Educational Philosophy and The0 y, Vol. 34, No. 1, 2002 Carfax Publishing @ TaylorhFranmGmup

Globalisation and its Consequences for Scholarship in Philosophy of Education BRUCE HAYNES Edith Cowan University, Western Australia

A manifestation of globalisation as an economic imperative has occurred at the national level in Australia. This manifestation is in the form of political policies, administrative practices and funding distribution ostensibly aimed at creating a more competitive national economy. Philosophy of Education, as a practice and product of some employees in the higher education industry in Australia, is being influenced by this manifestation of globalisation. Reflection on ways in which established concepts are being reshaped to suit the agenda of globalising political policies may assist those engaged in philosophising about education to enhance their practice in ways they desire. It is argued here that such reflection should lead many academics in Australian universities to the conclusion that they should not undertake research and that research should not be part of the job specification for most academics employed in Australian universities.

The argument in this paper is based on a set of epistemological assumptions about the nature of academic practices or traditions (cf. Toulmin, 1972). Philosophy of Education is one such academic tradition or practice. A university may be conceived of as a community of academics engaged in a range of traditions or practices. A university may also be conceived of as a quasi-governmental administrative entity employing workers to value-add to customers intending to maximise personal economic rewards from future engagement in a more competitive national economy.

AcademicsrWorkers

One assumption upon which this paper is based is that university academics, as part of their practice, could educate students in ways that may be economically reward- ing as well as rewarding in other ways. Not only could academics draw salaries for such work but students might obtain gainful employment as a result. Further, each might achieve satisfaction from the skilful manner in which they carried out their work and from the results of that work. They might also be rewarded by gaining greater understanding of puzzling matters and greater insight into important things. They might even be more effective in what they wished to do.

Another assumption is that higher education workers, as described above, could not engage in the practice of philosophy of education-including the education of students in that tradition. Such workers might be able to transmit generic skills and selected information both efficiently and effectively. Whether those workers could

ISSN 0013-1 857 print; ISSN 1469-5812 online/02/010103-12 0 2002 Philosophy of Education Society of Australasia DOI: 10.1080/00131850120098408

select the information need not be a problem. They can replace textbooks and reference lists with instructional packages available from globalised universities as part of their Administration-negotiated franchised courses. These packages include the assessment tasks to be completed by the student to assure quality outcomes within the time specified in the contract. The role of the student is to position themselves so as to maximise their economic advantage in the workforce. The role of the higher education worker is to assist the student to achieve the specified outcomes as efficiently as possible. The instructional worker might say ‘I teach Silicon Valley University Philosophy of Education 104’. Gibbons (1998) claims that with the ‘development of globalised and distributed knowledge systems . . . (universities) mi l l need to restructure fundamentally their approaches to research and teaching’ by shifting from Mode 1 to Mode 2.

This shift is seen to be characterised by the replacement of individual academics controlling their teaching and research (subject to peer review) (Mode 1) with transdiscipinary teams interacting with users of their teaching and research (Mode 2 ) . Such restructuring could influence a shift of university staff from academic to worker. The contrast may be drawn between the worker as instructor and the academic as educator. The central difference between the two in this case is that the former may have generic instructional skills which are applied to students undertak- ing a specific learning package, whereas the academic participates in a tradition. Part of participation in a tradition is the initiation of others into that tradition. Another part is the sustenance and development of that tradition. An instructional worker may have sufficient knowledge and skill in philosophy of education to enable students to achieve the specified outcomes but that is not the same as participating in the tradition.

As some university administrations have clearly identified in the past, there is no point in an instructional worker attending the Philosophy of Education Society of Australasia’s annual conference to give a paper on some point of esoteric personal interest and to listen to other workers’ erudite self-gratification derived from giving papers which have no relevance to the job the instructor is paid to do. But the esoteric and the erudite are central to any academic tradition. While ‘esoteric’ can refer to the private or confidential nature of something, it also has the sense of something ‘meant only for the initiated‘ (OED). An erudite practitioner in a learned tradition is someone n.ho is ‘deeply read’ (OED) in that tradition. Such a deep reading of the tradition requires more than a recollection of the set texts and the application of that kncnvledge to assessment tasks. It includes a commitment to the r(7isoj/ d ’ m c of that tradition, including commitment to the purposes, standards, practices, central concepts and values of the tradition. Such commitments inform the life of that practitioner and give meaning to their actions. In the case of someone so committed t o the tradition of philosophy of education they may say ‘I am a philc )hop her of education’.

