Download Position paper - SDDU

TEACHING THE DISCIPLINES:
IDENTIFYING DISCIPLINARY CULTURES OF LEARNING
Paul Armstrong, Lifelong Learning Institute, School of Education
Introduction
This position paper provides a backcloth to the talk given at the Embracing Excellence
in Learning and Teaching Conference held at the University of Leeds, 6 January 2006.
The talk aimed to raise awareness of the university-wide project I am undertaking as
a University Teaching Fellow between 2005 and 2008. The project seeks to
investigate the existence and significance of cultures of learning within the
University. Fuller details of the project are appended to this paper.
Why cultures of learning, and are there only two?
The possibility that HE has different cultures of learning is not new. Indeed, the
first scientist then novelist C P Snow (1959) published a paper arguing that there
were two cultures of learning in HE, sciences and the arts. He had been pondering
this cultural difference for over twenty years before he published his paper. Now, 25
years after his death it is timely to reconsider the debate, particularly as Tony
Becher (with Paul Trowler) (2001) has revised his book on Academic Tribes and
Territories, originally published in 1989. He opens his book by admitting on the
Preface of the first edition to being irritated by C P Snow’s polemic, seeing it as
‘superficial and conceptually flawed’. In defending Snow’s legacy it has been said that
his two major contributions have been titles of publications: The Corridors of Power
(a novel) and The Two Cultures, but little more than that. The Two Cultures was a
representation of the rift between scientists and literary intellectuals, which Snow
regretted (seeing himself as both). On the other hand, as a scientist, he wanted to
know what the evidence was for the justification of those claiming to be ‘intellectuals’
and questioned their right to be dismissive of scientific writings. F R Leavis, literary
critic, was particularly harsh on Snow, especially in an article entitled ‘The Two
Cultures? The Significance of C P Snow’, which was published in The Spectator in 1962
(reprinted in 1972), who failed to understand why Snow received so much attention
following the publication of The Two Cultures. As far as Leavis was concerned, Snow’s
enhanced public standing was a ‘preposterous and menacing absurdity’, describing his
work with phrases such as ‘embarrassingly vulgar’ without a glimmer of what creative
literature is, or why it matters’. Snow wrote in ‘complete ignorance’ particularly of
history and literature whose ‘incapacity of as a novelist is total …. He can’t be said to
know what a novel is’. The Spectator published over 30 letters attacking Leavis for his
2
criticism of Snow. Snow’s views on a culture in decline were similar to those
expressed by Richard Hoggart (1957) in The Uses of Literacy published around the
same time.
When The Two Cultures was reprinted by Canto Books (Cambridge University Press) in
1964 it included some alter material by Snow which showed that he had taken notice
of the criticisms made, and included ‘A Second Look’ and some afterthoughts. This
presented a more optimistic view, suggesting that there was emerging a ‘third culture’
which would close the communications gap between literary intellectuals and
scientists. The question was who were the intellectuals and the scientists writing
for? In a third culture, both would be writing for an educated, intelligent public
readership. It was to be some time before scientific ideas would be communicated
effectively to an educated but non-scientific audience. Now, many scientific ideas are
to be found discussed in the popular press, on the radio and television. Science
fiction has become a popular genre in comics, books, television, film and computer
games.
A more constructive debate about the nature of the higher academy has been
stimulated by Becher’s response to Snow in Academic Tribes and Territories. The
major influence on Becher’s thinking was the anthropologist, Clifford Geertz, and it
was the application of anthropological concepts to an understanding of the academy
that led him to conclude that those working in different disciplines could be
understood as belonging to different ‘tribes’, having distinctively different cultures
and ways of knowing. The book is an intellectual enquiry based on empirical research
that has established the existence of distinctive cultures. The investigation focused
on how academic communities organise and deliver their teaching and research, looking
for commonalities and differences. There is also recognition that in the same way
that there is a hidden curriculum, there are academic cultures outside the classroom
and indeed outside the institution, as those with a disciplinary cultural identity will
talk shop in social as well as academic contexts. In this sense, having an academic
career reflects a set of values and commitments. One key variable is the issue of
identity – do academic sees themselves as chemists, historians, geographers, or
researchers within the discipline, or teachers of its subjects? Another key variable
is territory, which suggested tight boundaries around disciplines.
