–307.
Omar, M, Shanableh, A, and Hamad, Kh.(2010). Thoughts on the University Industry Relations, Conference for Industry and Education Collaboration American Society for Engineering Education, February 3-5, Palm Spring California.
Leydesdorff, L,. (2018). Synergy in Knowledge-Based Innovation Systems at National and Regional Levels: The Triple-Helix Model and the Fourth Industrial Revolution, Journal of Open Innovation Technology Market and Complexity, 4, (2), 1-13.
Leydesdorff, L,.(2012). The Triple Helix of University-Industry-Government Relations. University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam School of Communication Research (ASCoR), Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Leydesdorff, L. (2012). The Triple Helix, Quadruple Helix, …, and an N-Tuple of Helices: Explanatory Models for Analyzing the Knowledge-Based Economy?. J Knowl Econ 3, 25–35. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-011-0049-4
Leydesdorff, L. (2012). The triple helix, quadruple helix, ..., and an N-tuple of helices:
explanatory models for analyzing the knowledge-based economy? Journal of the Knowledge
Economy, 3(1), 25-35. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-011-0049-4
22. Research in Higher Education
Paper
Academic Cultures and Organizational Resilience in Higher Education
Katerina Zabrodska1,2, Jiri Mudrak2, Katerina Machovcova2,4, Barbora Prochazkova3
1Faculty of Arts, Charles University & Institute of Psychology, Czech Academy of Sciences; 2Institute of Psychology, Czech Academy of Sciences; 3Faculty of Social Sciences, Charles University; 4Faculty of Education, Charles University
Presenting Author: Machovcova, Katerina;
Prochazkova, Barbora
The global neoliberal transformation of higher education has had a profound impact on the academic profession as well as on faculty occupational well-being. Numerous studies have described negative effects of this transformation, demonstrating, for instance, a considerable increase in stress and burnout levels among academic faculty (e.g., Kinman & Jones, 2019; Kinman & Wray, 2014; Zabrodska et al., 2018). These longer-term challenges experienced by academic faculty have been more recently multiplied by the global “polycrisis” involving cumulative negative effects of the pandemic-induced, environmental, geopolitical, and other crises on the higher education sector, the faculty and the students (e.g., Marinoni, Van’t Land, & Jensen, 2020). Therefore, understanding and promoting resources of both individual and systemic resilience in face of these adversities is vital.
In this presentation, we draw on the concept of “organizational resilience” (Reatze et al., 2021), defined as the capacity of an organization to successfully respond to adverse events, to adapt to such events, and to grow. Applying the concept of organizational resilience to the higher education sector, we argue that academic culture represents a central component of organizational resilience in universities. Based on this proposition, we explore how academic culture/s can influence organizational resilience in public universities. More specifically, our aim was to identify specific academic cultures in transforming higher education and to examine the effects of these cultures on universities’ resilience, i.e. the capacity of higher education institutions to successfully cope with adversity and to buffer against future challenges.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedThe presentation integrates qualitative and quantitative data. The qualitative data were collected using semi-structured interviews with 60 university faculty members and analyzed using thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2021). The quantitative data were collected via an online questionnaire among university faculty (n=2,229). The questionnaire involved the Organizational Climate Measure (OCM; Patterson et al., 2005) as an indicator of departmental cultures, as well as the Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire (COPSOQII) to measure other aspects of university work environments. The OCM dimensions were processed by k-means cluster analysis. The data were collected in the Czech Republic, as an example of a transforming Central European higher education.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsBased on both the qualitative and quantitative analyses, we identified four types of academic cultures: “self-actualization culture”, “collegial culture”, “performance culture”, and “fraternity culture”. These cultures differed significantly in the OCM dimensions of internal–external orientation and low–high control, and had significantly different effect on faculty occupational well-being (Mudrak et al., 2022). In the discussion, we consider how these dimensions and related values may influence the organizational resilience in universities and we propose measures to enhance such resilience.
ReferencesBraun, V., & Clarke, V. (2021). Thematic analysis: A practical guide. London: Sage.
Kinman, G., & Johnson, S. (2019). Special section on well-being in academic employees. International Journal of Stress Management, 26(2), 159–161.
Kinman, G., & Wray, S. (2014). Taking its toll: Rising stress levels in further education. London: University and College Union.
Marinoni, G., Van’t Land, H., & Jensen, T. (2020). The impact of Covid-19 on higher education around the world. IAU Global Survey Report, 23, 1-17.
Mudrák, J., Zábrodská, K., Machovcová, K., Cidlinská, K., & Takács, L. (2022). Competing values at public universities: Organisational cultures and job demands‐resources in academic departments. Higher Education Quarterly, 76(1), 153–173.
Patterson, M. G., West, M. A., Shackleton, V. J., Dawson, J. F., Lawthom, R., Maitlis, S., Robinson, D. L., & Wallace, A. M. (2005). Validating the organizational climate measure: Links to managerial practices, productivity and innovation. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26(4), 379–408.
Raetze, S., Duchek, S., Maynard, M. T., & Kirkman, B. L. (2021). Resilience in organizations: An integrative multilevel review and editorial introduction. Group & Organization Management, 46(4), 607-656.
Zábrodská, K., Mudrák, J., Šolcová, I., Květon, P., Blatný, M., & Machovcová, K. (2018). Burnout among university faculty: The central role of work–family conflict. Educational Psychology, 38(6), 800–819.
|
