Whitchurch, Celia

English

Institute of Education EPrints

Whitchurch,  C.  (2007).  “Beyond  Boundaries  –  Finding  a  New  Vocabulary” 
(Endnote). Higher Education Quarterly 61(3): 406-408.
Beyond Boundaries – Finding a New Vocabulary
Celia Whitchurch
Visiting Research Fellow
Department of Management
School of Social Science and Public Policy
King’s College London
As the incoming Associate Editor of Higher Education Quarterly, I was struck by how 
many of the presentations at the 2006 SRHE Conference demonstrated the ongoing 
search  for  a  vocabulary  capable  of  supporting  discourses  at,  and  beyond, 
conventionally  understood  boundaries  in  higher  education.  The  diversification  of 
working arrangements and identities means that, increasingly, existing descriptors no 
longer fit, and new ones need to be found. At the most basic level, for instance, it is 
difficult to count, or categorise, different groupings of staff and students (they may 
even merge) within available classifications, and there is a vast literature on what it 
means in professional terms to be an academic.
The  inadequacy  of  existing  terminologies  was  illustrated  at  the  conference,  for 
instance,  in  the  “crude  nomenclature”  available  to  describe  the  multi-level 
programmes  now available  in  “comprehensive”  institutions  straddling  further  and 
higher education (Bruce Macfarlane); in the need to promote understandings of the 
“entrepreneurial  university”  to include niche teaching for under-served markets,  as 
well as traditional ideas of technology transfer (Paul Temple);  and in the different 
perceptions  arising  of  senior  institutional  decision-makers  (do  they  constitute  a 
“group” or a “team”?) (Steve Woodfield).   In a sector that is both expanding and 
diversifying,  the  search  for  increasingly  nuanced  language  to  drive  forward 
understandings of roles and identities at the interstices of university life is unlikely to 
abate. 
Descriptors are required that are permissive enough to accommodate diversity,  and 
yet accurate enough to convey the nature of emerging territories, acknowledging that 
the  latter  may straddle  academic,  professional  staff  and practitioner  roles.  This  is 
something that is being addressed on a daily basis by both academics and managers, 
and  was  reflected  across  the  many  areas  of  debate  at  the  conference  about,  for 
instance, professional practice and development; the changing profiles and needs of 
students;  cross-disciplinary  activity;  links  between  policy  and  practice;  the 
relationship  between universities  and other  professional  arenas;  and the  university 
itself as a workspace. In a weakly contextualised environment, therefore, a language 
is  sought  that  can  accommodate  difference,  as  well  as  associated  uncertainties, 
relativities,  expectations and possibilities.  The conference amply demonstrated that 
new discourses are not only challenging assumptions, but re-defining the components 
of the higher education enterprise in ways that extend and re-draw existing categories 
and  classifications.  They  are  also  spawning  new  knowledges,  technologies, 
relationships, dialogues and connectivities. As pointed out by Sally Johnstone in her 
opening address, where does My Space fit into emerging vocabularies relating to the 
learning environment?
At a philosophical level, Steve Fuller, in his keynote address, pointed to the historical 
debate  about  whether  teaching  and  research  should  be  conducted  separately  or 