Another \yay of contrasting these two positions is that the instructional worker can say ‘This is what I do as part of my job’ and the academic participant in a tradition can say ‘This is part of what I am’.

Globalisation and its Consequences 105

Tradition

The term ‘tradition’ is used in this paper in preference to many other terms that have been used for various purposes to identify those frames within which we understand the world, ourselves and our actions. ‘Language games’ seem unduly linguistic and fixed, ‘theories’ seem mental and speculative, ‘disciplines’ seem academic and limited, ‘patterns of thought and self-identity’ seem mental and fixed, ‘truth regimes’ seem epistemological and fixed. The intended benefit of the use of ‘tradition’ is that it highlights the temporal and social aspects of the context in which judgements are made. Traditions can be recognised as evolving social practices across a wide spectrum of human activity. They require effort to maintain and change as circum- stances change. Part of that effort is the initiation of non-participants into the tradition and the development of participants in the tradition.

A university may be a community of academics in a number of selected traditions. These academics conduct themselves in the university and the community so as to sustain and develop their particular traditiods. Insofar as their students develop as participants in the tradition, so the academics have carried out their task satisfacto- rily. If those students gain skills, abilities, attitudes and intentions that benefit the community in positions of paid employment, then the community obtains direct benefit from the academic work of university students. If the students live better lives because of their academic work, then the community obtains indirect benefit.

A student in a higher education institution engaged in some form of vocational education through generic skill formation is not thereby imbued with a sense of vocation. The institution and the workers therein lack the sense of calling or commitment inherent in participating in a tradition. Such students may gain skills and abilities but have attenuated attitudes and intentions because they do not become part of an evolving tradition. They are exposed to a static slice of a practice and are therefore less able to cope with change in their working life. If students are not exposed to the ongoing debates within a tradition they also have less chance of appreciating why things are done as they are. The community benefits from skilled graduates but may lose if they are more like technicians than participants in traditions. Higher education workers, who engage in ‘just in time’ production of graduates in response to current needs of the economy, may be more responsive, entrepreneurial and co-operative with business and may even be rewarded with a financial bonus or share option package by the university based on feedback from satisfied corporate customers (not the Course Evaluation Questionnaire). Workers, who focus on the demands of the economy, face the prospect of having nothing to respond with, as their generic skill base atrophies and dies. A solution to this possibility lies with research. The production of new knowledge is thought to create competitive advantage and enables workers to continue to teach. Thus there is presumed to be a close connection between research and good teaching.

Research

In the Wittgensteinian and Foucauldian traditions of ‘laying out the facts’, the following consists of a selection of the facts related to official government discourse

which is deemed to constitute a redefinition of ‘research’ in Australia. In particular, this discourse is related to Australian universities, their function and funding. This relation derives from the presumption that Australian universities (at least since the rMartin Committee 1964) should undertake research as one of their functions. This presumption has more recently been extended to include the expectation that most, if not all, university academic staff will undertake research as part of their job specification and that ‘training’ of researchers will be conducted by universities, usually in a course leading to a PhD. These latter presumptions came under some scrutiny in the past decade when the post-Dawkins universities incorporated aca- demic staff and courses from institutions of a different character. West (1998, p. 50) stated that ‘All universities can be expected to engage in research, to a greater or lesser extent. None can refrain from research totally and still claim that name ‘university’. The Australian Vice Chancellor’s Committee stated that universities ‘have staff whose active engagement in scholarship and research both enriches the nation itself, and ensures that students at both undergraduate and postgraduate Ievel learn from those at the forefront of knowledge, whether rhetorical (sic) or applied’ (West, 1998, p. 45). Such adjustments to institutional and personal expectations as have been made in the past decade have generally relied on a common understand- ing of a rather broad meaning of ‘research’. A common view is that research is ‘scientific study to discover new facts’ (OED) or, more generally, ‘inquiry’(0ED). This latter meaning was extended by Stenhouse in his account of ‘research’ as ‘systematic inquiry made public’. This very general and tolerant view of research enabled academic staff to undertake a very wide range of activities and be regarded as carrying out research. Even doing philosophy of education could be counted as researching (and counting is now very much a feature of academic accountability). As part of the counting of research, the Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs (DETYA) Index accepts the OECD definition of ‘research and development’ as