Tony Becher has studied academic tribes and cultures (Becher 1989). He developed a
theoretical frame for different disciplinary cultures, broken down as follows
according to the nature of the knowledge and the disciplinary grouping:
3
Disciplinary grouping
Nature of knowledge
Pure sciences ('hardpure')
Cumulative; atomistic, concerned with
universals; impersonal; value-free;
clear criteria for knowledge
verification and obsolescence;
consensus over significant questions
(to address, now and then in the
future)
Humanities and pure
social sciences ('softpure')
Reiterative; holistic; concerned with
particulars; personal; value-laden;
dispute over criteria for knowledge
verification and obsolescence; lack of
consensus over significant questions
Technologies ('hardapplied')
Applied social sciences
('soft-applied')
Purposive; pragmatic; concerned with
mastery of physical environment;
applies heuristic approaches; uses both
qualitative and quantitative
approaches; criteria for judgment are
purposive
Functional; utilitarian; concerned with
enhancement of semi-professional
practice; uses "case" studies and case
law to a large extent
(Source: shortened from Becher 1989; ref. Becher & Towler 2001)
Whilst Becher’s ideas received considerable attention among those academics whose
discipline was education, and subject was higher education. The anthropological
metaphors have a heuristic value, but lack explanatory powers. And there are other
sets of metaphors that could be similarly used, with have a social and cultural basis.
For example, the ideas of the sociologist Erving Goffman (1969), who is renowned for
his use of the ‘dramaturgical analogy’ using metaphors from drama. We can discuss
the role of the teacher, the degree to which the role is scripted or improvised, the
stage in which the roles are played out, and the sets, scenery and props which help us
act out or perform our roles convincingly. This is a rather more social psychological
and individualistic account focusing on the representation of self rather than a more
structural analysis which can be gained through the application of anthropological
ideas, which enable us to look at deeply rooted cultural influences and values,
4
The second edition of Becher’s work (co-authored with Trowler) in 2001 suggests that
the idea of academic tribes and territories still has some currency. And this is in
spite of the general territory of higher education having undergone significant
changes in its landscape over the intervening 15 years, which Becher and Trowler
outline in the first chapter of the revised book. The significant cultural changes that
have taken place pose certain challenges to the idea that there are disciplinary
cultures, and if these are in existence, questions their significance.
Challenges to the idea of disciplinary cultures
A set of cultural changes which might have resulted in more homogeneity is the
imposition of an audit culture in HE, with its concomitant managerialism and
continuous accountability. The requirements of an audit culture could potentially
undermine the bases of disciplinary cultures; yet, paradoxically, there is insistence on
organising quality assurance around subject disciplines (the Subject Review) and the
Research Assessment Exercise organised around disciplines, albeit reducing in number
and requiring negotiations across traditional disciplinary boundaries. In my own
disciplinary area – the education of adults, or continuing education – there have been
significant cultural conflicts by having our subjects reviewed with Education which is
primarily school-based. Now we are still in a subpanel with Education, but additionally
have to negotiate with a broader main panel (K) including psychology and sportsrelated subjects. Although the RAE 2008 documentation has improved its
clarification of definitions being used, we wills till expect cultural differences in the
interpretation of both concepts and processes relating to research and its value or
esteem within our own institution. What counts as research has again changed, and in
part this reflects the post-1992 divide between the vocational and the academic
cultures, to ensure that the ‘new’ universities are not unduly penalised for having
values more appropriate for vocational outcomes than those with traditional academic
cultures.
In part, then, the requirements of the audit culture have contributed to significant
change that has been the blurring of boundaries between disciplines. The fact that
we can talk about multi-disciplinary and inter-disciplinary programme suggests that
the boundaries between disciplines and their subjects are not as firmly fixed as they
were once perceived. Related to this is the fact constructivism that has found itself
in a primary theoretical position being used by theorists trying to understand
education in its social and cultural context, including higher education. In particular,
our attention has been drawn to the possibility that knowledge itself is a social and
cultural construct, as are the artificial boundaries drawn around packages of
knowledge that separate disciplines. However, at a deeper level, the different ways
5
of knowing have managed to sustain themselves, because they are rooted structurally
in sets of persistent cultural values that determine how those who share such values
perceive and interpret the world. Meanings are also socially and culturally
constructed, particularly as they are mediated through language and codes that
themselves are unavoidably cultural.
