June 19, 2023 • 59 mins
Full show notes: https://actionabletruth.substack.com/p/education-and-learning-post-pandemic
Dr. Ursula Edgington is an expert on adult education and independent researcher with publications, including peer reviewed scientific papers on teaching quality, academic identities, creative approaches to assessment strategies, and the emotional labour of teaching and learning in further and higher education. Ursula is passionate about fighting regulatory capture and setting up parallel structures that foster critical thinking and quality research, without censorship. In this episode we spoke about the issues and challenges in the education system as uncovered during the pandemic but also much sooner. Ursula provided insights based on her extensive expertise in this field on how these issues can be addressed and the reform needed in the education system as a whole.
Visit the website for more content and sign-up to the newsletter to have all investigations, articles, videos and podcast episodes delivered to your inbox as they are published.
Also check the private community and official merch store.
Dr. Ursula Edgington is an expert on adult education and independent researcher with publications, including peer reviewed scientific papers on teaching quality, academic identities, creative approaches to assessment strategies, and the emotional labour of teaching and learning in further and higher education. Ursula is passionate about fighting regulatory capture and setting up parallel structures that foster critical thinking and quality research, without censorship. In this episode we spoke about the issues and challenges in the education system as uncovered during the pandemic but also much sooner. Ursula provided insights based on her extensive expertise in this field on how these issues can be addressed and the reform needed in the education system as a whole.
Visit the website for more content and sign-up to the newsletter to have all investigations, articles, videos and podcast episodes delivered to your inbox as they are published.
Also check the private community and official merch store.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:10):
Hello everyone, and welcome to the Actionable Truth Podcast. I
am joined today by Ursula Edgington, an expert on adult education,
an independent researcher with publications including peer reviewed scientific papers
on teaching quality, academic identities, creative approaches to assessment strategies,
and the emotional labor of teaching and learning in further
(00:33):
and higher education. Ursula is passionate about fighting regulatory capture
and setting up parallel structures that foster critical thinking, equity,
research without censorship. Welcome to Actionable Truth, Ursula. Anything further
you'd like to hear about your background just before we
dive in.
Speaker 2 (00:51):
Thank you, Michael. It's a pleasure to beat to you again. No,
not really, other than I'm not a scientist at all,
a social scientist, so so sociological and psychological aspects of
education are really my my passionate you know, research topic
so that interesting.
Speaker 1 (01:14):
Are definitely sciences. So you're a scientist in my book ers.
Speaker 2 (01:19):
Thanks all right.
Speaker 1 (01:21):
So I guess speaking of science, I guess like the
first question for us to start with, and I think
it's really relevant to any field of science, is you know,
we often heard over the last couple of years about
you know, peer reviewed papers, peer reviewed scientific papers like
you know, trust the science, trust the scientific consensus, all
that sort of stuff.
Speaker 3 (01:41):
So I guess just to start with, maybe do a little.
Speaker 1 (01:44):
Bit of an introduction about how the peer review process
works in academia and maybe what you see are the
current weaknesses in that process.
Speaker 2 (01:54):
Yes, okay, so yeah, it's an interesting one. I've had
lots of different perspectives from different countries of the peer
review process. Obviously I'm not a scientist, as I say,
but the systems in place are basically the same. The
(02:14):
first thing to say is how long it usually takes.
You know, it takes months, sometimes over a year for
a good quality you know, what we call a high
impact journal. So that's a journal that has supposedly, up
until recently high levels of integrity and reach and credibility
(02:36):
in its discipline. So a high impact journal, it makes
a long long time for the article that you had
submitted to be accepted and to jump through the hopes
in terms of going out to anonymous peer reviewers, coming back,
going through the feedback process, making changes, resubmitting it may
(03:00):
be going through another peer review process. Sometimes the peer
reviewers who had previously looked at it are no longer available,
so it would have to go out to different peer
reviewers and then come back and then go through the
editorial processes, the editorial board, you know, and so that
whole toing and throwing and you know conversation, which can
(03:22):
be very positive actually, I mean it can you know,
on the positive side, it can add tremendously to the validity,
clarity and meaningfulness of any article that is published. But
I knew right from the word go. Really, I mean,
I ought to explain that I'm a late comer to
(03:43):
the to their world of academia or it was, I'm
not in that space anymore. But you know, I had
a previous commercial career, if you can call it that,
before I sort of re returned to education as a
mature student. And so whilst I was doing my original
(04:04):
undergraduate degree in the UK, I was working at the
university where I was studying. Partly because that was convenient
in terms of time spent between seminars in the evening
and working during the day, but also because obviously there
was a big push during that time. I'm not sure
what the political situation was in Australia at that time.
(04:28):
If you were there Michael Ban In the UK, there
was a I mean it was the Blair sort of era,
you know, education, education, education, you know, that was his motto,
and so the labor government at the time there was
a big footwards getting people into university, and people like me,
mature female, parmatypical working class background, you know, we were
(04:51):
primary targets really of upskilling the workforce. You know, so
there was various incentives for people like me to be
studying part time, especially if we were considering going into
you know, one of the vocations nursing, teaching, whatever, you know,
(05:14):
to have our fees paid or at least heavily subsidized,
you know, to start off at a new sort of
educational lifelong learning pathway. So anyway, whilst I was studying,
I was, as I say, working at the university I
was studying at, and I got to know some of
the hoops that these academics jumped through in terms of
(05:40):
basically plagiarizing their own work. You know that they would
they would have a publication something, an article already published
in one journal, and it would be relatively simple to
take that article rework it in a way that was
focused towards a different journal with a slightly different framework,
(06:02):
slightly different audience, and resubmit it there and claim, you know,
claim for the sake of the Brownie points that you
accumulated at your institution for for being such a great academic.
You know that that would that would if it was
published and if you were you know, a fairly high
ranking academic, chances are you it would be then you
(06:26):
know that would that would add to your cutos.
Speaker 3 (06:30):
So is that what's called preprint? Also?
Speaker 1 (06:32):
Is that what's referred to as pre print where you
can submit the same paper to multiple journals at the
same time, and only if one of them kind of
publishes it then you can't like submitted to another.
Speaker 3 (06:41):
Is that how it works?
Speaker 2 (06:42):
No, No, pre print, a pre print servery is totally different.
I mean, it's not something that I've generally used myself.
A preprint server. Pre print service basically evolved because of
the well partly because of this, you know, the length
time that I just described. You know, if people want
(07:03):
to get their research out there, you know, and read
by important people, they can't wait over a year for
it to be published. So if it's in a situation
where they know it would be published or it's going
through peer review. I mean, some journals, most of the
journals that I've dealt with in the past, have all
(07:24):
said that, you know, due to copyright purposes, we will
not be publishing anything that's been published elsewhere, including a
pre print server. So automatically that sort of cuts down
the number of outlets that you could potentially go on
to have it published. But then there's this ambiguous issue
(07:45):
about how similar the pieces of text are, because if
the text has been completely reviewed and changed, and you know,
it's got a different headed and it's the abstract or
the outcomes you know, are totally different from the original
creeprint version, then of course the journal is going to say, well,
(08:08):
we're basically considering that it is this, you know, it's
a completely new piece of work, and so on that basis,
that's what we will consider for peer review. But personally,
I was never really into messing around with the same
piece of text over and you know, reworking it so
often that you sort of lost track of what was
(08:30):
a repeat on what wasn't you know. That seemed to
me to be a bit of a waste of time.
But obviously, you know, it depends what discipline you're in
and what your objectives are of your research outcomes?
Speaker 1 (08:43):
Okay, yeah, okay, So the main takeaway that I'm taking
from this is mainly the fact that the peer review process.
Speaker 3 (08:50):
Can be very, very lengthy.
Speaker 1 (08:52):
Okay, so I guess doo related question first of all,
that that's pretty accurate?
Speaker 3 (08:56):
Is that pretty accurd? Yeah?
Speaker 1 (08:57):
Okay, so do related questions? That is, first of all,
is there are any way to expedite a process like
that while maintaining the rigor and quality of the process
in case, like you know, it's necessary, like for example,
health emergency.
Speaker 2 (09:15):
Yeah?
Speaker 3 (09:15):
Is there a way to do that? Or is that
just inherently impossible?
Speaker 2 (09:19):
Well, I mean, now you're getting onto, obviously areas that
are outside of my discipline, because I know, I mean,
I know that, for instance, the British Medical Journal has
a facility I think they call it rapid review letter
or something, so a rapid review article, rapid response, you
(09:41):
know words that effect will be basically an invitation to
bypass for some authors, probably not you know, your everyday author,
but some authors who are already you know, high ranking
in their particular discipline, for them to bypass some of
those processes and go directly to the editor in order
(10:02):
to publish something that they think is urgent. Now, obviously,
in my area of education, it's it's that's not generally
going to happen, you know, unless there's some sort of
catastrophe and all the education yet the universities, you know,
are bombed or something God a bid. You know, that's
not going to happen, So we wouldn't we wouldn't necessarily
(10:25):
need that. But I mean, as a sort of a
side issue to that, some of the processes involved in
investigating potential outlets for something that you have written would
be a look at the website of the journal to
get some indication of how long the time scales are,
(10:48):
you know, because some journals are very open and that
they would say, look, it's going to take at least
six months for us to acknowledge you, let alone anything else,
you know, and some some journals will say, you know,
we aim to have your paperback to you within six weeks,
so you know, again, that's all part of the sort
of investigation of being a researcher and an author and seeing,
(11:12):
you know, where do you want your stuff published, how
quickly do you want it published, how wide an audience,
do you want you know, all those kinds of questions
which you only really know through experience and speaking to
other colleagues and investigating you know, outlets yourself.