Research and experimental development comprises creative work under- taken on a systematic basis in order to increase the stock of knowledge, including knowledge of man, culture and society, and the use of this stock of knowledge to devise new applications.

How DETYA establishes categories and funding procedures will operationally define ‘research’ in the context of Australian universities. The definition may be something like ‘research is that activity which is properly reported by universities to DETYA for funding purposes’.

The most recent development in the process of redefining ‘research’ has been the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs’ ‘New knowledge, new opportu- nitie\: a discussion paper on Higher Education research and research training’ (Kemp, 1999). In this paper he states:

We are living today in the midst of two great research-based technological revolutions: in information technology and in biotechnology. Provided our

Globalisation and its Consequences 107

research is conducted within an entrepreneurial culture and within settings which will effectively address issues of intellectual property and encourage investment, there is no reason why our research strengths cannot lead to many new enterprises and the jobs that will accompany them. Such spin-offs are also possible from other research domains as well. Research that is responsive to the needs of industry and developed in a collaborative way should also help create an entrepreneurial climate at- tractive to venture capital. Our universities have a key role to play in securing these benefits, both nationally and within their regions, and the proposals in this paper are designed to facilitate and encourage this role. (Kemp, 1999, Foreword)

It may be supposed that the Minister means by ‘research’ that which is responsive to the needs of industry, developed in a collaborative way with industry, conducted within an entrepreneurial culture (including universities) which address issues of intellectual property and encourage investment from venture capital, and can lead (as spin-offs) to new enterprises and jobs. Such spin-offs may also result from research in areas other than information technology and biotechnology. Yet whether these results may properly be regarded as spin-offs is a matter for question. As the paper indicates, under the heading ‘The research role of Australia’s universities’, $2.3 billion (88% provided by the Commonwealth Government) was spent on higher education research in 1996 (59% basic research, 35% applied research and 6% experimental development) and these ‘impressive statistics . . . underline the importance of maximising the returns from this major national investment’ (Kemp, 1999, Section 1.31). However, West (1998, p. 75) could only find $1.65 billion spent on Australian higher education research and research training in 1997. If Australian universities are to have a ‘key role in securing these benefits’ (spin-offs) and if the Government is seeking to facilitate and encourage this role, at what point does the securing of those benefits become the razson d’etre of university research?’ At what point has ‘research’ become redefined to mean ‘funded entrepreneurial systematic inquiry into industry needs to generate new knowledge of immediate economic worth’?

The securing of benefits to the national economy may be an outcome of ‘research’ and, from the political funding perspective, may be the most important outcome. This does not mean that it should become the point of doing ‘research’ for the researcher or the university in which the ‘researcher’ is housed. Just as the big splash made by a whale when it leaps out of the water is the important outcome for a tourist boat operator, that does not and should not become the point of the life of a whale. Nor should the sea be organised so whales may make suitable splashes for tourist operators even though such operators may have the capacity to preserve or ruin the ocean environment. In recent times the operators have put the environment under considerable strain.

