The artwork is confronting and stimulating, but I also loved the comment underneath the article by Michael Croft who says: ​"The issue we have is that the maps are few and far between and neoliberalism would have us believe that the end of history is upon us, and that this is as good as it gets.  On the other hand art first challenges the status quo and then provides glimpses into others worlds that are possible if …" 

https://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/business/weve-turned-our-unis-into-aimless-moneygrubbing-exploiters-of-students-20170916-gyiv0e.html
So there's nothing particularly new about this piece by Ross Gittens - except that he says in a most concise way what many of us in academe are moaning about all the time. But there was a passage that had me thinking. It says, "To be fair, an oddball minority of academics takes a pride in lecturing well. They get a lot of love back from their students, but little respect or gratitude from their peers. Vice-chancellors make a great show of awarding them tin medals, but it counts zilch towards their next promotion." And I've been wondering what real reward might look like. I'm not a big collector of tin medals and I'm not aiming to become Dean anytime soon so recognition for promotion - while useful - will also have its limits. I'm not sure so many of my students send me love either (which is a very good thing given I've just spent an hour in training on fraud and corruption in the university). But when I think about the one thing I would love as a teacher? It's capacity. And one of the ways this could happen is by rewarding good teachers with help to do what they do best - while at the same time providing opportunities for postgrads keen to purse and academic career. My colleague has a good arrangement: thanks to some funding, she was able to buy out some of her marking. Her postgrad marker is being mentored, while providing intensive, in-depth feedback to students on their draft final reports. The lecturer gets to concentrate on teaching and only doing marking on final pieces. It frees her up to mentor, and to think creatively about her teaching. But she has had to pay for it herself and those resources often aren't available to newer academics who don't win the big grants or prize positions. Too often the reward for doing good teaching is more work. We are invited to spend time applying for awards or to apply for fellowships - where we are expected to squeeze our usual workload around already full timetables, as well as having to engage in the most horrid of all exercises: Shameless self promotion! How lovely instead if someone said, "Wow - great SECATS. Here, we'll support your marking and give you a tutor - regardless of your numbers - and in exchange you can just concentrate on thinking creatively about teaching and trialling some new exciting ideas and maybe even writing them up." Because to me, to be able to think about teaching, not admin or marking, and to be able to talk about it and share it with others, would be the biggest gift of all.  I'd say more - but right now I have to go and start my marking.

Yet another inspiring piece passed on by Geoff Woolcock. Here, he examines the idea of Collective Impact, exploring the work of a community arts organisation Beyond Empathy (BE) in regional Northern NSW and a three-year project that builds an Aboriginal community arts and cultural development hub using a process which first engages, then works collaboratively on planning and creative development. (Click on the image to be taken to the article). 

BE states eight values guiding its social impact measurement, namely:
• Take responsibility for impact and encourage others to do so too
• Focus on our purpose
• Involve others in our impact practice
• Apply proportionate and appropriate methods and resources
• Consider the full range of the difference we make: positive and negative, planned and unplanned
• Be honest and open
• Be willing to change and act on what we find
• Actively share our impact plans, methods, findings and learning

But of particular fascination to me were these "measurements". I wonder how my own work would stack up against these parameters:

BE measures its artistic vibrancy against six parameters:
• Reflection – did it move you?
• Aesthetic merit – was it well put together and was the art product of a high standard?
• Delivery - was it well put together and well presented?
• Experience – did it introduce you to new experiences or opportunities, things you’ve not encountered before?
• Insight – did it introduce you to new thoughts, did you learn new things?
• Reflection – did you think about people differently?

"Still masters of our destiny despite the appliance of neuroscience" by Frank Ferudi 
​
Thanks to my colleague Geoff Woolcock for sharing this gem with me. 
The piece begins with the observation that "not since the Renaissance has the conviction that human beings lack the capacity for self-determination enjoyed such a powerful resonance as today." Frank Ferudi places much of the blame for this on the growing neurodeterminist agenda, with the concept that our beliefs and actions are not the outcome of conscious decision-making and reflection but of our neuroanatomy. Consequently it suggests that "an individual’s intelligence, attitude and disposition as not so much an outcome of self-reflection, education or intellectual development but the result of a variety of innate characteristics."

Ferudi cautions agains an assumption that there is anything neutral or objective about such science: ​"neuro-determinists politicise science precisely because they are in fact moral crusaders promoting an agenda", in particular they seek to position science as the arbiter of what is morally right and wrong, discrediting people’s capacity to reflect and gain control over their destiny through the exercise of moral independence.

I understood Ferudi's arguments and am fascinated by it - but I'm left conflicted. I recall many years ago in a Futures Studies project I interviewed a very well known scientist (who in the interest of avoiding libel will remain nameless). He took the position that the scientist's role was simply to push the boundaries of knowledge - regardless of consequence. When I asked about the moral responsibility of science, he shrugged dismissively, telling me that that was the prerogative of the social scientists.

I am unsure which is worse: an amoral stance or science as God. 

This blog is an attempt to move my private musings about the work I do - or wish that I was doing or had done - into a (slightly) more public space, and more importantly, to stop bombarding my poor students and Facebook friends with endless articles that I think are wildly important. I'm unsure how this will develop - but given I am always waxing lyrical about the importance of reflection, this is therefore my attempt to reduce my own cognitive dissonance.