together, asking “on what terms do you integrate?” He saw an overarching role for the 
contemporary university in capturing and delivering knowledge for the public good 
(rather than for the sole advantage of those who have funded or even produced it), 
whether or not that knowledge originated in the university. By constantly re-working 
new knowledges into curricula, institutions enable beneficiaries to engage critically 
with, and develop, that knowledge. An essential role of the university, therefore, is in 
the articulation of knowledge in the public sphere: in translation as well as discovery. 
Furthermore, as illustrated by Stephen Rowland, trans-disciplinary modes of activity, 
by  creating  new  fields  of  ‘Mode  2’  knowledge-in-practice,  transcend  existing 
boundaries  to  focus  on  super-ordinate  problems  and  issues.  Such  developments 
require new forms of language, often out-with the frame of root disciplines. Thus, at 
institutional and sub-institutional levels, individuals are continually re-defining what 
they do, how they might describe this, and how it might be articulated and explained 
to  an  ever-widening  audience  of,  for  instance,  potential  students,  collaborative 
partners and funding agencies. 
It was evident at the conference that a significant start has been made in finding new 
and convincing vocabularies for activities that are increasingly taking place beyond 
boundaries in higher education. These included novel ways of describing emergent 
spaces: “a new academic literacy”  linking the development  of staff, organisational 
features,  and academic  practice  (Paul  Blackmore);  a  “braid/plait”  model  of  work-
based  learning  (Pamela  Irwin);  a  “sally  port”  between  the  university  and  the 
community fostering civic engagement; a “Reinvention Centre” connecting research, 
learning  and  teaching  at  undergraduate  level  (Cath  Lambert  and  Elisabeth 
Simbuerger); as well as a “remak[ing of] connections” between research into higher 
education and policy making (William Locke). As pointed out by David Boud, “in 
between”  space  provides  new  opportunities,  and  the  conference  showed  that 
conceptual domains are being created that use boundaries increasingly permissively, 
and not simply as defining or classificatory constructs. For instance, what one person 
might describe as “learning”, another might see as routine interaction with colleagues, 
or even as recreation.  Moreover,  the language used to describe interstitial  activity 
within and across boundaries is itself, of necessity, in a state of flux. It therefore has a  
provisionality about it, in that it is valid for the time being, as knowledge and practice 
develop and re-form, with the possibility that they may, or may not, consolidate and 
develop boundaries of their own. 
Thus, while the number of papers at the conference demonstrated that research into 
higher education is thriving, there is also substantial evidence of the development of a 
language with which this activity may be communicated in a dynamic way to the 
university’s expanding constituencies. This out-turn may,  therefore, offer a note of 
optimism  in  relation  to  Ronald  Barnett’s  comments  about  the  potential  for  a 
“splintering of the academy”, reported on the front page of the Times Higher on 15 
December 2006. I hope that, as these new discourses develop, they will continue to 
find expression in the pages of the Society’s journal, the Higher Education Quarterly. 