West (1998) claims that:

T o a very large extent, the accomplishments (of Australian universities) of the past decade have been achieved by stretching the old way of doing

108 B. Hayzes

things to their very limits (indeed, some would say that the old ways have already been stretched beyond their limits). (p. 67)

Part of the Minister’s ‘vision for Australian university research’ includes the follow- ing:

A vigorous research base makes an essential contribution to a democratic, learning society . . . Our research institutions will be strategically focussed, more self-reliant and flexibly organised . . . Our institutions will be able to respond quickly to new ideas and research opportunities. By being alert to emerging opportunities, more entrepreneurial in their own organisation and more responsive to business needs, institutions will attract more private investment. Their ability to develop new ideas and move quickly to apply them will create a reinforcing cycle of opportunities, investment and rewards which can be shared by individual researchers and research teams . . . They will take advantage of specialist knowledge regardless of whether it exists within the institution or in a commercial setting. Their internal structure and employment arrangements will support this sort of flexibility. Institutions will then have scope to access revenue streams, royalty benefits, or equity shares for themselves and their researchers. (Kemp, 1999, Section 2)

A caw may be made for a sense of ‘research’ in which short-lived multi-disciplinary teams of opportunistic researchers seek commercially significant breakthroughs in knowledge or technology and receive commensurate economic and/or social re- wards. Such research may be particularly significant during the Second World Economic War that has been marked by forms of globalisation since the 1973 Oil Crisis (the First World Economic War was marked by forms of colonisation and associated with two world wars). Models of such research funded by government for government purposes may be located in the teamwork breaking the Enigma Codes, in the Manhattan Project and in the Apollo Moon Project. Now that government purposes include the provision of an entrepreneurial culture as a condition for ‘the social and technological progress of humanity’ (Kemp, 1999, Section 2) it may be necessary to direct research attention and funding more towards the needs of business. But, as Soros (1998, p. 73) notes, the intrusion of market values into areas of society such as personal relations, politics and the professions has two significant consequences. The first consequence of the pursuit of individual self-interest in a market setting is that it leads to situations in which lasting relationships are replaced by individual transactions which undermine loyalty. The second consequence is the replacement of national economies by a global economy in which there are few shared social values. Without social values that express a concern for others, there is the loss of community and society becomes unstable. Institutionalising the proposed ’research’ in universities may lead to loss of loyalty to traditions, such as philosophy of education, and to the university leading to a loss of the community of scholars. Both the tradition and the university may disappear.

Globalisation and its Consequences 109

One example of the mechanism by which these proposals may be institutionalised is a university that centred its Strategic Plan around the mantra of ‘service, profes- sionalism and enterprise’. In line with this Strategic Plan, the Arts Faculty and the Education Faculty were merged with sundry others to form the Faculty of Com- munity Services, Education and Social Science under an Executive Dean. This new Faculty received ‘research’ infrastructure funds to create a Research Institute for the Service Professions. This research institute can serve, inter alia, as a Procrustian bed on which to fit all activities that are to count as research. The research plan of the institute includes a category for social change and the service professions, and another for standards in the service professions as well as two funding categories (rural and indigenous). Any funded research and scholarship in philosophy and philosophy of education may be expected to fit the guidelines and be supported by such an institute.

This may be an appropriate model for government research instrumentalities such as CSIRO or in research institutes within universities. However, whether such research should be conducted by teams as part of university core business and the expected normal workload of academic staff members is more problematic. What makes such a model more significant is the related moves to reduce funding to universities so that it is more difficult for academics to maintain a workload including scholarly activity. Part of scholarly activity can be what is often called basic or interest-driven research. The Australian government is keen to point out that it funds basic research in universities but that research is progressively becoming what the British government is calling ‘focussed and effective’ research. The research institute, mentioned above, is a way of focussing research in ways and in areas which governments deem to be effective.

Proposals of the type put forward by the Minister reraise questions of the kind: (a) what is the role of educational institutions in social reconstruction?, and (b) what is the epistemological nature of a community of scholarly inquiry? The focus of this paper is on the latter question: in particular, whether the tradition of philosophy of education, which developed and flourished in universities engaged in teacher edu- cation, can survive in higher vocational institutes pursuing niche markets in teacher training and focussed ‘research’. Unless the maintenance and development of an academic tradition, as a community of scholarly inquiry, is part of the workload of university academics then the tradition is likely to disappear. Those ‘researchers’ with expertise in philosophy of education, who now may join short-lived en- trepreneurial project teams, would then have no tradition to sustain their expertise. There would also be no future ‘researchers’ once the cultural capital is exhausted with the demise of those who gained their expertise in a more scholarly environment. It is possible that philosophy of education may survive in some monastic institutions but there is no church evident at present that may provide such facilities. That this is not a problem confined to philosophy of education alone is due to the generic nature of the consequences of restructuring universities so that ‘research’ is part of the normal workload of university academics and with the continuing reduction of funding to scholarship in universities.