Speaker 1 (11:28):
So okay, all right, that that sounds yeah, that sounds
pretty clear. But I guess, you know, speaking of all
these journals, and this is pretty much a question that
I that I post everyone who's involved in academy in
any way, shape or form. I mean, with those journals,
how do they actually find themselves? Like, how do they
make money?
Speaker 3 (11:46):
How do they survive?
Speaker 2 (11:47):
And this is something that differentiates the funt the you know,
the medical journals from other other kind kinds of journals. Right,
So in two thousand and four you may have heard
asteem doctor Assim Malhotcha speak about this. In two thousand
and four, the editor of one of the most probably
(12:10):
the most you know, highly thought of medical journals, the
New England Journal of Medicine. The editor of that journal
resigned in disgust, basically, and she wrote a book called
The Truth about Drug Companies, which basically was an expose
of how the New England Journal of Medicine and other
(12:31):
similar medical journals are bought by a big farmer in
terms of, you know, we will fund you x amount
of million dollars on the basis that they're kind of
a subsidy. It's complicated because it's to do with the
access to the databases that the journals run. So in
(12:54):
order to access some of these articles, which are not
generally open access, the universities in particular subscribed to those
databases to get access to the supposedly, you know, scientifically
highly credible evidence.
Speaker 3 (13:15):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (13:17):
So the big farmer companies, they have a very good
strategy actually, which I witnessed back in the late eighties
early nineties, you know, when the Pfizer Viagra thing was
big in the marketplace where the you know, the the marketeers,
(13:38):
you know, they weren't trained medical professionals by any stretch
of the imagination, but they were salespeople, highly paid salespeople
who were basically given hard copies because that's what the
GPS wanted of some of the so called evidence based
(13:58):
peer reviewed articles, you know, to give out to the
GP surgeries to take taken them out for lunch or
champagne lunch or whatever. And it was a very effective
sales technique because if those gps took on board what
was in those papers. They only had to read the abstract,
(14:19):
they didn't have to read the whole thing. And then
they just went to their patients and said, oh, yeah,
you know, I've just actually had the latest update from
you know, the pharmaceutical companies themselves, you know, the horse's mouth,
and they've just done this wonderful, you know, mega clinical
(14:40):
trial and it's found that, you know, this particular treatment
is wonderfully effective, et cetera, et cetera. And and of course,
you know, everyone's happy, aren't they. The GP gets the
gets the you know, the medicine. He gets the kickback
in terms of the you know, the Commission on the
(15:05):
on the pharmaceutical Yeah.
Speaker 1 (15:08):
Yeah, so that's in regards to yeah, yeah, for for like, yeah,
basically for promoting a certain product, just like basically the
salespeople of that same company, which is a bit ridiculous
to put it mildly, but I guess so we know that, like,
you know, the situation is pretty murky when it comes
to like you new medical journals, medical scientific journals.
Speaker 3 (15:28):
How does that work for other fields?
Speaker 1 (15:29):
Like how would it work for like I'm through there's
plenty of journals, like, you know, around education, theory and
things like that, Like, you know, things in your field,
how would they fund themselves?
Speaker 2 (15:38):
How would they fund themselves? Were they all a lot
of them belong to the same kinds of databases. So
it's already captured in terms of having one one corporate
database which is profitable, and so it'll have lots of
different disciplines on the same database for the institutions. So yeah,
(16:02):
I mean there's no doubt that education it's a slight
it's still captured, but it's a slightly different kind of
regulatory capture because the the actual journals. I mean that
there's there's an element of resources, maybe software packages. I
(16:24):
mean you would be from your studied yourself, Michael, with
the virtual learning environments like Moodle, blackboard or Canvas, et cetera.
You know, they're all commercial companies, and there's no doubt
that there's an awful lot of articles out there claiming,
you know, X, y Z success with those pieces of
(16:46):
software that supposedly, you know, have fantastic learning outcomes for
the students, et cetera. Yeah, so it's slightly different in
the educational discipline. I think it's not it's not as
bad in some ways, but of course, the institutions themselves
(17:09):
are captured, so it's a slightly different environment. Yeah.
Speaker 1 (17:16):
Yeah, we'll get to the institutions themselves, but I guess
so just so that I understand.
Speaker 3 (17:20):
So, for example, it can happen.
Speaker 1 (17:21):
With the journal that like you know, like talking about
like you know, the theory of education or something like that.
They can potentially be approached by a commercial company that runs,
like you know, are remote education.
Speaker 3 (17:33):
That's basically their business, and they're saying.
Speaker 1 (17:35):
We'll pay for your access to the databases that you
need if you, you know, if you kind of give
preference to papers that show that basically remote education is
the business and the outcomes are superior to anything that
can be achieved in a classroom or face to face environment.
Speaker 3 (17:53):
Right.
Speaker 2 (17:53):
I think it comes before that because the actual research
itself is being funded, So it's not, of course the
thing between the commercial company and the journal. It's more
about the commercial interest of the actual research itself. And
then that is a way that it's because remember, you're
(18:15):
only going to get research proposals which tick certain boxes
in terms of being seen as useful. I mean, somebody
was saying this morning about the climate change issue, you know,
you've got a research proposal which has got the the
words climate change in the you know, in the title,
then instantly you know that's going to tick a certain
(18:37):
box in terms of the institutional objectives and so that
you know, that might by definition that might assist in
that particular fund being agreed or not.
Speaker 3 (18:57):
Yeah, yeah, I see what you're saying.
Speaker 1 (18:58):
So yeah, obviously we have we we have a bit
of a problem with the with the peer review process
and the whole structure of like these so called you know,
impartial academic journals. So that that's that, that's pretty clear.
But I guess, uh, the next kind of topic or
area that I want to move on from that is Okay,
obviously there's a lot of papers coming out from like,
you know, researchers, most of these researchers working in universities,
(19:22):
and then those universities their research doesn't impact just the papers,
but it also impacts what teachers then go ahead and
teach in schools.
Speaker 3 (19:31):
Right, So I.
Speaker 1 (19:32):
Mean, how how how does how does the preference that
the university might have because of commercial interest can then
kind of trickle down to what like you know, people
like you know, what kids are taught in school. Or
what high school kids are taught in school or even
like you know, even like as far back as like
even primary school potentially, I don't know.
Speaker 2 (19:52):
Yeah, good, good question. Okay, so lots of there's lots
of strands to that in an answer, but I mean,
starting at the one end would be the teachers that
are being taught. Remember, at the universities go out on
to comment, you know, as part of their work experience.
(20:13):
So they'll go out to the schools in the area
to do their work experience, and they're provided with resources
and a template for each lesson, etc. That has been
prescribed to them by the university staff. And so by
already you're at a disadvantage because it's already captured at
(20:36):
the very beginning. The resources that the university has been
given are probably nine times out of ten provided by
a commercial outfit which has its own conflicts of interest.
So the students wanting to be teachers have got all
the right. You know, I don't want to be negative
at all, because I've been there, you know, I've witnessed
(20:57):
it very very you know, credible, enthusiastic, intelligent individuals who
aspire to being very good teachers. But the only way
that they can be seen to be good teachers and
inverted commerce is by adhering to the rules that the
(21:18):
university has set down in their workplace. Do you see
what I mean? So they'll go out into the schools,
whether it's primary schools, secondary schools, colleges, or other institutions,
even the workplace. You know, I've been involved personally in
lots of workplace training as well, and it's it's it's
(21:40):
a prescribed curriculum in a that has to be delivered
in a in a very you know, relatively didactive, didactic way,
and it has that the outcomes have to be measurable,
they have to be observable. And this is what links
to my PhD work, you know, from over ten years ago.
(22:02):
You know how these things come back and haunt you.
You know, My argument when I was doing my PhD was,
how can in a college or a university environment, how
can anybody see and measure what is actually happening in
that classroom? Because I don't. I'm not a mister spot.
I can't put my hand on my student and somehow
(22:26):
have a merge of a brain cells and discover what
they've learned and what they haven't learned out of my lesson.
That's an impossibility, and so it becomes this flawed kind
of performance of what the teacher wants the observer to
see and what the students have to explicitly say or
(22:49):
what they have to explicitly show in order to you know,
tick the box in terms of what has been you know,
what has been successful about this particular session right here,
right now, not later tonight when you're in your dinner
and you think, oh, actually, yeah, I did have a
point about such and such. You know, I've thought about
that lesson and it's just occurred to me that you know,
(23:12):
that can't happen sense right here, right now, and it
has to be measurable in a way that the teacher, educator,
the observer or maybe even remember a surveillance camera, because
that's where we're very much headed to. It was just
starting when I left the UK, having cameras in every
(23:33):
classroom so that there could be some sort of big brother,
you know, head teacher overseeing that supposed learning outcome. You
know that was happening. Oh, that's it, you know, It's
like it's almost like a little firework has gone off
in the classroom. Hey, press a button. Did you know?
Learning has happened fantastic, you know, so you.
Speaker 1 (23:53):
Would actually have a camera inside the classroom that was
always on.
Speaker 2 (23:58):
Yeah, absolutely, that happened. That's happening now. And it's not
just not just about security, it's it's literally supposedly quality
assurance in terms of the teaching outcomes.
Speaker 1 (24:12):
Okay, So would it be accurate to say that kind
of like you know, obviously the universities they are the
one that, like, you know, the feedback from them is
eventually what the government uses to create the national curriculum
and then basically all the teachers are forced to teach
that would would that be the right way to say that.