Theoretical paradigm shifts have also played their part. The ‘postmodern condition’
has moved teaching and research away from looking for grand narratives to provide
explanation, and is underpinning the discourse on diversity and difference, which we
are now encouraged to value, with policy-driven practices on widening participation and
social inclusion, which inevitably impinge on the viability of disciplinary cultures. The
superficiality of academic cultures and simplistic divisions was exposed by Alan Sokal,
a physics professor at New York University who wished to test ‘prevailing intellectual
standards’, decided to try a ‘modest’ and ‘uncontrolled experiment’. He submitted an
hoax article to a major cultural studies journal to see whether they would spot it was
a parody, or whether they would publish the article which was ‘liberally slated with
nonsense’, but nonetheless which ‘sounded good’ and ‘flattered the editors’ ideological
preconceptions’. The paper, ‘Transgressing the boundaries: toward a transformative
hermeneutics of quantum gravity’ was published in Spring/Summer of 1996 issue of
Social Text. Sokal’s purpose was to expose the ‘self-perpetuating academic
subculture that typically ignores (or disdains) reasoned criticism from the outside’.
If deceiving the academic world was not bad enough, Sokal (1996b) published a follow
up article in which Sokal confessed what he had done in ‘A physicist experiments with
cultural studies’. In the article he explained the processes he had been through to
generate the article, and present evidence as to why the hoax ought to have been
detected before reaching publication. o add a local postcript to this story, the article
published was generated using the LaTeX2HTML translator Version .95.3 (Nov 17
1995) Copyright © 1993, 1994, Nikos Drakos, Computer Based Learning Unit,
University of Leeds. For more details on the Sokal hoax, visit Sokal’s website:
http://www.physics.nyu.edu/faculty/sokal/
Now we cannot believe what we read at a time when we cannot trust articles which do
not seek to provide explanations that reflect complexity, or in Ronald Barnett’s (1999)
view, ‘super-complexity’. Complex analysis requires ensuring that understandings are
located, or relocated, into their cultural setting. The search for universal and
supreme truths is now understood as, at minimum, idealistic, and at most, impossible.
Along with complexity theory, constructivism via the work of Lave and Wenger(1991)
on situated learning. As the term suggests, context or location – a word popular
among postmodernists (Armstrong 2006) – has significant cultural influence on
6
teaching and learning, whether in the classroom or in the area of work-based learning
and apprenticeships which is Lave and Wenger’s main interest. Again, it appears to be
the cultural basis of learning that is of significance and worthy of deeper
investigation.
On the other hand, Becher and Trowler’s notion of academic tribes may be at odds
with the constructivist approach, which has a preference for communities, particularly
communities of practice. Belonging to an academic tribe might require a sharing of
values and acting within acceptable codes of practice, but communities of practice go
further, with the emphasis on participation and engagement through learning. A
current tension within HE is the position of teacher training. Those teaching and
researching in HE typically have served their research apprenticeship, as represented
in the achievement of a doctorate in the subject they wish to teach. The realisation
that additionally they may need to have a teaching qualification in addition to their
subject knowledge is making slow progress. In the past, the academic role has been
seen to have two sets of responsibilities – those to do with research and those to do
teaching, with the former taking precedence, and until recently the quality of
teaching was not a significant concern, nor the basis of any occupational rewards.
This is changing (now that there are three areas of responsibility, with
administration/management becoming the third dimension), and it will inevitably
change the academic cultures in which the learning to teach takes place. Those with
experience of providing generic teacher training are able to justify that the claim
that we teach people to learn to teach rather than we teach people to teach their
subject. Having said that, in the areas of teacher training for which I have
responsibility – the training of teachers in further education – there is increasing
pressure for a degree of convergence with secondary school teacher training, where
teachers are taught to teach subjects, whilst at the same time, preparing them to be
flexible to meet the diverse demands of their roles in the school setting. The
contribution of theory here is to argue that the only authentic site for learning to
teach is in real teaching situations, and the application of general principles can only
be effective in the actual context in which they need to operate – the classroom. As
an educator of adults, I share the cultural values behind this situated learning, since
the participation in learning is through critical engagement in situating learning
through experience. The location of not just teaching but the site for learning to
teach, which is a continuous process even when we are licensed to practice (what we
call ‘continuing professional development’) needs to be authentic for the learning to be
effective. But locations are themselves differentially situated, and therefore
meanings and values are culturally constructed through engagement in location.