110 B. Hajwes

Scholarship

Scholarship has had something of an airing in recent times in Australia in the form of references in West (1998) and in Coaldrake & Stedman (1999). In each case they refer to Boyer’s (1 990) work Scholarship Revisited.

In the section headed ‘The nexus between teaching and research’, West (1998, p. 50) cites Boyer as describing links between research, scholarship and teaching and indicates that each university should seek to find its own mission within a spectrum of these activities. West (1 998, p. 50) cites, with approval, the Vice Chancellor of the University of Southern Queensland who said that USQ’s ‘core business is teaching and learning offered in an environment of scholarly activity and niche research’.

Coaldrake & Stedman (1999, pp. 23-24), in the section on ‘Teaching and research’, discuss Boyer’s work as ‘One of the most influential reformulations of academic work’. Boyer (1990, p. 20) says, ‘What it means to be a scholar-that is the central theme of our report . . . According to the dominant view, to be a scholar is to be a researcher-and publication is the primary yardstick by which scholarly productivity is measured.’ What Boyer (1990, p. 16) sought was a more comprehen- sive and dynamic view of scholarship in which the work of academics ‘might be thought of as having four separate, yet overlapping, functions. These are: the scholarship of dlsco.vey; the scholarship of integration; the scholarship of application; and the scholarship of teaching’. The scholarship of discovery, often known as academic research, is committed ‘to knowledge for its own sake, to freedom of inquiry and to following, in a disciplined fashion, an investigation wherever it may lead’(Boyer, 1990, p. 17). Note that this is quite different from the definition of ‘research’ arising from recent Australian Government initiatives. The scholarship of integration is often interdisciplinary and ‘is serious, disciplined work that seeks to interpret, draw together, and bring new insight to bear on original research’ (Boyer, 1990, p. 19). The scholarship of application is ‘tied directly to one’s special field of knowledge and relate(s) to, and flow directly out of, this professional activity. Such service is serious, demanding work, requiring the rigour-and the accountability- traditionally associated with research activities’ (Boyer, 1990, p. 22). This scholar- ship of application is not limited to the application of discoveries but is responsive to the needs of the world outside the academy. This latter aspect, which has a long history in the development of academic traditions, is much more like the redefined ‘research’. The scholarship of teaching is termed in that way to avoid the implication that reaching is something tacked on to the job of a researcher and something that almost anyone can do. ‘When defined as scholarship, however, teaching both cdu- cates and entices future scholars. Indeed, as Aristotle said, ‘Teaching is the highest form of understanding’ (Boyer, 1990, p. 23). Boyer (1990) provides a

view of what it means to be a scholar-a recognition that knowledge is acquired through research, through synthesis, through practice, and through teaching. We acknowledge that these four categories-the scholar- ship of discovery, of integration, of application, and of teaching-divide functions that are tied inseparably to each other. Still, there is value, we believe, in analyzing the various kinds of academic work, while also

Globalisation and its Consequences 11 1

acknowledging that they dynamically interact, forming an interdependent whole. Such a vision of scholarship, one that recognizes the great diversity of talent within the professoriate, also may prove especially useful to faculty as they reflect on the meaning and direction of their professional lives.

Whether such a vision of scholarship is likely to prove useful depends on what use people have in mind. The uses I have in mind in this paper can be set out as questions as follows:

1. Should universities and academic staff undertake ‘research’ as part of their expected activity?

2. What is the relationship between research and teaching? 3. Does doing philosophy of education count as scholarship or research?