Speaker 2 (24:30):
In a sort of a simplistic way, I suppose. I mean,
there are various threads that feed into policy that becomes curriculum,
and it's not it would be unfair to say that
it's just the universities because there's lots of different you know,
NGOs and think tanks and you know, other government organizations
(24:52):
that all have a certain objective, you know. And also
it's about priorities because you know, one thing that's really
happened obviously last ten twenty years in terms of a
change in the curriculum is less and less time for
students to be outside doing physical education or learning about
the environment, and much more time prioritized for you know,
(25:17):
academic work, whether it's writing or it, you know, anything
that's connected to numeracy. They know, the levels of numeracy
are dropping. So yeah, I mean there's less kind of
what we would call embedded learning, so students being outside
doing other stuff.
Speaker 3 (25:38):
Learning by doing Yeah.
Speaker 2 (25:41):
Yeah, it's a priority thing really, I think for me,
because there's not so much sort of overlap that it's
a creativity that's needed. You see, Michael, when you're when
you're a teacher and you're encouraged to use your autonomy
and your creativity and you, you know, in innovative ways,
(26:02):
then you kind of instinctively combine different kinds of topics
together to have a more comprehensive understanding, whereas over the
years the curriculum has been sort of dissected into artificial
little pigeonholes of oh, you'll do you know, comprehension here,
and you'll do orcy here and it there, and you know,
(26:24):
and it's just it's not the way the human brain
works in that sort of way.
Speaker 1 (26:30):
I think there's also been like a lot of focus
on and that's been like that for many, many years,
is I can say, for my personal experience, a lot
of focus on regurgitation. So basically, you have someone standing
in front of you delivering a certain message or piece
of material, and then sometimes you even have to outright
memorize that. And I'm sure you'll agree, I mean, the
human brain just doesn't work like that. I mean, if
(26:50):
we are forced to memorize something, we'll probably remember that
for the short period of time that we like, you know,
we need to kind of spit it out, but after
that we'll pretty much forget it straight away. I know
that how my brain works, So yeah, I mean, and
that that is, in my opinion, a fundamentally flawed way
of teaching anyone anything.
Speaker 2 (27:08):
Yes, And while we're on the subject of flawed understanding,
another thing that I've come across very often, much more
since I've been here in New Zealand over the last
ten years, is assessments that aren't actually testing understanding. So,
for instance, the students might come across a question which
asks them some subject subjective opinion, you know, like a
(27:32):
question might be in an exam, you know, describe all
ways that you think that this course has you know,
has added to your skills in X, Y, Z or whatever.
You know, So that's not actually that's not actually testing
anybody's understanding. It's asking for their opinion, and you know,
(27:56):
you know that the assessor is looking for basically confirmation
that that course has been a success. So it's almost
like asking for feedback, you know, with a with a
biased question and calling that an assessment of learning, which
which is totally unethical and totally flawed. Then it's just
(28:20):
it's based on a lot of it. It's based on misunderstanding,
to be honest, Michael, it's in my experience, it's just
that people who especially here in New Zealand, people who
have been involved in teacher education have not had any
adult education training. You know, so if they might have
taught at schools, but that doesn't necessarily give them the
(28:43):
skills that they need to understand, you know, relatively complex
educational theory, especially in assessment techniques, that allows them to
really sort of engage with their adult audience, you know,
to first of all establish what their audience is, you know,
because we all come from a different context and a
(29:05):
different background. You know, one of the primary issues, isn't
it of whenever you're sat in front of an audience
is find out what the audience knows first, you know
why they are and so you know, so many times
the the academics that I've witnessed have have got no
idea how to engage with their audience. And actually somehow,
(29:30):
you know, because there's there's so much depth of knowledge
and understanding in a room, sometimes, why wouldn't you take
advantage of those perspectives and that expertise. You know, it
seems it seems very unusual for me to witness that
over and over again, very very strange. Not normal, yeah.
Speaker 3 (29:51):
Very much.
Speaker 1 (29:52):
It seems like a very kind of very much like
a one size fits all approach, which we know doesn't
work really in any field, definitely not in a field
that life is one hundred percent like you know, interaction
with humans like education, I mean, one size fits all
approach wouldn't even work in programming, you know, in in
like you know, working with machines, so I mean working
with humans.
Speaker 3 (30:11):
It just like it sounds completely preposterous to me, I
guess you know.
Speaker 1 (30:16):
I mean, we we've we've this kind of touched previously
on a little bit on on the universities and how they,
like you know, they kind of work through like you know,
different research interests and different research priorities. I kind of
want to move like focus a little bit more on
that and get a bit of a better understanding of
how a universe can kind of force.
Speaker 3 (30:39):
A particular narrative or particular.
Speaker 1 (30:43):
Research outcome or research interest on on on on the
different researchers or the different academics that work within that university.
So I mean, you you you've had a little bit
of experience with that, and and I'd love to hear, like,
you know, more about how that actually happens.
Speaker 2 (30:58):
Yeah, So this is something that I'm trying to sort
of write about at the moment, so basically at the
very beginning before any research is conducted. And you might
have experienced this personally, Michael. In your time at university,
a research student is often asked, even an under undergrad level,
(31:19):
a student is often asked to choose a topic for
an essay or thesis. You know, you imagine having you know,
relatively free reign on a topic of investigation, and so
the student will go away think about that for a
little while. What is of interest to them why they
want to investigate it and what would be the best
(31:40):
way to investigate it, And they'll come back to their
due till the lecturer and say, right here we go,
here's a proposal. And if that proposal does not fit
the way that that particular academic wants to it, I mean,
if it's I suppose each thesis and each essay like
(32:05):
that is seen as an opportunity, you know, because all
the time, at the back of the mind of a
staff at the university is how am I going to
progress my career? You know, this is a very competitive environment.
It's always about not only getting the right student outcomes,
you know, getting the student fees in the bank, but
(32:26):
it's also about creating these articles that need to be published,
putting out the research grant applications, hopefully getting some successful
grant money in. And so every interaction with every member
of staff or student is kind of there's a subtext
to it of how am I going to get what
(32:49):
I need out of this particular thing. So, going back
to that research student who might be submitting their proposal,
if that proposal is somehow thought of as not along
the lines of perhaps where a potential research grant opportunity
might lie or might go against something that the university
(33:12):
already stands for, you know, might be a little bit
too controversial, or in any other way sort of is
you know, not entirely along the lines of the political
narrative of the day. Then that will be you know,
rejected out of hand, and or it might be manipulated.
You know, the lecturer might say, well, actually that's not
(33:33):
really acceptable, but have you thought about this? You know,
And because the student, you know, they beggars can't be choosers,
the student can't necessarily say, well, hang on a minute, no,
this is what I want to investigate, and it is actually,
you know, my investigation, so that's what I'm going to do.
The student, nine times out of tenant are very beholden
to the institution. They don't want to you know, apart
(33:56):
from the fact that there's this power relationship. Student doesn't
necessarily want to upset their professor or their senior, you know,
so they won't feel as if they can maybe question
what is being told to them. Some of these students, obviously,
if they're international students, they'll be reliant upon their student
(34:19):
status to stay in the country. So yeah, you know,
there's lots of different power relationships going on there which
prevent a lot of students from pursuing the topic of
investigation that they want to. So that's the first sort
of layer of filtering out of anything that's noise. You know,
have you've seen.
Speaker 1 (34:39):
That ever happen, like personally, like a specific example that
maybe you can give.
Speaker 2 (34:44):
I've experienced that both as a lecturer and as a
as a student, right and for various different reasons. So
you know, one reason might be that there isn't a
acade mix supervisor available in a particular topic, either that
(35:04):
institution or another one, and so you would have to
tweak your investigation area to focus on an area that
has already been partly investigated before by somebody you know
who is available. Okay, And likewise, you know, if a
student came to me and and an investigation topic wasn't
(35:30):
within the constructs of you know, whatever it was, the
paper or whatever that I was delivering, you know that
that's it's just not yeah, it's just not if it's
not allowed, it's if it's frowned upon. That there's a
lot of you know, since since talking and discussing this,
(35:53):
you know, with yourself and other people. There's a lot
of unspoken rules in academia that I think that's partly
why we're in this mess, really is because there's sort
of an assumption that you will play by the rules
and not ask questions. And that's been going on for
(36:14):
quite a while and it has undoubtedly had an impact
on the various outcomes and the diversity of what students
can follow.
Speaker 1 (36:26):
What true? Yeah, well, okay, that sounds pretty troubling. I guess,
you know, I mean kind of leads to me like
to think. I mean, with everything that is happening in
the university and especially how it manifested itself over the
last like a few years, especially the last three years,
I mean, what is the role of universities in the future.
(36:47):
Do they even have a role? I mean, you know,
their research is biased, the teaching can be problematic or irrelevant.
So I mean, what is actually, like, you know, the
role of a university going forward?
Speaker 2 (36:59):
In your opinion, Yeah, it's a good question. I don't
really know. I think the whole thing needs to be
completely rethought. It's been going on for a long time.
There was in the nineties there were books published about
how bad academia was toxic. It was you know, the
(37:19):
the new public management era, you know, the rolling in
of corporate profits which prioritized everything. You know, it was
no longer student centered. It was a profit making enterprise,
and so students were sort of caught in the middle. Really,
(37:42):
I mean, there's going back to the way that research
is controlled. The next step up from that way that
research students work is controlled is if that research student
wants to stay on in that university and maybe get
a job, you know, then obviously they've got to explicitly
(38:04):
say that their interest areas are in a particular area,
not not something that isn't acceptable as a as a
potential future grant research area, those people again you know,
(38:25):
will be filtered out of any potential contracts for the university.
Speaker 1 (38:31):
So I mean, if the institution of like, you know,
the institution of universities is to continue into the future,
I mean, at the moment, the universities kind of do
like you know, the main role is real well, two
main roles are research and teaching.
Speaker 3 (38:45):
Right, yeah, what what which of.
Speaker 1 (38:49):
These two roles do you see as more important going
forward into the future if all, well.
