Eppert & Scott Reflection
Oct. 27, 2010
Brad McDiarmid
Upon reading the Eppert paper, the strong theme of questioning and one’s responsibility around questioning, especially of “others” became very apparent. As I read on, I began to think of the responsibilities that a teacher has with respect to the act of questioning. Teachers use questioning as a form of assessment. Teachers use questioning as a method to gain insight into the lives of the children in their charge. It is with these types of inquiry (questioning) that a teacher is drawn into an“other” (not a typo) and an“other” is drawn into them. It is with this coming together of the “others” where each person’s responsibility is heightened. To question as Eppert states, is to enter into a dialogue with the “other”. Once we question, we commit to know, to understand and to learn from the “other”. This is then the charge of the teacher. A charge that mustn’t be taken lightly. Why does the teacher ask a question of the “other” if they are not committed to attaining an answer? Can as Eppert suggests, even come to terms with an answer? What I do know and teach myself is that questioning is an art form that teachers must master as they commence teaching and is a skill that the must continue to hone over years of practice.
Questioning, the relationships and the responsibilities that go along with it, are paramount for the researcher as well. As I look at my research area, the only way that I can reach the answers to the questions I have is through the direct questioning of people. By entering into a dialogue with the very people I plan to study, observe and then write about. The ability to commit to the “other” will be of paramount importance to me in a phenomenological study.
Eppert continues on in her paper and makes a poignant point when she speaks about “difficult freedom” where, “we find ourselves free only to the extent that we are infinitely and absolutely responsible for others before ourselves” (Eppert, p. 222). Teachers and researchers are faced with this “difficult freedom” in their classrooms and research everyday. This “difficult freedom” is something that must be accepted as part of the package of being a teacher and a researcher.
In Scott’s paper on the “mission” of universities, we once again are shown how universities and education has been influenced by the church, the state and much more recently and now continually by corporations. The historical perspectives outlined in his paper are important for me with respect to the foundation they provide for the challenges that contemporary universities face. Challenges such as the infusion of technology and that of societies (the “knowledge society”) lust for information is forcing universities to rethink how they address pedagogy and learning. Not only does technology and information pose challenges in teaching, they also and equally pose challenges for researchers. Scott outlines the issues of intellectual property, technology transfer as well as competition as new challenges that researchers face. How then does the researcher (me) find the correct balance, as Scott states, between …”academic freedom and the forces of control from business, government and the university administration” that this technology and “knowledge society” pose? How does a researcher, scholar and teacher function? I think that finding this “balance” with respect to academic freedom is something that the modern day scholar will have to wrestle with throughout his or her career and more specifically, my career. At this point, I am not sure I have an answer.
Lastly, I would like to address the notion of the “multiversity”. Where is the balance between teaching, researching and service found if everyone is competing for money? If research and teaching have become so complicated that we can’t focus on any one thing and do an excellent job at that thing? Do we then lose the true spirit of what we as teachers and researchers are ultimately trying to accomplish? How can we be everything to everyone? With everything that Scott and Eppert have discussed in their respective papers, where do we find time to cultivate a personal relationship with a significant “other”. Do we then as academics resolve ourselves to a marriage with books, academia and “other” peoples’ children? If we have had all these “missions” over the history of universities, where is the “mission” to ourselves and to what we love? Does service to “others” outweigh our own needs? Maybe then, this the true “Mission Impossible?
Respectfully,
Brad
No comments:
Post a Comment