(pp. 24-25)

Conclusion

‘Research’ is undertaken by entrepreneurial individuals, teams and institutions seeking niche markets for their skills in the commercial world for mutual benefit. Academic staff who developed their investigative skills in academic traditions within universities may be eminently suited to undertake ‘research’ when the occasion arises. Universities may benefit from ‘research’ being conducted within the insti- tution, either within specific institutes or in faculties. This ‘research’ may be seen as a spectacular facet of academic life but it would be inappropriate to conceive of it as the basis for academic life or as the central operating principle of a restructured university. Being receptive and responsive to the problems and challenges of the economic and social world are part of the lifeblood of academic traditions, although the imperative is less direct than that felt in industrial or government research institutes. That it should be less direct is because the academic traditions are not a part of the economic or social world in the same way as industrial or government research institutes. Being an ‘ivory tower’ provides advantages not experienced in the ‘real world’ and universities should exploit those advantages in their niche marketing. One of the differences to be supported in universities is the maintenance and development of academic traditions. It is these traditions which enable univer- sities to supply and sustain graduate members of those traditions who work in other settings. While ‘research’ can be undertaken in universities, the current situation in Australia in response to global influences is, as Coaldrake & Stedman (1999) put it,

governments regardless of political persuasion have been engaged in decou- pling funding for research and teaching, albeit without explicitly stating this as a goal ... This decoupling and growth of research funding has had several consequences. Tangible rewards in terms of resource and status exist for those who are able to secure research funding from government or industry, while those who do not obtain such funding frequently perceive themselves to be teaching ever larger numbers of students. (p. 19)

A consequence of heavier teaching loads for those academics unable to attract competitive ‘research’ funding is that they have less time and other resources to

112 B. Haynes

sustain and develop their academic tradition. The status of ‘research’ is further enhanced by ‘the dominant view remaining among academics that some sort of relationship . . . does or should exist between teaching and research’ (Coaldrake & Stedman, 1999, p. 19). This view is held most strongly with regard to postgraduate teaching but is deemed, by extension, to apply to undergraduate teaching as well. A slippery slope argument might apply to this view. The lack of empirical support for such a relationship and the availability of argument to show why such a relationship should not be found between ‘research’ and teaching (Haynes, 2000) does not tend to diminish the strength of the dominant view.

The relationship presumed between research and teaching is more likely to be found if the role of scholarship is investigated. Insofar as ‘research’ and ‘scholarship’ are conflated then a relationship between research and teaching may sound reason- able. This expectation is then transferred to ‘research’. Scholarly investigation into puzzles in the tradition, deep reading, reflection and criticising the boundaries and direction of an academic tradition are part of scholarship designed to maintain and develop the tradition. They have a close relationship with teaching someone as part of an initiation into that tradition. Engaging in the partisan wars between scholars in the tradition is also part of scholarship which informs teaching in that tradition. So it is that scholarship, more narrowly defined than it is by Boyer, has a close relationship with teaching in that tradition. It also has a close relationship with ‘research’ in that it is the environment which supports the disciplined or systematic inquiry engaged in by ‘researchers’. Thus it is that scholarship within an academic tradition is what sustains both teaching and ‘research’. The challenges of both teaching and ‘research’ also inform and shape the scholarship within the academic tradition. It is that scholarship which lies at the heart of activities by the academic community in a university.

Philosophers of education engaging in scholarly activity in their academic tra- dition, as part of a university community of inquiry, should recognise and proclaim the value of their contribution to scholarship. The scholarship in which they engage should inform and enhance their teaching. They should also recognise that, on occasion, they may be able to make a significant contribution to ‘research’. Global- isation, with its political and economic pressures to restructure universities to make them more serviceable to short-term accountability requirements and more suited to provide cheap solutions to economic and social problems, is likely to overlook the virtues of scholarship in philosophy of education. Providing clarity in higher edu- cation policy discourse about ‘research’ and ‘scholarship’ and the relation of each to teaching may be useful in helping to shape the restructuring of universities in the forseeable future. This clarity is a technique to achieve the ends of a philosopher of education seeking to influence the restructuring of universities. But what intentions might I have as a philosopher of education?