Speaker 2 (38:54):
I mean, as as an educationalist. I personally, I can't
separate those two, and I realized that other disciplines that
that may not be the case. But you know, from
the perspective of learning about learning, research is integral two,
you know, to to helping my students achieve their outcomes.
(39:15):
So but the problem is when you've got those conflicts
of interest in those institutions, that that's when it breaks down.
So there's there's got to be a way of somehow,
you know, being totally independent from those commercial interests, and
that that is something that I'm speaking to colleagues about.
(39:36):
We've we've got you know, a working project at the
moment called the Truth University, where what we envisage is
that there'll be for instance, workshops and surveys and you know,
maybe even you know, podcasts like this that are a
(40:00):
achieving you know, a small amount of income that will
allow students to develop research in their own area of interest.
And rather than having some sort of fake sort of
qualification framework, the way to be accredited will to have
that research peer reviewed by people that don't have any
(40:22):
conflicts of interest, you know, aren't being paid, and that
then that that text, that research outcome will be published
as a book, I see, So it won't be hidden
away and it won't be behind you know, a paywall
or anything. It will be out there for the world
to read and learn from, you know, in a in
(40:44):
a more sort of authentic way, you know. So that's
that's that's one of the things that we're investigating and
hopefully progressing in the next you know, in the future.
Speaker 3 (41:00):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (41:00):
Yeah, Look, I think also your field is kind of like,
you know, unique in the sense that obviously, like you know,
if you're doing research into education, you're literally trying to
figure out how to be a better teacher, right, So
this is kind of like, you know, it's a bit
different to other fields. So someone who's like doing research
into say I don't know, climate change, that doesn't necessarily
(41:24):
make and they may be very very good in that area,
like you know, research in climate climatic changes over like
you know, thousands of years and all that sort of stuff.
Speaker 3 (41:32):
That may be excellent at that, but that doesn't mean
that they can teach that.
Speaker 2 (41:35):
Yes, that's right, they can be a very very poor teacher.
Speaker 1 (41:38):
And I mean I'm I come from a technology background,
and I've seen that like firsthand when when I was
in university that like, you know, people who are absolutely
world class experts in their fields, they can't actually teach that.
Speaker 2 (41:50):
Yeah, exactly.
Speaker 3 (41:51):
Yeah, So yeah, I guess, I mean, I don't know.
Speaker 1 (41:55):
In other fields, maybe it will have to work a
little bit different because from I can say that from
my personal experience, most of the people that I've come
acurse that are really really good at what they.
Speaker 3 (42:08):
Do, they can't actually teach that.
Speaker 1 (42:10):
Yes, And you know, there's the famous saying that people
say that like, you know, if you can't do, then
you teach. You know, it's kind of like almost like
a derogatory term in many fields where like you know,
if you actually not that good at your field, then
that's where you go and become a teacher.
Speaker 2 (42:23):
So yeah, it's it's it is hard, it's very it's
a very difficult dilemma. I mean, we've got the added
the added problem or the challenge of a lot of
the current research that is valid is still only behind
the paywall. So it's incredibly difficult for any independent educational
(42:47):
institution too to get you know, to get the funds
to subscribe to a database that ethically is corrupt anyway, Yeah,
access the research that you do actually need in order
to progress your student's knowledge. So yeah, it's sort of
(43:09):
between a rock and a hard place really with that,
but that that it's not unsurmountable. I mean, there are
lots of open access databases and you know, public libraries
that that are available and increasingly available, and those those
need to be opened up, you know, And there's always
(43:30):
the other option if the author is still alive, you know,
contacting the author direct and asking them you know. Yeah,
so there's there's this fear of sort of hierarchy of
of highly published authors, but there's normally a way around
to access the information. It's just that you have to
be a little bit creative in that respect sometimes.
Speaker 1 (43:54):
So yeah, all right, yeah, it's it's a problem. I mean,
I think there's not an easy solution. But I think
I guess the main takeaway that you know, I take
from from you know, from what you said, is that
you know, we can't really continue with the system.
Speaker 3 (44:10):
As it is, like, you know, it just doesn't work.
Speaker 1 (44:14):
There's something that is fundamentally broken, so like something needs
to be like fixed in in the system as it
currently stands.
Speaker 2 (44:21):
Yes, absolutely, yeah, and yeah, lots of people who you know, belong,
you know, their their alumni, their previous institutions often rely
on them for donations to keep them going. And there's
a movement, I forget what the website is now, but
we can post it afterwards. The the the movement to
(44:44):
prevent people from just continually giving you know, their or
leaving in their will, you know, their their legacy. Two
institutions that quite frankly, you know, they don't deserve support anymore.
And I've had numerous conversations with my three previous universities
(45:06):
and I'm not not God anywhere in terms of asking
them what what they think they're doing with with all
this money? You know, it's just they've just become puppets
of government or of big farm. You know. It's it's
very depressing.
Speaker 3 (45:24):
I think in.
Speaker 1 (45:25):
General, there's a very significant lack of transparency in universities
when it comes to like, you know, what do they
actually use their like, you know money, like funding from
the government even but like definitely from private donors, from
like you know, big quests and things like that, like
you know, if like you know, if a university, and
there's plenty of examples even in my local stadia in Queensland,
(45:46):
where they received significant amounts of money from, say, for example,
the Bill and an Inda Gates Foundation, right, and it
says on their website, like you know, it would say
on the foundation's website that such and such a university,
Queensland University, this particular institute in queen Then University received
over the last like or twelve months, three point.
Speaker 3 (46:03):
Five million, right.
Speaker 1 (46:05):
And then you go in, like, you know, you ask
that particular like you know, division within Queensland University, what
did you do with the money? Well, it's first of all,
they're not compelled to answer, even though they're like you know,
public non for profit institutions and all that sort of
stuff funded by the government predominantly or significantly. In Second
of all, sometimes even if they if they were compelled
(46:26):
to provide that information, sometimes they don't even track it,
so you don't even know where that money went.
Speaker 3 (46:31):
For went to. So obviously it creates a big problem.
Speaker 2 (46:34):
Yeah, and this is another topic of you know, conversation
even this morning and one of the meetings I was
in the fact that you know, there are these buildings
all over the world, a lot of them are empty
for most of every day, you know, and they could
be used I mean the public, public money has been
spent on building them and servicing them and everything, and
(46:57):
yet they're somehow in access all to the public. And
why is that there's no good reason for being allowed
to have access to these spaces, the the it and
the you know, the libraries, the other facilities that are there,
and they're not I mean, I've just heard this morning
(47:18):
that there's you know, another round of redundancies from one
of the institutions here that they can't they're not sustainable.
I mean then they never were sustainable ten years ago,
so now they're you know, they're totally broken. I mean,
they've got far too many staff and that you know,
the outcomes by even by oec D standards in New Zealand,
(47:41):
the learning outcomes here are very low and there's just
no way that they can continue to support and New
Zealand for this amount of population to have eight universities.
It's just ridiculous, frankly, that lots of staff are being
made redundant. And and you know the staff that are
(48:02):
you know, high up, they should have retired a long
time ago. They're the ones that have been controlling the narrative.
A lot of them with their tall poppy syndrome strategies.
You know, there was never a proper succession or quality
you know, continuous improvement plan or anything. It was just
all about making as much money as they could and
(48:24):
and exploiting students, especially overseas students. So yeah, it's going
to there's lots of changes happening, Michael, lots of changes.
I think that's what's happened. You know, that's what's needed
in some ways to have a bit of a shake
up of the whole education system. And you know, more
and more parents are taking their kids out of school
(48:46):
because they don't they don't feel you know, they have
no trust now in the education system or and the teachers,
and that's going to again that's going to have a
knock on effect to other areas of education. So yeah,
it's a total paradigm shift. And who knows how long
(49:07):
is it or and what might be the outcomes. You know,
we've just got await and say in some respects.
Speaker 1 (49:13):
Yeah, So speaking of paradigm shifts, I guess that's like
a little bit more of a kind of like to
close it off, a bit of a philosophical question. But
I mean, you know, I mean when we look at
the history of like you know, teaching and lack you know,
I mean that.
Speaker 3 (49:25):
Goes back thousands of years. But one of the common
characteristics that basically was the case.
Speaker 1 (49:31):
Up until probably like you know, the emergence of the internet.
Speaker 3 (49:34):
Like really in the early.
Speaker 1 (49:35):
Ninety nineties was the fact that like for people to
independently access information was actually very very difficult. You know,
you had to ask someone, or you had to find
an expert, or then you need to go to a library.
The library was far away. It had a limited amount
of like you know, obviously books and resources. It had
like a set like you know, opening like you know,
opening hours and things like that. So it was it
(49:57):
was very access to information was very restricted.
Speaker 4 (50:01):
Now, as the internet emerger emerged, basically we can every
single person on the planet, or at least that we're saying,
like in a developed country can access the entirety of
human knowledgy as it is now like from their smartphone.
Speaker 3 (50:14):
It's literally in the palm of your hands. So, I mean,
is the.
Speaker 1 (50:19):
Traditional approach to teaching and to education, which is still
pretty much in place as far as I can tell everywhere,
is that even still relevant, Like I mean, people have
like different interests. Like you know, people have like different
ways that they learn, even like the media that they learn.
Speaker 3 (50:37):
They have like you know, different aptitudes and things like that, and.
Speaker 1 (50:42):
Is like, you know, the one size fed all approach
even even relevant, not to mention appropriate in this day
and age.
Speaker 2 (50:49):
Yeah, it's an interesting one. I think for me personally, Michael,
it's more about encouraging my students to be critical thinkers.
