- and just picking up on the very last sentence here (with which I much agree), that would lead in turn to (academic as well as practical) work on the structure and processes of universities, their management and leadership, the structuring of knowledge within universities, contemporary debates on the changing nature of knowledge (eg the 'Mode 2' debate) and contemporary work on the changing nature of universities (neoliberalism, marketisation, globalisation) and then on to the 'ontology' of universities (drawing, eg, on the Critical Realism of Roy Bhaskar and even perhaps some of my own work on 'feasible utopias' and 'realising the university ...') ... In other words, sorting out goals and working out their realisation requires much hard theoretical and practical work, concerned with the nature of universities (and universities exhibit profound differences) and the changes that they are undergoing. (Sometimes, I sense that critiques of universities both overlook the wide differences that universities exhibit and that they are - and have been for the last 40-50 years - changing markedly; and those differences and those ongoing changes need to be understood if critiques are to hold water and if goals are to be worked out and to be realised.)
Cheers
Ron Barnett
________________________________________
From: Group concerned that academia should seek and promote wisdom [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Wiebina Heesterman [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Sunday, July 13, 2014 11:06 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject:
David,
The problem with our book is that the publisher (Gower Publishing) has not publicised the book anywhere, probably because vested interests are hostle to any individual (or publication) which threatens business-as-usual. I know that the commissioning edito left Gower a few weeks after accepting the book for publication, while the 'gren economics series was discontinued in favour of business-oriented titles.
There are in fact only a few academic libraries that have actually bought our , also because it is critical of the neo-classical economics which are exclusively taught to the students as well as about climate change and the loss of biodiversity which in truth reinforce each other. Economists tend not to have any idea of climate change - they seem to close their eyes and ears to the reality. You will appreciate that human-induced climate change is not a question of belief, but of science. The lower atmosphere has warmed, while the upper atmosphere has cooled. If the earth was warming because of solar radiation or sunspots or anything of that nature, the stratosphere as well as the troposphere would have warmed. You mention. that political shortsightedness. I am afraid that it is largely a matter of the wish not to anatgonise vested interests. I have spent over half a year writing a chapter about climate change obfuscation, including an introdyution to the subject on climate change science for a book on ethics for engineers. It has been sent to the publisher (Springer), but there is still no sign of the publication of the book having been announced. I don't even know the title of the forthcoming book - not very helpful! I trust members of FoW don't hold that facts are irrelevant. As to wisdonm in academia for me that is a matter of critical thinking and teaching students to do the same, irrespective of the subject concerned. I am now engaged in writing a short chapter on (loss of) biodiversity in the marine environment - and the fact that climate change and loss of biodiversity reinforce each other. All facts such as the fact that most toothpastes contain micro-pellets of different types of plastic to be more abrasive (this used to be wood) and how this greatly pollutes the marine environment - it gets into the food chain, as fish and/or birds gobble them up, as they look like fish eggs. Then human beings eat the fish. Just as well, I personally don't eat either meat or fish.
I am still not sure what this FoW campaign is aimed at. You cannot simply tell researchers and/or educators that they ought to be wiser in an unspecified vacuum, Any campaign requires a clearly defined goal,
Best wishes,
Wiebina
Dr W.Heesterman
23 Bryony Road
Birmingham B29 4BY
United KIngdom
Tel (0044)(0)121 475 6967
Email: [log in to unmask]
www.rediscovering sustainability.org.uk
Making better use of what we already have
From: David Williams <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Friday, 11 July 2014, 16:38
Subject: Campaign for Wisdom Enquiry
Hi Wiebena,
I am sure there are not easy answers to the questions you raised. But here are a few thoughts that we had when dealing with similar problems to yours with Climate Change Policy.
1. Politicians in general, find it very difficult/ impossible to be strategic/wise. In the democratic world all the pressures for re-election necessarily make short-termism a prerogative. They also need to be seen to be active and decisive , so a period of contemplation or even uncertainty is seen as weak. ( A vision might be intellectually attractive but it is the economy that gets the votes!). My suspicion is that you do not become a politician if you are naturally inclined to be reflective and analytical ... more the area of the introvert. Probably China and possibly Japan and Germany are the only countries that I can think of that seem to have a stronger culture for long term planning (wise governance).
2. In a world forum, I believe that these problems are amplified. Power resides with the nation states, and however rational an approach may be if any individual nations ( or their electorate) don't like it ... well generally they just don't do it.
3. Meetings with large numbers of people ( greater than 7) may be good for communicating, but they never work as a forum for detailed analysis of problems.
Tough challenges for us there.
Good leaders would recognise that there is a deficiency in this area and make sure the resources, system and power is in place to balance this problem. .... We just need good world leaders.
Probably not helped you, Wiebena, no real answers but just a few thoughts off the top of my head.
I will send a separate email on our thoughts on Climate Change. I feel that it is a classic demonstration of the lack of wisdom in the world's response. I will definitely read your book.
As for the best approach, I agree with you that we need to be realistic in what we can achieve and what influence we can have. Academia seems a good first step and splitting it down into separate specialisations is pragmatic as we probably know the key people, institutions, publications etc. in our own fields.
My best,
David
Dr David Williams
The Institute of Education: Number 1 worldwide for Education, 2014 QS World University Rankings
|