I used to frequently prepare an ‘overview of social media’, but the last overhaul really went into my book (chapter 3, in case you’re wondering!). Not had time to update, so pleased to see the ‘A to Z of social media for academia‘ in Times Higher today, which promises to be kept updated:
I picked this story out as I think this can apply as much to the arts as to science…
The impact agenda rewards unoriginal thinkers and threatens to snuff out the bright ‘Sparks’ who could change the world, warns Bill Amos
It seems to me that there are two types of scientist in the world: those who think mainly about doing science and those who think mainly about how to get funding to do science.
The former (let’s call them the “Dr Sparks”) live and breathe science. They think about little else, whether at work, at home or on holiday. They would probably still do what they do even if they weren’t paid. Their passion, bred out of deep insight, provides fertile ground for innovation and breakthroughs of exactly the sort the government wants and believes science funding should deliver.
However, there is a downside to being a Dr Spark. Such scientists are often viewed as brilliant or crazy in equal measure. Few of their peers properly understand their latest work or its implications because the Dr Sparks plough new and difficult furrows. They usually struggle to get funding, partly because they are often so wrapped up in their research that they don’t put enough time into their funding proposals, and partly because they often assume that the importance of their work is self-evident. Consequently, for every glowing report that says their research will change the world, there will be one or two others that completely miss the point and brand it “unfundable”. These days, only uniformly acclaimed proposals tend to get funding.
Read full story.
Recognising that I’m incredibly fortunate to be doing work that I (mostly) enjoy, I’m also seeking to find a better balance, ensuring I have time for friends, etc… The truism is true: nobody on their deathbed wishes they had spent more time at the office.
What was once vaguely containable in a 9-to-5 regime has expanded, so we must work evenings and weekends. We are trapped in a structurally embedded “long hours culture”, where hours in excess of the 48 stipulated in the European Union Working Time Directive have become normalised. Yet, while everybody grumbles and deplores, nobody seriously tries to do anything about it. A young female lecturer of my acquaintance who tried to keep her weekends free was told by her dean that she could not expect promotion if she took that attitude. And it is a sad truth that many academics are workaholics, literally addicted, as managers trying to remove some tasks from them have witnessed.
As Pete Phillips recently told us at #cnmac11, we need to take time out to think creatively:
These thoughts are echoed in this article:
We need to turn our backs on what feminist scholar Cynthia Cockburn has called “heroic masculinity”, admitting that as human beings we need time “to stand and stare”. We need to raise the value of part-time work and job-sharing and, as T.S. Eliot said, “redeem the time”.
Read full story, and let’s remind ourselves of what Henry Ford said:
“It’s that man down the corridor,” he explained.
“Every time I go by his office he’s just sitting there with his feet on his desk. He’s wasting your money.”
“That man,” replied Ford, “once had an idea that saved us millions of dollars. At the time, I believe his feet were planted right where they are now.”
Is ‘teacher training’ at Higher Education level worthwhile? Well, as someone who’s in the Learning & Teaching Development Unit, clearly I think so! I completed my PGCLTHE earlier this year, and found it great to challenge my thinking on the way that I teach, and it’s changed my practice hugely. There’s plenty of comments on this story in the Times Higher Education:
Where academics were instructed on how to teach better, Dr Robson said, peer review of their lectures could be used, although this would only be right for staff that had received “long-term training”.
Dr Robson added that self-evaluation could be useful, with lecturers asked to provide examples of how their training did or did not improve their teaching.
They could also use National Student Survey scores to show improvements, she argued.
Other areas could be assessed more simply (whether staff had absorbed basic health and safety training could be ascertained using a simple questionnaire, for example). But leadership and development coaching needed something “more detailed”, Dr Robson said, such as appraisals by line managers three to sixth months after completion.
Where staff took on much more “intensive” training, scores could be given on performance, which could then be used to calculate the return on investment.
Too much emphasis on graduate employability in Key Information Sets could play into the hands of private for-profit providers at the expense of universities, a vice-chancellor has warned.
From autumn 2012, all institutions will be required to publish data on contact hours, course fees, living costs and average income of graduates, to help students choose where to study.
But Janet Beer, vice-chancellor of Oxford Brookes University and chair of the Higher Education Public Information Steering Group, told a Westminster Education Forum event on 13 October that she feared students may focus too heavily on employment success statistics and pay little mind to information about the overall university experience.
“I am worried about an over-emphasis by students on employability,” she said at the London conference, titled The Student as a Consumer? The Next Steps for Student Experience and Quality Assurance in Universities.
“What they want (for) £9,000 (tuition fees) is employability, but we offer a much richer experience. We have a hinterland that for-profit institutions cannot offer.
“If we are really clear about the range of opportunities we offer students and make it obvious, then we will only get stronger.
“We must not get sucked into thinking that we are providing some kind of production-line product.”
Read full story and three cheers for anti-careerism!