So it's less about or subject area and more about
broadening out their perspective on the world, maybe you know,
doing some traveling if they can, or you know, reading
(51:12):
a book. I mean, God forbid. You know, so many
students now have openly admit that they've never sat down
and read a whole book, you know, from cover to cover,
which is quite depressing. So I yeah, I'm not I'm
always an optimist, as you know, I'm not necessarily you know,
when I think about these classic books like nineteen eighty
(51:32):
four and Fahrenheit four or five one, you know, there
were always people that overcame these challenges, and the human
spirit is very innovative and creative and we'll find a
way through somehow. You know. The censorship isn't entirely across
the board. There are ways, as we found out ourselves,
(51:53):
there are ways through. So just really the priority for me,
as I say, for my students is always mentees, is
always to help them to try to see the bigger
picture and help them to try to see, you know,
that that perhaps what they've known all of their lives
(52:15):
or been led to believe isn't entirely correct, you know,
and there are very clever ways, especially in creative writing,
you know, either writing it yourself or reading or both
ways to get people to think through. I mean, that's
what's so effective about you know, George Orwell or Oldest
Hutley or you know the poems, the short stories by
(52:38):
Ursula la Gwin. You know, there's there's there's science fiction
and dystopian writings that allow the brain to sort of
have a bit more of an open sort of idea
about how how the world works and and and a
different way of thinking.
Speaker 1 (52:58):
Do you think that you know, it's there properate in
this day and age for like you know, for kids
to spend like you know, twelve years in the schooling system.
I mean, do you think twelve necessary to kind of
get the outcomes that we need for them to be
like you know, productive and more more importantly, even like
you know.
Speaker 3 (53:16):
Happy members of like in a modern society.
Speaker 2 (53:19):
Yeah, I mean I can't. I can't really comment on
that too much because you know, my husband and I
never had kids. Yeah, the only experience I had personally
of those early years of school were, to be honest,
pretty horrendous.
Speaker 3 (53:35):
Yea.
Speaker 2 (53:36):
So no, I haven't got a very good and the
kids that I know that are at school at the moment,
you know, they're not having a very happy time. And
that's because the teachers that I saw, you know, I
saw those teachers being taught to be teachers by teachers
who were failed teachers.
Speaker 3 (53:56):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (53:57):
Yeah, So it's no surprise to me that those classrooms
are not fun, happy places to be, especially now we've
got you know, people in masks and disinfecting everywhere and
all the rest of it. Briefly, my answer to you
would be definitely know that there is not a place
where any child should be situated for any length of time.
(54:18):
But on a broader perspective, I think, you know, it
is time for us all to take responsibility personally not
only for our own health and well being, but also
for those around us, and so Okay, the parents might
need to sacrifice some time that they would be ordinarily
spending at home, at work, im in you know, earning
(54:41):
money to buy their home or whatever. It's about prioritizing again,
isn't it. It's about reprioritizing our lives. What is important.
And if your child's education is primary importance to you,
which you know, I think most parents would say yes
it is, then things need to change. And definitely the
(55:02):
school system as I can see it here at the
moment in New Zealand, definitely. I mean I wouldn't. I
wouldn't put a child into any school anywhere in New
Zealand at the moment personally. So I think that maybe
that says something. Yeah, it's not It's not a healthy
place to be. And unless you're very blessed with a
(55:23):
very forward thinking, optimistic, creative teacher who is allowed to
use his or her skills in a in a meaningful way,
you know, somehow get through the hurdles that are needed
to be jumped over, then there's very little chance that
a child is going to reach its potential in those
(55:44):
twelve years of institutional curriculum. Yeah.
Speaker 1 (55:50):
Yeah, I think really like the main thing that kind
of stuck me with everything that you say, and this
is really a recurring theme with pretty much everyone I
speak to.
Speaker 3 (55:57):
It is like in a personal responsibility.
Speaker 1 (55:59):
I think, I think at the end of the day,
we all have to like you know, be the change
that we want to see.
Speaker 3 (56:05):
And and like you.
Speaker 1 (56:06):
Know, if people rely too much on other people, on
the government, on companies, you know, to to make those
changes for them, nothing's gonna happen. That's the better option
and the worst option. Something will happen, but they're not
gonna like it. Yeah, So yeah, I think I think
that's probably the best, the best know to kind of
(56:28):
end our conversation. I think personal responsibility is crucial and
and uh, just like in education, just like in healthcare,
just in like you know, in finances.
Speaker 3 (56:38):
Really in everything.
Speaker 1 (56:39):
People have to take responsibility over their lives and navigate
their own kind of path in life because if they don't,
then by definition, there will be on someone else's path
and they may not like where where that path ends.
Speaker 3 (56:51):
So yeah, that's right.
Speaker 2 (56:53):
I Mean, there's you know, there's a fantastic book that
I'll give a club to buy a guy called Ghetto
a DOUBLET that was written over ten years ago, I
think it was two thousand and eight, two thousand and
nine called Weapons of Mass Instruction, which, as you probably
guess by the title, you know, just talks about how
(57:17):
schools indoctrinate children, but for the you know, the the
society as a whole, it's just a propaganda machine. And
that was you know, it's even more timely now that
book than it's ever been the compulsory schooling. What I
think what parents should be asking themselves is what is
(57:39):
the objective? You know, what do I want my child
to achieve through going to school? Because whatever those objectives are,
it's not going to match the schools because the schools
are businesses now. They're not schools for learning sake. They're
not learning for learning sake. They want business outcomes, you know,
measurable outcomes, and learning is never going to be a
(58:01):
cold piece of you know, numerical data that is profitable
that it doesn't work like that, you know.
Speaker 1 (58:08):
So yeah, yeah, yeah, here here, I couldn't really agree more.
Speaker 3 (58:13):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (58:14):
I mean, look, I think I think we've covered quite
a lot of very important topics and hopefully gave people
something to think about, especially in the context of a
personal responsibility when it comes to education, I guess just
to close it off, I mean, if you can tell
us a little bit more about, like, you know, some
of the current projects that you're working on. I know
that you mentioned truth University and also where people can
(58:36):
find you online, where where you're active.
Speaker 2 (58:39):
Yes, so Truth University. We're just in the process of
changing the update in the website, but we do have
a sub stack on the go where we're publishing things
about general education issues, including the freedom of academic speech,
which was in the UK headlines recently with Oxford University's controversy.
(59:03):
So yeah, i'd encourage people to follow us on sub stack.
Other projects I'm involved with are just basically supporting the
freedom groups more locally in New Zealand, so the Nurses
for Freedom group and the Teachers SOS groups, and you know,
we're all sort of in limbo at the moment, waiting
(59:24):
for various court cases to be judge. So yeah, we'll
keep fighting a good fight. Michael. And thank you for
your hard work in this media space, for getting the
getting the voices out there. I appreciate that, really.
Speaker 1 (59:41):
Appreciate your timer. So thanks for coming on board too soon.
Speaker 2 (59:45):
Thank
Hello everyone, and welcome to the Actionable Truth Podcast. I
am joined today by Ursula Edgington, an expert on adult education,
an independent researcher with publications including peer reviewed scientific papers
on teaching quality, academic identities, creative approaches to assessment strategies,
and the emotional labor of teaching and learning in further
(00:33):
and higher education. Ursula is passionate about fighting regulatory capture
and setting up parallel structures that foster critical thinking, equity,
research without censorship. Welcome to Actionable Truth, Ursula. Anything further
you'd like to hear about your background just before we
dive in.
Speaker 2 (00:51):
Thank you, Michael. It's a pleasure to beat to you again. No,
not really, other than I'm not a scientist at all,
a social scientist, so so sociological and psychological aspects of
education are really my my passionate you know, research topic
so that interesting.
Speaker 1 (01:14):
Are definitely sciences. So you're a scientist in my book ers.
Speaker 2 (01:19):
Thanks all right.
Speaker 1 (01:21):
So I guess speaking of science, I guess like the
first question for us to start with, and I think
it's really relevant to any field of science, is you know,
we often heard over the last couple of years about
you know, peer reviewed papers, peer reviewed scientific papers like
you know, trust the science, trust the scientific consensus, all
that sort of stuff.
Speaker 3 (01:41):
So I guess just to start with, maybe do a little.
Speaker 1 (01:44):
Bit of an introduction about how the peer review process
works in academia and maybe what you see are the
current weaknesses in that process.
Speaker 2 (01:54):
Yes, okay, so yeah, it's an interesting one. I've had
lots of different perspectives from different countries of the peer
review process. Obviously I'm not a scientist, as I say,
but the systems in place are basically the same. The
(02:14):
first thing to say is how long it usually takes.
You know, it takes months, sometimes over a year for
a good quality you know, what we call a high
impact journal. So that's a journal that has supposedly, up
until recently high levels of integrity and reach and credibility
(02:36):
in its discipline. So a high impact journal, it makes
a long long time for the article that you had
submitted to be accepted and to jump through the hopes
in terms of going out to anonymous peer reviewers, coming back,
going through the feedback process, making changes, resubmitting it may
(03:00):
be going through another peer review process. Sometimes the peer
reviewers who had previously looked at it are no longer available,
so it would have to go out to different peer
reviewers and then come back and then go through the
editorial processes, the editorial board, you know, and so that
whole toing and throwing and you know conversation, which can
(03:22):
be very positive actually, I mean it can you know,
on the positive side, it can add tremendously to the validity,
clarity and meaningfulness of any article that is published. But
I knew right from the word go. Really, I mean,
I ought to explain that I'm a late comer to
(03:43):
the to their world of academia or it was, I'm
not in that space anymore. But you know, I had
a previous commercial career, if you can call it that,
before I sort of re returned to education as a
mature student. And so whilst I was doing my original
(04:04):
undergraduate degree in the UK, I was working at the
university where I was studying. Partly because that was convenient
in terms of time spent between seminars in the evening
and working during the day, but also because obviously there
was a big push during that time. I'm not sure
what the political situation was in Australia at that time.
(04:28):
If you were there Michael Ban In the UK, there
was a I mean it was the Blair sort of era,
you know, education, education, education, you know, that was his motto,
and so the labor government at the time there was
a big footwards getting people into university, and people like me,
mature female, parmatypical working class background, you know, we were
(04:51):
primary targets really of upskilling the workforce. You know, so
there was various incentives for people like me to be
studying part time, especially if we were considering going into
you know, one of the vocations nursing, teaching, whatever, you know,
(05:14):
to have our fees paid or at least heavily subsidized,
you know, to start off at a new sort of
educational lifelong learning pathway. So anyway, whilst I was studying,
I was, as I say, working at the university I
was studying at, and I got to know some of
the hoops that these academics jumped through in terms of
(05:40):
basically plagiarizing their own work. You know that they would
they would have a publication something, an article already published
in one journal, and it would be relatively simple to
take that article rework it in a way that was
focused towards a different journal with a slightly different framework,
(06:02):
slightly different audience, and resubmit it there and claim, you know,
claim for the sake of the Brownie points that you
accumulated at your institution for for being such a great academic.
You know that that would that would if it was
published and if you were you know, a fairly high
ranking academic, chances are you it would be then you
(06:26):
know that would that would add to your cutos.
Speaker 3 (06:30):
So is that what's called preprint? Also?
Speaker 1 (06:32):
Is that what's referred to as pre print where you
can submit the same paper to multiple journals at the
same time, and only if one of them kind of
publishes it then you can't like submitted to another.
Speaker 3 (06:41):
Is that how it works?
Speaker 2 (06:42):
No, No, pre print, a pre print servery is totally different.
I mean, it's not something that I've generally used myself.
A preprint server. Pre print service basically evolved because of
the well partly because of this, you know, the length
time that I just described. You know, if people want
(07:03):
to get their research out there, you know, and read
by important people, they can't wait over a year for
it to be published. So if it's in a situation
where they know it would be published or it's going
through peer review. I mean, some journals, most of the
journals that I've dealt with in the past, have all
(07:24):
said that, you know, due to copyright purposes, we will
not be publishing anything that's been published elsewhere, including a
pre print server. So automatically that sort of cuts down
the number of outlets that you could potentially go on
to have it published. But then there's this ambiguous issue
(07:45):
about how similar the pieces of text are, because if
the text has been completely reviewed and changed, and you know,
it's got a different headed and it's the abstract or
the outcomes you know, are totally different from the original
creeprint version, then of course the journal is going to say, well,
(08:08):
we're basically considering that it is this, you know, it's
a completely new piece of work, and so on that basis,
that's what we will consider for peer review. But personally,
I was never really into messing around with the same
piece of text over and you know, reworking it so
often that you sort of lost track of what was
(08:30):
a repeat on what wasn't you know. That seemed to
me to be a bit of a waste of time.
But obviously, you know, it depends what discipline you're in
and what your objectives are of your research outcomes?
Speaker 1 (08:43):
Okay, yeah, okay, So the main takeaway that I'm taking
from this is mainly the fact that the peer review process.
Speaker 3 (08:50):
Can be very, very lengthy.
Speaker 1 (08:52):
Okay, so I guess doo related question first of all,
that that's pretty accurate?
Speaker 3 (08:56):
Is that pretty accurd? Yeah?
Speaker 1 (08:57):
Okay, so do related questions? That is, first of all,
is there are any way to expedite a process like
that while maintaining the rigor and quality of the process
in case, like you know, it's necessary, like for example,
health emergency.
Speaker 2 (09:15):
Yeah?
Speaker 3 (09:15):
Is there a way to do that? Or is that
just inherently impossible?
Speaker 2 (09:19):
Well, I mean, now you're getting onto, obviously areas that
are outside of my discipline, because I know, I mean,
I know that, for instance, the British Medical Journal has
a facility I think they call it rapid review letter
or something, so a rapid review article, rapid response, you
(09:41):
know words that effect will be basically an invitation to
bypass for some authors, probably not you know, your everyday author,
but some authors who are already you know, high ranking
in their particular discipline, for them to bypass some of
those processes and go directly to the editor in order
(10:02):
to publish something that they think is urgent. Now, obviously,
in my area of education, it's it's that's not generally
going to happen, you know, unless there's some sort of
catastrophe and all the education yet the universities, you know,
are bombed or something God a bid. You know, that's
not going to happen, So we wouldn't we wouldn't necessarily
(10:25):
need that. But I mean, as a sort of a
side issue to that, some of the processes involved in
investigating potential outlets for something that you have written would
be a look at the website of the journal to
get some indication of how long the time scales are,
(10:48):
you know, because some journals are very open and that
they would say, look, it's going to take at least
six months for us to acknowledge you, let alone anything else,
you know, and some some journals will say, you know,
we aim to have your paperback to you within six weeks,
so you know, again, that's all part of the sort
of investigation of being a researcher and an author and seeing,
(11:12):
you know, where do you want your stuff published, how
quickly do you want it published, how wide an audience,
do you want you know, all those kinds of questions
which you only really know through experience and speaking to
other colleagues and investigating you know, outlets yourself.
Speaker 1 (11:28):
So okay, all right, that that sounds yeah, that sounds
pretty clear. But I guess, you know, speaking of all
these journals, and this is pretty much a question that
I that I post everyone who's involved in academy in
any way, shape or form. I mean, with those journals,
how do they actually find themselves? Like, how do they
make money?
Speaker 3 (11:46):
How do they survive?
Speaker 2 (11:47):
And this is something that differentiates the funt the you know,
the medical journals from other other kind kinds of journals. Right,
So in two thousand and four you may have heard
asteem doctor Assim Malhotcha speak about this. In two thousand
and four, the editor of one of the most probably
(12:10):
the most you know, highly thought of medical journals, the
New England Journal of Medicine. The editor of that journal
resigned in disgust, basically, and she wrote a book called
The Truth about Drug Companies, which basically was an expose
of how the New England Journal of Medicine and other
(12:31):
similar medical journals are bought by a big farmer in
terms of, you know, we will fund you x amount
of million dollars on the basis that they're kind of
a subsidy. It's complicated because it's to do with the
access to the databases that the journals run. So in
(12:54):
order to access some of these articles, which are not
generally open access, the universities in particular subscribed to those
databases to get access to the supposedly, you know, scientifically
highly credible evidence.
Speaker 3 (13:15):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (13:17):
So the big farmer companies, they have a very good
strategy actually, which I witnessed back in the late eighties
early nineties, you know, when the Pfizer Viagra thing was
big in the marketplace where the you know, the the marketeers,
(13:38):
you know, they weren't trained medical professionals by any stretch
of the imagination, but they were salespeople, highly paid salespeople
who were basically given hard copies because that's what the
GPS wanted of some of the so called evidence based
(13:58):
peer reviewed articles, you know, to give out to the
GP surgeries to take taken them out for lunch or
champagne lunch or whatever. And it was a very effective
sales technique because if those gps took on board what
was in those papers. They only had to read the abstract,
(14:19):
they didn't have to read the whole thing. And then
they just went to their patients and said, oh, yeah,
you know, I've just actually had the latest update from
you know, the pharmaceutical companies themselves, you know, the horse's mouth,
and they've just done this wonderful, you know, mega clinical
(14:40):
trial and it's found that, you know, this particular treatment
is wonderfully effective, et cetera, et cetera. And and of course,
you know, everyone's happy, aren't they. The GP gets the
gets the you know, the medicine. He gets the kickback
in terms of the you know, the Commission on the
(15:05):
on the pharmaceutical Yeah.
Speaker 1 (15:08):
Yeah, so that's in regards to yeah, yeah, for for like, yeah,
basically for promoting a certain product, just like basically the
salespeople of that same company, which is a bit ridiculous
to put it mildly, but I guess so we know that, like,
you know, the situation is pretty murky when it comes
to like you new medical journals, medical scientific journals.
Speaker 3 (15:28):
How does that work for other fields?
Speaker 1 (15:29):
Like how would it work for like I'm through there's
plenty of journals, like, you know, around education, theory and
things like that, Like, you know, things in your field,
how would they fund themselves?
Speaker 2 (15:38):
How would they fund themselves? Were they all a lot
of them belong to the same kinds of databases. So
it's already captured in terms of having one one corporate
database which is profitable, and so it'll have lots of
different disciplines on the same database for the institutions. So yeah,
(16:02):
I mean there's no doubt that education it's a slight
it's still captured, but it's a slightly different kind of
regulatory capture because the the actual journals. I mean that
there's there's an element of resources, maybe software packages. I
(16:24):
mean you would be from your studied yourself, Michael, with
the virtual learning environments like Moodle, blackboard or Canvas, et cetera.
You know, they're all commercial companies, and there's no doubt
that there's an awful lot of articles out there claiming,
you know, X, y Z success with those pieces of
(16:46):
software that supposedly, you know, have fantastic learning outcomes for
the students, et cetera. Yeah, so it's slightly different in
the educational discipline. I think it's not it's not as
bad in some ways, but of course, the institutions themselves
(17:09):
are captured, so it's a slightly different environment. Yeah.
Speaker 1 (17:16):
Yeah, we'll get to the institutions themselves, but I guess
so just so that I understand.
Speaker 3 (17:20):
So, for example, it can happen.
Speaker 1 (17:21):
With the journal that like you know, like talking about
like you know, the theory of education or something like that.
They can potentially be approached by a commercial company that runs,
like you know, are remote education.
Speaker 3 (17:33):
That's basically their business, and they're saying.