7
In my experience of inter-disciplinary programme design and delivery, this is never an
integrated set of activities that can be carried out by a single person, but a team
made up of those with different and diverse world views developed through
socialisation into their disciplinary worlds, or academic tribes. In this way, we can
achieve an impression of creating the flexibility that is now required within the
academy. The difference now is that unlike C P Snow and F R Leavis, there is
recognition of the existence of alternative perspectives, and the need to not just
tolerate, but respect and value difference. Language can still be a barrier, as each
discipline is unable to easily let go of its distinctive vocabularies or jargon, but is
nevertheless open to the possibilities of alternative interpretations and
understandings, even if we do not have the language and concepts to discuss this with
each other. There is also evidence of cultural assimilation, with degrees of
convergence in world views, not only at a local, but at a global level, assisted through
digital and satellite technologies. The technologies themselves have made a significant
contribution to transcending boundaries, and influencing changes to pedagogies, with
many if not all disciplines being challenged to be responsive to the shift towards elearning as a mode of delivery and assessment. This is not to say that there are not
still dominant ideologies and hegemonies within HE that either have incorporated
technological and other changes, or have made sufficient modifications that have
enabled continuity in the HE sector.
Project methodology
This research project is still very much at its earliest stages, and all this paper can do
is to set the context for the research, and to outline potential methodologies for data
collection and analysis. If it is to test anthropological concepts, the methodology
ought to reflect the task and utilise anthropological methods of investigation, being
primarily observational, combined with qualitative interviews in order to delve deeply
into the core of disciplinary cultures, and to identify significant cultural influences on
approaches to teaching and learning. It is expected that a study of images and
representations of HE teaching in a range of different locations across the university
will be undertaken, to identify the basis, if any, for disciplinary cultures, and to use
this to identify cultures of learning across the university, and distil the contributory
and contextual factors in order to give meaning to the processes at work. A sample of
volunteer teachers will be required. It might also be possible to actively intervene, in
any ethical way, in the disciplinary cultures that could lead to the emergence of a
change that could expose the range and nature of the cultural influences at work.
In analysing data collected, a variety of ways will be open but some kind of comparison
across and between cultures should be possible, though an awareness of the range of
pitfalls and paradoxes will be necessary.
8
If you would like to be in the sample, or would like me to come to talk to you about
your cultures of learning, please do not hesitate to get in touch.
Paul Armstrong
Lifelong Learning Institute
School of Education
Level 7 E C Stoner building
Ext 33385
[email protected]
References
Armstrong, P (2006) ‘ Location, relocation and dislocation: learning cultures or
cultures of learning?’ Paper to be presented at 47th Adult Education research
Conference, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, May 18-21
Barnett, R (1999) Realising the University in an Age of Supercomplexity, London,
Society for Research in Higher Education
Becher, T (1989) Academic Tribes and Territories, Buckingham, Open University
Press/SRHE
Becher, T and Trowler, P (2001) Academic Tribes and Territories: Intellectual Enquiry
and The Culture of Disciplines, Buckingham, Open University Press/SRHE, 2nd. Ed.
Goffman, E (1969) The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life, Harmondsworth, Penguin
Books
Hoggart, R (1957) The Uses of Literacy: Aspects of Working-Class Life with special
reference to Publications and Entertainments, London, Chatto and Windus
Lave, J and Wenger, E (1991) Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation,
Cambridge, Cambridge University Press
Leavis, F R (1972) ‘Two cultures? The significance of Lord Snow’ in Nor Shall My
Sword: Discourses on Pluralism, Compassion and Social Hope, New York, Barnes and
Noble
Snow, C P (1959) The Two Cultures and the Scientific Revolution . Cambridge
Snow, C P (1964) The Two Cultures; A Second Look, an expanded version of The Two
Cultures and the Scientific Revolution, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Sokal, A (1996a) ‘Transgressing the boundaries: towards a transformative
hermeneutics’ Social Text 6, 47, pp. 217-252 (Spring/Summer 1996).
http://www.physics.nyu.edu/faculty/sokal/transgress_v2/transgress_v2_singlefile.ht
ml
Sokal, A (1996b) ‘A physicist experiments with cultural studies’ Lingua Franca,
May/June 1996
http://www.physics.nyu.edu/faculty/sokal/lingua_franca_v4/lingua_franca_v4.html