To say ‘I am a philosopher of education’ is to express my commitment to a significant portion of the various features of that academic tradition. It is to say ‘I see the world from this perspective’. As a part of my care for myself I therefore care for the sustenance and development of that tradition. I also care for the continued well being, as philosophers of education, of other participants in that tradition, including

Globalisation and its Consequences 1 13

those being initiated into that tradition. Insofar as the tradition of philosophy of education is part of the more general tradition of teacher education then I care for the well-being of those making an educational contribution in schools. As a philoso- pher of education drawing upon the tradition of philosophy, I care for the suste- nance and development of that tradition2 and the maintenance of a university in which these traditions may flourish. I would intend that a university be a community of scholars who may imbue students with the sense of the traditions into which they are being initiated. As MacIntyre (1990, pp. 230-231) has noted, a university should be ‘a place of constrained disagreement, of imposed participation in conflict, in which a central responsibility of higher education would be to initiate students into conflict’. Thus, as part of being a philosopher of education in a university I should engage rival viewpoints to show what is mistaken in that viewpoint (from where I stand) and to test my own position. I would invite students to do likewise.

I will be concerned that a university, which has succumbed to the globalised economic pressures, may only provide a package of set readings and exercises to prepare a candidate to demonstrate prespecified competencies in order that immedi- ate labour market needs are met.

A number of dualisms have been set out in this paper, e.g. academidworker; researchhcholarship; community/industry; techniciadparticipant; vocatiodemploy- ment. These dualisms are not intended as an either/or description of the state of universities or the activities conducted therein but, rather, as a means of indicating trends. The actual state of an institution at any particular time is thus rather more or less along something of a continuum. However, some distinctions are sharp and uncompromising. A distinction between an epistemology based on the unity of knowledge and one that locates knowledge in a number of evolving traditions is such a distinction and has significant pedagogical ramifications. It also has significance for the conception of research as undertaken in universities.

The redefinition of key concepts is a means of producing movement in a desired direction. Awareness of the nature and significance of the redefinition of ‘research’ may enable participants, including philosophers of education, to shape their practice in ways which they desire. This paper may be taken, at least in part, as an example of the responsiveness of a researcher in philosophy of education to the needs of industry, although whether it will provide ‘access (to) revenue streams, royalty benefits, or equity shares’ is yet to be revealed.

Notes 1. This perhaps assumes that it would never be possible that the securing of funds or academic

promotion could ever become the reason for doing research. 2. See, for example, the letter to the Editor of The Australian (13 October 1999, p. 16) on behalf

of a group of philosophers and the review of philosophy in Australia in the same issue (p. 37) by the chair of the Council of the Australasian Association of Philosophy in which he says ‘Philosophers are moving towards issues that can be explained easily to non-philosophers on granting bodies, and where results can be readily and reliably obtained. The effect is that fundamental research is atrophying.’

114 B. H q n e s

References

BOYER, E.L. (1 990) Scholarship Rezijited: piiotities of the professoriate (Princeton, NJ, The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching).

COALIIRWE, P. 8r STELX-\N, L. (1 999) Acadeiiiic Work in the Tweuar-first Ceiitury (Canberra, Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs (Higher Education Division)).

GIBBOSS, M. (1 998) Higher education relevance in the 2 1st century. UNESCO World Confer- ence on Higher Education, Paris.

HAYSES, B. (2000) On the supposed connection between research and teaching, Paper presented to the International Network of Philosophers of Education Biennial Conference, Sydney.

KEXW, D. (1 999) AVm Kiiozcledge, iYex Opportiiiiities: a discitssioii paper on Higher Education research m d research rraiiiing (Canberra, Commonwealth of Australia) < http:Nwww.deetya.gov.au/ edukigher/repts.htm > .

IMCISTSRE, A. (1 990) Three Rird t’erjioizs o j Moral Impcity (London, Duckworth). SOROS, G. (1 998) The Crisis of Global Capitulistii: opeir society eirdangered (London, Little, Brown). Tou..\iIs, S. (1 972) Huiiian Griderjtaiiding, Vol. 1 (Princeton, NJ, Princeton University Press). WEST, R. (1998) Leartiing f o r Life: re&x of higher edzccatioii firiaiiciiig and policy (Canberra,

Department of Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs).