Introduction
This study looks at how education can fit into the wider knowledge business, by learning new ways of serving demand for new kinds of competency…
Education is in the knowledge business, since it is primarily concerned with the transmission of knowledge of the kind which fills text-books and is the object of tests and examinations. The knowledge that forms the content of the traditional curriculum is not the focus of this study, which is more concerned with the nature and development of the professional knowledge and under- standing of the processes of teaching and learning and the ways in which these will develop and change in the knowledge economy, where education has an enhanced role. The new demands on education systems take different forms.
Schools, colleges and universities are now expected to teach their clients more effectively and more efficiently: students spend longer in formal education but must achieve higher levels of learning in shorter times and at lower costs. Infor- mal learning outside the school and workplace is often neglected, yet, when properly harnessed, it complements, and contributes to, formal learning.
Though education serves wider social and personal goals than preparation for work, how knowledge acquired in formal contexts and on-the-job training con- tribute to effectiveness in the workplace needs to be better understood. More- over, in the knowledge economy students need to learn how to learn and how to manage their own learning, which amounts to a new form of curriculum designed to support “lifelong learning”. Educationists will thus have to learn how to create new knowledge about their business and how to apply it suc- cessfully in new and very uncertain conditions. The innovations required to meet these demands depend upon an improved understanding of how new knowledge is produced, mediated and applied in order to enhance the overall effectiveness of the education system.
… and examining how in general terms and in specific sectors knowledge is produced, mediated and used, from which educationists may gain insights.
In the opening chapter knowledge was analysed in terms of different types.
The processing of knowledge can also be analysed under different headings: how it is created or produced; how it is mediated or transported from its source to other actors or locations; and how it is used or applied to achieve some practical goal. These processes are complex and not well understood. A comparative study of the production, mediation and use of knowledge in different sectors was there- fore undertaken to achieve two purposes: first, to illuminate the general nature of these processes in modern economies; and secondly, to clarify how knowledge has hitherto been produced, mediated and used in the education sector and to sug- gest how these might need to be changed in an education system adapted to meeting the demands of knowledge economies and learning societies. Education systems are increasingly linked to a range of occupational sectors that are coping with problems of knowledge and learning. From the study of how these other sectors handle such problems, edu- cationists may gain insights into the limitations of their present knowledge about
38
the process of education, about what new knowledge is likely to be needed, about how knowledge is successfully managed, and about the new partner- ships, strategic alliances, and networks that will probably be required in soci- eties committed to lifelong learning.
Of the sectors chosen: The three selected sectors are engineering, health and information and communication technology (ICT):
– engineering illustrates technology transfer…
– Engineering offers a “classical” model of technology transfer, how scien- tific knowledge is generated and then applied in industry to manufac- ture new goods. Does this model really work in engineering? Can it be used to understand equivalent processes in other sectors, including education?
– health, a professionalised sector under pressure…
– Health professionals, like education professionals, have been under pressure in recent times to improve their knowledge-base to enhance the quality and cost-effectiveness of their services to clients with rising expectations and understanding of modern medicine. Have teachers anything useful to learn from doctors?
– and ICT, a rapidly innovating sector and one on which other sectors draw.
– Information and communication technologies are selected because they serve a double function. They merit investigation in their own right, for here is a field in which the production, mediation and appli- cation of knowledge must be achieved with speed and efficiency if high-tech firms are to survive commercially. Such firms should provide powerful insights into the nature of successful innovation. At the same time, most other sectors, including education, health and engineering, now draw upon ICT as a means of disseminating or mediating their own sectoral knowledge, and thereby transform some traditional means by which knowledge has been created and diffused. Do the new technol- ogies offer lessons to medicine and education, either in suggesting a different model for the production, mediation and use of knowledge, or because they now play a new and distinctive role in almost every contemporary sector where knowledge has to be created, dissemi- nated and applied?
Each sector is itself heterogeneous, but the analysis focuses on knowledge-intensive parts of them.
It also takes account of inter-sector cultural differences.
Each of the selected sectors is highly diverse in its composition. The differences between primary and secondary education in schools, and between schools and vocational colleges and large universities, which severely limit generalisations that might be made about the changing nature of teaching and learning in learning economies, are mirrored by the internal differentiation in the fields of medicine and engineering. Medicine is differentiated into the core medical and surgical specialities, each of which has many sub-specialities, and there are obvious differences between general medical practitioners and specialists working in hospitals.
Engineering similarly has many branches. In this chapter the focus is on the knowledge-intensive aspects of medicine and “high tech” engineering, and on the knowledge-intensive fields which link the two sectors, such as phar- maceuticals and biotechnology. ICT is self-evidently knowledge-intensive.
The sectors also vary in the extent to which cultural factors influence how knowledge is conceptualised and used: the cultural loading is probably greatest in education and at it lowest, but still far from negligible, in high- tech industries, with medicine falling between the two. All these differ- ences affect comparisons between the sectors and lessons that may be drawn from such comparisons.
39
The model of knowledge processes within sectors is changing, and is not always based
on knowledge creation followed by application in a linear fashion…
The previous chapter explored developments in conceptions of knowl- edge. A theme running through this chapter is the changing models, in both the analytic and prescriptive sense, of the production, mediation and application of these various forms of knowledge that operate in different sectors. Indeed, the very way in which the phenomena are stated implies a linear model: first there is the production or creation of knowledge; this is followed by its media- tion (dissemination, transfer) from its source to recipients; and finally the knowledge is then used or applied (Figure 1). There have been some out- standing successes of knowledge creation and application that conform to the linear model, not least where the knowledge has been produced in a university and then successfully applied in industry. At the same time, the linear model has sometimes failed: knowledge production has not been followed by suc- cessful application.
… first because in each of seven processes such a model can fail…
As the discussion will reveal, there are two main problems with this model.
First, the linear model is a complex sequence embracing at least seven com- plex processes, in each of which a variety of factors can cause the model to fail.
The processes, and their associated problems, are:
1) Production
The circumstances under which individuals, groups or organisations suc- cessfully generate new knowledge and practices are still only partially understood.
2) Validation
Knowledge, once created, has to be shown to be valid by some criterion.
This process takes different forms in different sectors. In industry there is a commercial element: if a product sells, that is a form of validation. At the same time, new knowledge may be validated by science, and there may be a pragmatic approach that some new technology “works” even though no scientific explanation is available. In the pharmaceutical industry there has been a shift from the pragmatic approach (the trial-and-error search for a drug that works on a disease) to a more scientific one (understanding the disease and then designing a drug for it). Pragmatic validation some- times applies in medicine: exactly how anaesthetics make us unconscious is not fully understood, but this has not inhibited their constant applica- tion by anaesthesiologists. Parallel examples abound in engineering, where the technology often precedes the science, as in aircraft design (Nelson, 1993). In education, very few professional practices are grounded in science. The dominant form of validation is pragmatic: teachers do what they find will work. Here, however, the science has rarely followed success- ful technology.
Figure 1. A linear model
Knowledge production
Knowledge mediation
Knowledge application
Figure 1. A linear model
Knowledge production
Knowledge mediation
Knowledge application
40
3) Collation
Within an area (e.g. the development of a new product, a fresh teaching strategy, the successful management of a rare disease) a corpus of knowl- edge of what is known has to be collated and set out in a codified form. In different sectors, the obstacles to collation may vary, as may techniques for removing such obstacles.
4) Dissemination
There are many forms of this diffusion, e.g.:
– By the media (books, magazines/journals, films, etc.).
– By courses provided for professionals.
– Personal contact as the mediator.
Each of which has the potential to distort the new knowledge or obstruct its communication. The character of the new knowledge, or of the actors and organisations involved, or the process of communication, may all impede dissemination.
5) Adoption
There has to be a reason or incentive why a profession or organisation should be willing to adopt disseminated knowledge or practices, since more often than not adoption means giving up an existing practice, one that the new practice will displace. New knowledge and practices may be successfully diffused, i.e. made known to their target audience, but then for a range of reasons are often not adopted.
6) Implementation
Adoption is a necessary but far from sufficient condition for the applica- tion of new knowledge or practice. Adoption involves a willingness to change, but a wide range of barriers may impede successful implementa- tion, e.g.:
– Lack of opportunity to implement.
– Practical problems and constraints e.g. inadequate resources, time.
– Lack of social support to sustain commitment.
7) Institutionalisation
This is perhaps the most complex process, for it involves the knowledge or practice moving from being an innovation to becoming a sustained, rou- tine practice that is accepted as “normal”. An innovation is not institution- alised until it endures beyond the time/presence of those who originally adopted it.
… second, because they do not in practice proceed sequentially, but there is feedback from one to another, suggesting an interactive rather than a linear model.
The second problem with the linear model is that these seven processes tend to be seen as stages. Not all the processes are necessarily involved in all cases of dissemination and application, nor do they by any means always fol- low in a neat sequence. In the linear model the processes take a logical order;
in practice, feedback loops and overlaps between the processes yield a dif- ferent sequence. Indeed, as von Hippel demonstrated in the 1970s, users may play a key, or even dominant, role in shaping innovation (summarised in von Hippel, 1988). So a more appropriate model is non-linear – interactive
41
(Lundvall, 1988) or iterative, “in which interdependence and interaction between the elements in the system is one of the most important characteristics”
(Edquist, 1997). In these models (Figure 2), the three basic processes can influ- ence one another and different actors contribute to these interactions at various points in time. The terminology “production, mediation and use” of knowledge in this chapter should not be interpreted as a commitment to linearity.
Indeed, this chapter will demonstrate how non-linear models have become important in each of the three sectors. The issues in, and models of, the production, mediation and dissemination of knowledge in each of the three sectors are now examined in turn, beginning with teaching. The sectors are then compared and contrasted in order to illuminate developments in the professions in the knowledge economy, with special reference to education.
Knowledge in the education sector
Knowledge about teaching is obscure and disputed; there is thus no consensus about how teachers should be trained or about the role of educational research.
It is perhaps one of the great ironies of the teaching profession that whilst formal education is patently a knowledge-intensive activity, the nature of the knowledge-base of those charged with responsibility for it is both obscure and a constant subject of debate. This has two important consequences. First, there is lack of agreement within and between countries about the content, structure and length of initial teacher training and the continuing professional development of teachers. Secondly, the direction, quality and value of research and development in education is increasingly questioned.
Specialised teachers tend to be trained in their speciality;
generalists
in the “foundation”
disciplines of education…
Where the content of the teacher’s knowledge is highly specialised, namely in upper secondary and higher education, professional competence is com- monly held to lie in mastery of that specialised subject. At least until recently, little attention has been given to the university teacher’s teaching skills – indeed, there is normally no need for a university teacher to obtain a qualifica- tion as a teacher. When the content of the teacher’s knowledge has a relatively small specialised element, as with early years teachers, where the content has been traditionally defined as basic literacy and numeracy plus elementary social skills, the training has focused on pedagogy rather than curriculum content. For such teachers, some form of qualification is regarded as essential, but much of the content of training has in the last thirty years consisted of the study of the
Figure 2. An interactive model
Knowledge application Knowledge
mediation
Knowledge production
Figure 2. An interactive model
Knowledge application Knowledge
mediation
Knowledge production
42
disciplines that inform professional practice – psychology, sociology, philoso- phy, usually called the foundation disciplines of education.
… which are not based on the study of education itself…
The academic study of education, and associated educational research, has thus been deeply informed by these disciplines, most of whose content did not arise from the study of educational phenomena or problems, but from the concepts, theories and research that preoccupy the “mainstream” practi- tioners of these three disciplines. Psychologists are more interested in learn- ing and memory than in formal education; sociologists have studied many types of organisation, only a minority of which are schools and universities; and whilst an important branch of philosophy is epistemology, only parts of it deal with children’s knowledge, its nature and acquisition.
… and multi-disciplinary study does not tend to lead to an integrated cross-disciplinary framework for studying education.
University Schools of Education, like other professional schools (architec- ture, medicine, engineering, social work, social administration), deal with a field of study rather than a single discipline and the academic staff come from different disciplines leading to an absence of a single overarching discipline or a shared conceptual framework. Though it is sometimes argued that this produces an inter-disciplinary context for the promotion of novel approaches to the phenom- ena in the field of study, the more common situation is one of multi-disciplinarity with relatively low levels of interaction or integration among academic staff from different disciplinary backgrounds, and as a consequence there is a rela- tively low level of intellectual and social integration among the academic staff.
Schools of Education tend to be staffed on the one hand by teaching specialists with experience of practice…
Although Schools of Education vary considerably in size, composition and function, in most there are two relatively distinctive groups or cultures. In the first, the orientation is to teacher education, usually to initial teacher training in particular but also to courses and higher degrees directed mainly at practis- ing teachers. The background of these academic staff is lengthy and distin- guished professional service in schools, with relatively little experience of the foundation disciplines of education (psychology, sociology, philosophy and history) or educational research. They think of themselves primarily as “educa- tors”, as teachers of teachers, a continuing part of the teaching profession, though based in higher education. They justify their existence in terms of their contribution to the improvement of the quality of teaching in schools and they write for professional journals read by practising teachers.
