The Scholarship of Knowledge in the Modernised University

This chapter investigates how the modernised university might be transformed by the wider adoption of Mode-2 knowledge production. Mode-2 knowledge production, production of dispersed, team-based knowledge, as distinct from the traditional discipline-based Mode-1 knowledge production, was first identified and discussed by Gibbons et al. in 1994. Since then, the terminology has found its way into more general discourse about research and teaching and learning, but in that discourse, Mode-2 knowledge production has struggled to find the legitimacy and acceptance accorded to Mode-1. This is in spite of the fact that knowledge today is most often produced in collaboration, is transmitted in multi-mediated modalities, and utilised in transformative ways very often not envisioned by the generators of that knowledge. It is argued that the reason for the lack of acceptance lies in the fact that a supporting epistemology for Mode-2 knowledge has not, to date, been adequately developed. Thus, the chapter proposes that an epistemology based in philosophical or “American” pragmatism founded by Charles Sanders Peirce can be adopted to provide an articulated and well-grounded epistemology to support Mode-2 as a legitimate form of knowledge production.

Re–Valuing Constructed Knowledge

In this chapter, two issues are discussed that impact teaching and learning in technical and technology education. The issues are bound together by a concept of constructed knowledge and its inherent value. Knowledge constructed and operationalized in non–academic contexts is not well recognized in universities as having intellectual value. Developing knowledge that may be out of context from discipline homes can be misunderstood as lacking depth, when in fact they are highly complex arrangements of interdisciplinary constructed knowledge. The second issue is about how to conceptualize an educational structure in which this complex inter-disciplinary knowledge can be better recognized across educational divisions and strata. STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics) is a well-established curriculum model that gives both clear definition/delineation (and cohesive purpose) to the interdependent discipline strands of the constructed knowledge under discussion. The chapter closes with an argument for a STE(A)M model, articulating the inclusion of an additional-alternative component for the Artist, Artisan, Artificer, Alchemist, Architect, and so forth, as a model to access, create, and re-value the construction of knowledge within universities of the 21st century.

Inclusive Growth in Higher Education

Much effort has been expended on developing pathways, articulation, and credit for Vocational Education and Training (VET) graduates seeking access and partial credit within a Higher Education (HE) course. In this chapter, the author discusses whether the policy settings of “inclusive growth” associated with the post-Bradley era in Australian higher education provides an opportunity to enact the recognition of fair and just learning equivalence for VET graduates who are seeking to participate in further studies within higher education. It is argued that VET graduates have not always been considered equally and consistently by HE providers; however, the operationalizing of current policy settings may rectify this through the implementation of fair and consistent processes. It is proposed that the inclusion of VET graduates into HE has the potential to make a positive contribution to a more inclusive and broader notion of knowledge and which leads to a richer educational experience for all.

From Professional Expert to Novice Academic

The move from a professional career into academia involves a transition from professional expertise to novice academic. New academics encounter a number of university expectations that can challenge their own sense of professional identity. In this chapter, the author overviews the complexity of the higher education environment and highlights the challenges that new academics face. The status of being both a recognized professional and a novice in academia can be a unique experience, as the author documents.

A Fourth Wave of Education for Sustainability (EfS) in Higher Education

Education for Sustainability (EfS) in Higher Education (HE) is described as developing through three waves. These are overviewed in this chapter and given due acknowledgement but are shown to fall short of what is needed going forward. Consequently, a fourth wave of EfS in HE is proposed. The fourth wave of EfS in HE needs to be directed at the collaborative project of constructing “sustainable universities” (Sterling, Maxey, & Luna, 2013). The concept of “neo-sustainability” (Farley & Smith, 2014) is adopted as the basis of this next wave, as is the three nested rings model of sustainability. The argument for a strategy to educate the HE educators is outlined. It is suggested that contemporary global and local sustainability issues need to become part of student engagement within all HE courses. Finally, effort needs to be exerted by HE lecturers to develop pedagogical practices that align to the aims and principles of EfS.

A Rhetoric of Certainty

The past decade has seen increasingly tightly specified graduate outcomes for undergraduate and postgraduate teacher education courses across much of the developed world. These outcomes potentially have the power to describe what ought to be seen as the proper sphere of school education. In this chapter, the author draws upon education policy documents, state education regulations, and parliamentary reports to write about common sense accounts of the goals and purposes of compulsory state schooling and the regulation of pre-service teacher education in universities. The author considers the implications of these accounts for teacher professionalism and argues for a more visible assertion of the complexity of education. Finally, the author considers the implications of this recommendation for pre-service teacher education in universities.

Organizational Agility in Universities

Organizational agility is a necessary capability for universities in times of turbulence. However, this is not easily achieved as there are a number of tensions and challenges that impact a university's ability to respond to change in a timely manner. This chapter explores and discusses some of the tensions that universities experience as they seek to succeed and thrive in increasingly competitive and innovative spaces. Areas discussed cover clash of culture and values, effect of organizational structure and mode of operation, risk aversion and innovation, optimization of business processes for efficiency and agility, resources and change demands, and technological innovations and disruptions. Many of these are discussed in the context of the changing landscape of education as universities explore new business models such as online delivery and prepare themselves for major transformations and innovations. The concluding call is for universities to develop and nurture agile capability to address their future challenges.

On the Production Line?

In this chapter, a modified Delphi study is used to compile and report on the reflective writing and scholarly writing of the authors of this book. Each author was invited to write a brief response to the question, What does it mean to be a knowledge producer in a modernized university? Their responses were collated and the collection of responses was sent to all authors, who were invited to write a more detailed scholarly response. While initial forms of Delphi studies were designed to arrive at consensus within an expert group, the purpose here is to identify and report on both the commonalities and the differences between academics engaged in a diverse variety of forms of knowledge production. What emerges through the writing is a nuanced account of key dilemmas and themes associated with being a research active academic in a modernized university.

Knowledges, Discontinuities, Spirals, and Universities

This chapter is deliberately designed to disturb socially constructed and traditional human linear thinking, and as such, the chapter reflects a spiral approach to the content and the ideas addressed. It involves visiting and revisiting concepts at different levels of complexity and depth. It also involves a dialogue of arguments and counter arguments, which could be construed as one of the themes that spiral across and through this chapter. In this chapter, the statement of Foucault (1980), “Knowledge is not made for understanding; it is made for cutting,” is central and is revisited as it is exemplified in discussions of social complexity and supercomplexity, multiple knowledges, knowledge management, and knowledge brokers. In this chapter, the discussion of multiple knowledges is linked with the concept of a university as a social artefact and is explored from the time of Plato to the Idea of a university as expressed in the work of Cardinal Newman, through to the notion of the modern university and the 21st century university. What is eschewed throughout this chapter is the notion that past, present, and future are elements in linear relationship to each other. Rather, they are seen as interactive zones of meaning that make and remake each other in a dialectical relationship as the spiral would implies.

Properties of Knowledge Matter

In this theoretical chapter, the concept of fungibility is deployed as an analytical device for re-examining assumptions made about the capacities of entrepreneurialism to transform higher education, learning, and curricula. The purpose is to demonstrate that properties of knowledge matter when it comes to presumptions, policy directives, and promises made about academic and institutional agency and participation in the knowledge economy. From the perspective that not all knowledge is equal in value, the chapter highlights a core conceptual problem underpinning the reform agenda of entrepreneurialism in concluding that properties of knowledge matter for democratic participation in the knowledge economy.