Endnote: Beyond Boundaries – Finding a New Vocabulary

UCL Discovery

Whitchurch,  C.  (2007).  “Beyond  Boundaries  –  Finding  a  New  Vocabulary” (Endnote). Higher Education Quarterly 61(3): 406-408.Beyond Boundaries – Finding a New VocabularyCelia WhitchurchVisiting Research FellowDepartment of ManagementSchool of Social Science and Public PolicyKing’s College LondonAs the incoming Associate Editor of Higher Education Quarterly, I was struck by how many of the presentations at the 2006 SRHE Conference demonstrated the ongoing search  for  a  vocabulary  capable  of  supporting  discourses  at,  and  beyond, conventionally  understood  boundaries  in  higher  education.  The  diversification  of working arrangements and identities means that, increasingly, existing descriptors no longer fit, and new ones need to be found. At the most basic level, for instance, it is difficult to count, or categorise, different groupings of staff and students (they may even merge) within available classifications, and there is a vast literature on what it means in professional terms to be an academic.The  inadequacy  of  existing  terminologies  was  illustrated  at  the  conference,  for instance,  in  the  “crude  nomenclature”  available  to  describe  the  multi-level programmes  now available  in  “comprehensive”  institutions  straddling  further  and higher education (Bruce Macfarlane); in the need to promote understandings of the “entrepreneurial  university”  to include niche teaching for under-served markets,  as well as traditional ideas of technology transfer (Paul Temple);  and in the different perceptions  arising  of  senior  institutional  decision-makers  (do  they  constitute  a “group” or a “team”?) (Steve Woodfield).   In a sector that is both expanding and diversifying,  the  search  for  increasingly  nuanced  language  to  drive  forward understandings of roles and identities at the interstices of university life is unlikely to abate. Descriptors are required that are permissive enough to accommodate diversity,  and yet accurate enough to convey the nature of emerging territories, acknowledging that the  latter  may straddle  academic,  professional  staff  and practitioner  roles.  This  is something that is being addressed on a daily basis by both academics and managers, and  was  reflected  across  the  many  areas  of  debate  at  the  conference  about,  for instance, professional practice and development; the changing profiles and needs of students;  cross-disciplinary  activity;  links  between  policy  and  practice;  the relationship  between universities  and other  professional  arenas;  and the  university itself as a workspace. In a weakly contextualised environment, therefore, a language is  sought  that  can  accommodate  difference,  as  well  as  associated  uncertainties, relativities,  expectations and possibilities.  The conference amply demonstrated that new discourses are not only challenging assumptions, but re-defining the components of the higher education enterprise in ways that extend and re-draw existing categories and  classifications.  They  are  also  spawning  new  knowledges,  technologies, relationships, dialogues and connectivities. As pointed out by Sally Johnstone in her opening address, where does My Space fit into emerging vocabularies relating to the learning environment?At a philosophical level, Steve Fuller, in his keynote address, pointed to the historical debate  about  whether  teaching  and  research  should  be  conducted  separately  or together, asking “on what terms do you integrate?” He saw an overarching role for the contemporary university in capturing and delivering knowledge for the public good (rather than for the sole advantage of those who have funded or even produced it), whether or not that knowledge originated in the university. By constantly re-working new knowledges into curricula, institutions enable beneficiaries to engage critically with, and develop, that knowledge. An essential role of the university, therefore, is in the articulation of knowledge in the public sphere: in translation as well as discovery. Furthermore, as illustrated by Stephen Rowland, trans-disciplinary modes of activity, by  creating  new  fields  of  ‘Mode  2’  knowledge-in-practice,  transcend  existing boundaries  to  focus  on  super-ordinate  problems  and  issues.  Such  developments require new forms of language, often out-with the frame of root disciplines. Thus, at institutional and sub-institutional levels, individuals are continually re-defining what they do, how they might describe this, and how it might be articulated and explained to  an  ever-widening  audience  of,  for  instance,  potential  students,  collaborative partners and funding agencies. It was evident at the conference that a significant start has been made in finding new and convincing vocabularies for activities that are increasingly taking place beyond boundaries in higher education. These included novel ways of describing emergent spaces: “a new academic literacy”  linking the development  of staff, organisational features,  and academic  practice  (Paul  Blackmore);  a  “braid/plait”  model  of  work-based  learning  (Pamela  Irwin);  a  “sally  port”  between  the  university  and  the community fostering civic engagement; a “Reinvention Centre” connecting research, learning  and  teaching  at  undergraduate  level  (Cath  Lambert  and  Elisabeth Simbuerger); as well as a “remak[ing of] connections” between research into higher education and policy making (William Locke). As pointed out by David Boud, “in between”  space  provides  new  opportunities,  and  the  conference  showed  that conceptual domains are being created that use boundaries increasingly permissively, and not simply as defining or classificatory constructs. For instance, what one person might describe as “learning”, another might see as routine interaction with colleagues, or even as recreation.  Moreover,  the language used to describe interstitial  activity within and across boundaries is itself, of necessity, in a state of flux. It therefore has a  provisionality about it, in that it is valid for the time being, as knowledge and practice develop and re-form, with the possibility that they may, or may not, consolidate and develop boundaries of their own. Thus, while the number of papers at the conference demonstrated that research into higher education is thriving, there is also substantial evidence of the development of a language with which this activity may be communicated in a dynamic way to the university’s expanding constituencies. This out-turn may,  therefore, offer a note of optimism  in  relation  to  Ronald  Barnett’s  comments  about  the  potential  for  a “splintering of the academy”, reported on the front page of the Times Higher on 15 December 2006. I hope that, as these new discourses develop, they will continue to find expression in the pages of the Society’s journal, the Higher Education Quarterly. 

http://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/10002031/1/Whitchurch2007BeyondBoundaries406.pdf

Endnote: Beyond Boundaries – Finding a New Vocabulary

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Institute of Education EPrints

UCL Discovery