… and on the other by academic psychologists, sociologists and others in “foundation disciplines”…
The background of staff in the second group is likely to be in a foundation discipline, and sometimes without practical experience as a schoolteacher.
Their social identity revolves around their specialist discipline and they think of themselves as academics and researchers as well as (and sometimes rather than) teachers of teachers. They justify their existence in terms of their schol- arly achievements rather than their direct contribution to improving the quality of teaching in schools. They may write sometimes for professional journals, but see their most important writing as papers at academic conferences and arti- cles in scholarly books and journals.
… with optimism from the 1960s that the latter group could apply theoretical social science to education…
Thirty years ago there was considerable optimism about the potential of applying the social sciences to educational phenomena and problems and con- fidence that a science of teaching was being created. As the qualifications of teachers in primary education were raised, it was these subjects, not the subjects of the school curriculum, that were to provide the knowledge-base of teachers for subsequent application in the practice of teaching. Apprenticeship schemes moved into disfavour, since experienced practitioners in schools were unfamiliar with the theory and so could not help novices to apply it to innovative practice.
Old teachers, in short, could not be trusted with the training of new teachers.
43
… but in practice the irrelevance to every day teaching brought theories into disrepute…
Not surprisingly, perhaps, many trainee teachers have questioned the relevance of this “theory” to their professional practice. For most found the theory they learned in initial training very difficult to apply in practice. To sur- vive as new teachers, they adapted to the working culture of experienced teachers. “Theory” soon came to have negative connotations: research was seen by many teachers as largely incomprehensible and irrelevant to the solu- tion of their day-to-day problems.
… while at the same time political demands for educational improvement grew…
It is precisely this tension between theory and practice in teacher educa- tion, and between educational research and educational improvement, which has been highlighted by changing policy demands on the profession. For concurrently with the growth of the academic study of, and research into, edu- cation has been increasing political and public concern over educational
“standards” – the levels of students’ academic achievement and what reforms might be needed to improve the quality of educational provision. There have been two main consequences.
… with the result that, first, policy has made initial training more practice-based…
First, there has been a strong movement, led by politicians and policy makers, not university-based teacher educationists, towards increasing the extent to which both initial teacher training (as well as the continuing profes- sional development) should be school-based and shaped by experienced teachers. It is, in effect, a rehabilitation of the professional apprenticeship, which brings the training of teachers more into line with that of doctors and engineers. University-based educationists, who prefer to speak of teacher edu- cation rather than teacher training, construe these moves as the de-profession- alisation of teachers.
… and second, educational research is being at least reassessed, and at most derided as useless…
Secondly, educational research has come under very close scrutiny in sev- eral countries (McGaw et al., 1992; OECD, 1995; Kloprogge et al., 1995; Nisbet, 1995; OECD, 1995; Hargreaves, 1996; Hegarty, 1997; Hillage et al., 1998; Rudduck and McIntyre, 1998). Although all these reviews note the high quality of the best educational research, and although educational research has been more valued and used in some countries, such as Sweden, than in others, the overall tone is critical, as indicated in the following comments:
It is widely recognised that there are large lacunae between researchers and practitioners in education (OECD, 1995).
If the purpose of educational research is (…) to inform educational deci- sions and educational actions, then our overall conclusion is that the actions and decisions of policy-makers and practitioners are insufficiently informed by research (…). The lack of an effective dialogue and under- standing between researchers, policy-makers and practitioners is illus- trated by the fact that while most of the researchers felt that the balance of the research agenda was too skewed towards policy and practice, the practitioners and policy-makers thought the opposite (Hillage et al., 1998).
Educational research has not fulfilled its role in the effort to improve schools, perhaps because it runs into too much scepticism from practitio- ners and policy makers (Assistant Secretary for Educational Research and Improvement, US Department of Education in Finn, 1988).
Schools in the Netherlands hardly play a role in setting the research agenda (…). There is no lack of magazines and periodicals that regularly write about research. On the other hand, according to some surveys, only a small minority of teachers actually read educational periodicals (…) (Kloprogge et al., 1995).