Speaker 1 (17:35):
We'll pay for your access to the databases that you
need if you, you know, if you kind of give
preference to papers that show that basically remote education is
the business and the outcomes are superior to anything that
can be achieved in a classroom or face to face environment.
Speaker 3 (17:53):
Right.
Speaker 2 (17:53):
I think it comes before that because the actual research
itself is being funded, So it's not, of course the
thing between the commercial company and the journal. It's more
about the commercial interest of the actual research itself. And
then that is a way that it's because remember, you're
(18:15):
only going to get research proposals which tick certain boxes
in terms of being seen as useful. I mean, somebody
was saying this morning about the climate change issue, you know,
you've got a research proposal which has got the the
words climate change in the you know, in the title,
then instantly you know that's going to tick a certain
(18:37):
box in terms of the institutional objectives and so that
you know, that might by definition that might assist in
that particular fund being agreed or not.
Speaker 3 (18:57):
Yeah, yeah, I see what you're saying.
Speaker 1 (18:58):
So yeah, obviously we have we we have a bit
of a problem with the with the peer review process
and the whole structure of like these so called you know,
impartial academic journals. So that that's that, that's pretty clear.
But I guess, uh, the next kind of topic or
area that I want to move on from that is Okay,
obviously there's a lot of papers coming out from like,
you know, researchers, most of these researchers working in universities,
(19:22):
and then those universities their research doesn't impact just the papers,
but it also impacts what teachers then go ahead and
teach in schools.
Speaker 3 (19:31):
Right, So I.
Speaker 1 (19:32):
Mean, how how how does how does the preference that
the university might have because of commercial interest can then
kind of trickle down to what like you know, people
like you know, what kids are taught in school. Or
what high school kids are taught in school or even
like you know, even like as far back as like
even primary school potentially, I don't know.
Speaker 2 (19:52):
Yeah, good, good question. Okay, so lots of there's lots
of strands to that in an answer, but I mean,
starting at the one end would be the teachers that
are being taught. Remember, at the universities go out on
to comment, you know, as part of their work experience.
(20:13):
So they'll go out to the schools in the area
to do their work experience, and they're provided with resources
and a template for each lesson, etc. That has been
prescribed to them by the university staff. And so by
already you're at a disadvantage because it's already captured at
(20:36):
the very beginning. The resources that the university has been
given are probably nine times out of ten provided by
a commercial outfit which has its own conflicts of interest.
So the students wanting to be teachers have got all
the right. You know, I don't want to be negative
at all, because I've been there, you know, I've witnessed
(20:57):
it very very you know, credible, enthusiastic, intelligent individuals who
aspire to being very good teachers. But the only way
that they can be seen to be good teachers and
inverted commerce is by adhering to the rules that the
(21:18):
university has set down in their workplace. Do you see
what I mean? So they'll go out into the schools,
whether it's primary schools, secondary schools, colleges, or other institutions,
even the workplace. You know, I've been involved personally in
lots of workplace training as well, and it's it's it's
(21:40):
a prescribed curriculum in a that has to be delivered
in a in a very you know, relatively didactive, didactic way,
and it has that the outcomes have to be measurable,
they have to be observable. And this is what links
to my PhD work, you know, from over ten years ago.
(22:02):
You know how these things come back and haunt you.
You know, My argument when I was doing my PhD was,
how can in a college or a university environment, how
can anybody see and measure what is actually happening in
that classroom? Because I don't. I'm not a mister spot.
I can't put my hand on my student and somehow
(22:26):
have a merge of a brain cells and discover what
they've learned and what they haven't learned out of my lesson.
That's an impossibility, and so it becomes this flawed kind
of performance of what the teacher wants the observer to
see and what the students have to explicitly say or
(22:49):
what they have to explicitly show in order to you know,
tick the box in terms of what has been you know,
what has been successful about this particular session right here,
right now, not later tonight when you're in your dinner
and you think, oh, actually, yeah, I did have a
point about such and such. You know, I've thought about
that lesson and it's just occurred to me that you know,
(23:12):
that can't happen sense right here, right now, and it
has to be measurable in a way that the teacher, educator,
the observer or maybe even remember a surveillance camera, because
that's where we're very much headed to. It was just
starting when I left the UK, having cameras in every
(23:33):
classroom so that there could be some sort of big brother,
you know, head teacher overseeing that supposed learning outcome. You
know that was happening. Oh, that's it, you know, It's
like it's almost like a little firework has gone off
in the classroom. Hey, press a button. Did you know?
Learning has happened fantastic, you know, so you.
Speaker 1 (23:53):
Would actually have a camera inside the classroom that was
always on.
Speaker 2 (23:58):
Yeah, absolutely, that happened. That's happening now. And it's not
just not just about security, it's it's literally supposedly quality
assurance in terms of the teaching outcomes.
Speaker 1 (24:12):
Okay, So would it be accurate to say that kind
of like you know, obviously the universities they are the
one that, like, you know, the feedback from them is
eventually what the government uses to create the national curriculum
and then basically all the teachers are forced to teach
that would would that be the right way to say that.
Speaker 2 (24:30):
In a sort of a simplistic way, I suppose. I mean,
there are various threads that feed into policy that becomes curriculum,
and it's not it would be unfair to say that
it's just the universities because there's lots of different you know,
NGOs and think tanks and you know, other government organizations
(24:52):
that all have a certain objective, you know. And also
it's about priorities because you know, one thing that's really
happened obviously last ten twenty years in terms of a
change in the curriculum is less and less time for
students to be outside doing physical education or learning about
the environment, and much more time prioritized for you know,
(25:17):
academic work, whether it's writing or it, you know, anything
that's connected to numeracy. They know, the levels of numeracy
are dropping. So yeah, I mean there's less kind of
what we would call embedded learning, so students being outside
doing other stuff.
Speaker 3 (25:38):
Learning by doing Yeah.
Speaker 2 (25:41):
Yeah, it's a priority thing really, I think for me,
because there's not so much sort of overlap that it's
a creativity that's needed. You see, Michael, when you're when
you're a teacher and you're encouraged to use your autonomy
and your creativity and you, you know, in innovative ways,
(26:02):
then you kind of instinctively combine different kinds of topics
together to have a more comprehensive understanding, whereas over the
years the curriculum has been sort of dissected into artificial
little pigeonholes of oh, you'll do you know, comprehension here,
and you'll do orcy here and it there, and you know,
(26:24):
and it's just it's not the way the human brain
works in that sort of way.
Speaker 1 (26:30):
I think there's also been like a lot of focus
on and that's been like that for many, many years,
is I can say, for my personal experience, a lot
of focus on regurgitation. So basically, you have someone standing
in front of you delivering a certain message or piece
of material, and then sometimes you even have to outright
memorize that. And I'm sure you'll agree, I mean, the
human brain just doesn't work like that. I mean, if
(26:50):
we are forced to memorize something, we'll probably remember that
for the short period of time that we like, you know,
we need to kind of spit it out, but after
that we'll pretty much forget it straight away. I know
that how my brain works, So yeah, I mean, and
that that is, in my opinion, a fundamentally flawed way
of teaching anyone anything.
Speaker 2 (27:08):
Yes, And while we're on the subject of flawed understanding,
another thing that I've come across very often, much more
since I've been here in New Zealand over the last
ten years, is assessments that aren't actually testing understanding. So,
for instance, the students might come across a question which
asks them some subject subjective opinion, you know, like a
(27:32):
question might be in an exam, you know, describe all
ways that you think that this course has you know,
has added to your skills in X, Y, Z or whatever.
You know, So that's not actually that's not actually testing
anybody's understanding. It's asking for their opinion, and you know,
(27:56):
you know that the assessor is looking for basically confirmation
that that course has been a success. So it's almost
like asking for feedback, you know, with a with a
biased question and calling that an assessment of learning, which
which is totally unethical and totally flawed. Then it's just
(28:20):
it's based on a lot of it. It's based on misunderstanding,
to be honest, Michael, it's in my experience, it's just
that people who especially here in New Zealand, people who
have been involved in teacher education have not had any
adult education training. You know, so if they might have
taught at schools, but that doesn't necessarily give them the
(28:43):
skills that they need to understand, you know, relatively complex
educational theory, especially in assessment techniques, that allows them to
really sort of engage with their adult audience, you know,
to first of all establish what their audience is, you know,
because we all come from a different context and a
(29:05):
different background. You know, one of the primary issues, isn't
it of whenever you're sat in front of an audience
is find out what the audience knows first, you know
why they are and so you know, so many times
the the academics that I've witnessed have have got no
idea how to engage with their audience. And actually somehow,
(29:30):
you know, because there's there's so much depth of knowledge
and understanding in a room, sometimes, why wouldn't you take
advantage of those perspectives and that expertise. You know, it
seems it seems very unusual for me to witness that
over and over again, very very strange. Not normal, yeah.
Speaker 3 (29:51):
Very much.
Speaker 1 (29:52):
It seems like a very kind of very much like
a one size fits all approach, which we know doesn't
work really in any field, definitely not in a field
that life is one hundred percent like you know, interaction
with humans like education, I mean, one size fits all
approach wouldn't even work in programming, you know, in in
like you know, working with machines, so I mean working
with humans.
Speaker 3 (30:11):
It just like it sounds completely preposterous to me, I
guess you know.
Speaker 1 (30:16):
I mean, we we've we've this kind of touched previously
on a little bit on on the universities and how they,
like you know, they kind of work through like you know,
different research interests and different research priorities. I kind of
want to move like focus a little bit more on
that and get a bit of a better understanding of
how a universe can kind of force.
Speaker 3 (30:39):
A particular narrative or particular.
Speaker 1 (30:43):
Research outcome or research interest on on on on the
different researchers or the different academics that work within that university.
So I mean, you you you've had a little bit
of experience with that, and and I'd love to hear, like,
you know, more about how that actually happens.
Speaker 2 (30:58):
Yeah, So this is something that I'm trying to sort
of write about at the moment, so basically at the
very beginning before any research is conducted. And you might
have experienced this personally, Michael. In your time at university,
a research student is often asked, even an under undergrad level,
(31:19):
a student is often asked to choose a topic for
an essay or thesis. You know, you imagine having you know,
relatively free reign on a topic of investigation, and so
the student will go away think about that for a
little while. What is of interest to them why they
want to investigate it and what would be the best
(31:40):
way to investigate it, And they'll come back to their
due till the lecturer and say, right here we go,
here's a proposal. And if that proposal does not fit
the way that that particular academic wants to it, I mean,
if it's I suppose each thesis and each essay like
(32:05):
that is seen as an opportunity, you know, because all
the time, at the back of the mind of a
staff at the university is how am I going to
progress my career? You know, this is a very competitive environment.
It's always about not only getting the right student outcomes,
you know, getting the student fees in the bank, but
(32:26):
it's also about creating these articles that need to be published,
putting out the research grant applications, hopefully getting some successful
grant money in. And so every interaction with every member
of staff or student is kind of there's a subtext
to it of how am I going to get what
(32:49):
I need out of this particular thing. So, going back
to that research student who might be submitting their proposal,
if that proposal is somehow thought of as not along
the lines of perhaps where a potential research grant opportunity
might lie or might go against something that the university
(33:12):
already stands for, you know, might be a little bit
too controversial, or in any other way sort of is
you know, not entirely along the lines of the political
narrative of the day. Then that will be you know,
rejected out of hand, and or it might be manipulated.
You know, the lecturer might say, well, actually that's not
(33:33):
really acceptable, but have you thought about this? You know,
And because the student, you know, they beggars can't be choosers,
the student can't necessarily say, well, hang on a minute, no,
this is what I want to investigate, and it is actually,
you know, my investigation, so that's what I'm going to do.
The student, nine times out of tenant are very beholden
to the institution. They don't want to you know, apart
(33:56):
from the fact that there's this power relationship. Student doesn't
necessarily want to upset their professor or their senior, you know,
so they won't feel as if they can maybe question
what is being told to them. Some of these students, obviously,
if they're international students, they'll be reliant upon their student
(34:19):
status to stay in the country. So yeah, you know,
there's lots of different power relationships going on there which
prevent a lot of students from pursuing the topic of
investigation that they want to. So that's the first sort
of layer of filtering out of anything that's noise. You know,
have you've seen.
Speaker 1 (34:39):
That ever happen, like personally, like a specific example that
maybe you can give.
Speaker 2 (34:44):
I've experienced that both as a lecturer and as a
as a student, right and for various different reasons. So
you know, one reason might be that there isn't a
acade mix supervisor available in a particular topic, either that
(35:04):
institution or another one, and so you would have to
tweak your investigation area to focus on an area that
has already been partly investigated before by somebody you know
who is available. Okay, And likewise, you know, if a
student came to me and and an investigation topic wasn't
(35:30):
within the constructs of you know, whatever it was, the
paper or whatever that I was delivering, you know that
that's it's just not yeah, it's just not if it's
not allowed, it's if it's frowned upon. That there's a
lot of you know, since since talking and discussing this,
(35:53):
you know, with yourself and other people. There's a lot
of unspoken rules in academia that I think that's partly
why we're in this mess, really is because there's sort
of an assumption that you will play by the rules
and not ask questions. And that's been going on for
(36:14):
quite a while and it has undoubtedly had an impact
on the various outcomes and the diversity of what students
can follow.
Speaker 1 (36:26):
What true? Yeah, well, okay, that sounds pretty troubling. I guess,
you know, I mean kind of leads to me like
to think. I mean, with everything that is happening in
the university and especially how it manifested itself over the
last like a few years, especially the last three years,
I mean, what is the role of universities in the future.
(36:47):
Do they even have a role? I mean, you know,
their research is biased, the teaching can be problematic or irrelevant.
So I mean, what is actually, like, you know, the
role of a university going forward?
Speaker 2 (36:59):
In your opinion, Yeah, it's a good question. I don't
really know. I think the whole thing needs to be
completely rethought. It's been going on for a long time.
There was in the nineties there were books published about
how bad academia was toxic. It was you know, the
(37:19):
the new public management era, you know, the rolling in
of corporate profits which prioritized everything. You know, it was
no longer student centered. It was a profit making enterprise,
and so students were sort of caught in the middle. Really,
(37:42):
I mean, there's going back to the way that research
is controlled. The next step up from that way that
research students work is controlled is if that research student
wants to stay on in that university and maybe get
a job, you know, then obviously they've got to explicitly
(38:04):
say that their interest areas are in a particular area,
not not something that isn't acceptable as a as a
potential future grant research area, those people again you know,
(38:25):
will be filtered out of any potential contracts for the university.
Speaker 1 (38:31):
So I mean, if the institution of like, you know,
the institution of universities is to continue into the future,
I mean, at the moment, the universities kind of do
like you know, the main role is real well, two
main roles are research and teaching.
Speaker 3 (38:45):
Right, yeah, what what which of.
Speaker 1 (38:49):
These two roles do you see as more important going
forward into the future if all, well.
Speaker 2 (38:54):
I mean, as as an educationalist. I personally, I can't
separate those two, and I realized that other disciplines that
that may not be the case. But you know, from
the perspective of learning about learning, research is integral two,
you know, to to helping my students achieve their outcomes.
(39:15):
So but the problem is when you've got those conflicts
of interest in those institutions, that that's when it breaks down.
So there's there's got to be a way of somehow,
you know, being totally independent from those commercial interests, and
that that is something that I'm speaking to colleagues about.
(39:36):
We've we've got you know, a working project at the
moment called the Truth University, where what we envisage is
that there'll be for instance, workshops and surveys and you know,
maybe even you know, podcasts like this that are a
(40:00):
achieving you know, a small amount of income that will
allow students to develop research in their own area of interest.
And rather than having some sort of fake sort of
qualification framework, the way to be accredited will to have
that research peer reviewed by people that don't have any
(40:22):
conflicts of interest, you know, aren't being paid, and that
then that that text, that research outcome will be published
as a book, I see, So it won't be hidden
away and it won't be behind you know, a paywall
or anything. It will be out there for the world
to read and learn from, you know, in a in
(40:44):
a more sort of authentic way, you know. So that's
that's that's one of the things that we're investigating and
hopefully progressing in the next you know, in the future.
Speaker 3 (41:00):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (41:00):
Yeah, Look, I think also your field is kind of like,
you know, unique in the sense that obviously, like you know,
if you're doing research into education, you're literally trying to
figure out how to be a better teacher, right, So
this is kind of like, you know, it's a bit
different to other fields. So someone who's like doing research
into say I don't know, climate change, that doesn't necessarily
(41:24):
make and they may be very very good in that area,
like you know, research in climate climatic changes over like
you know, thousands of years and all that sort of stuff.
Speaker 3 (41:32):
That may be excellent at that, but that doesn't mean
that they can teach that.
Speaker 2 (41:35):
Yes, that's right, they can be a very very poor teacher.
Speaker 1 (41:38):
And I mean I'm I come from a technology background,
and I've seen that like firsthand when when I was
in university that like, you know, people who are absolutely
world class experts in their fields, they can't actually teach that.
Speaker 2 (41:50):
Yeah, exactly.
Speaker 3 (41:51):
Yeah, So yeah, I guess, I mean, I don't know.
Speaker 1 (41:55):
In other fields, maybe it will have to work a
little bit different because from I can say that from
my personal experience, most of the people that I've come
acurse that are really really good at what they.
Speaker 3 (42:08):
Do, they can't actually teach that.
Speaker 1 (42:10):
Yes, And you know, there's the famous saying that people
say that like, you know, if you can't do, then
you teach. You know, it's kind of like almost like
a derogatory term in many fields where like you know,
if you actually not that good at your field, then
that's where you go and become a teacher.
Speaker 2 (42:23):
So yeah, it's it's it is hard, it's very it's
a very difficult dilemma. I mean, we've got the added
the added problem or the challenge of a lot of
the current research that is valid is still only behind
the paywall. So it's incredibly difficult for any independent educational
(42:47):
institution too to get you know, to get the funds
to subscribe to a database that ethically is corrupt anyway, Yeah,
access the research that you do actually need in order
to progress your student's knowledge. So yeah, it's sort of
(43:09):
between a rock and a hard place really with that,
but that that it's not unsurmountable. I mean, there are
lots of open access databases and you know, public libraries
that that are available and increasingly available, and those those
need to be opened up, you know, And there's always
(43:30):
the other option if the author is still alive, you know,
contacting the author direct and asking them you know. Yeah,
so there's there's this fear of sort of hierarchy of
of highly published authors, but there's normally a way around
to access the information. It's just that you have to
be a little bit creative in that respect sometimes.
Speaker 1 (43:54):
So yeah, all right, yeah, it's it's a problem. I mean,
I think there's not an easy solution. But I think
I guess the main takeaway that you know, I take
from from you know, from what you said, is that
you know, we can't really continue with the system.
Speaker 3 (44:10):
As it is, like, you know, it just doesn't work.
Speaker 1 (44:14):
There's something that is fundamentally broken, so like something needs
to be like fixed in in the system as it
currently stands.
Speaker 2 (44:21):
Yes, absolutely, yeah, and yeah, lots of people who you know, belong,
you know, their their alumni, their previous institutions often rely
on them for donations to keep them going. And there's
a movement, I forget what the website is now, but
we can post it afterwards. The the the movement to
(44:44):
prevent people from just continually giving you know, their or
leaving in their will, you know, their their legacy. Two
institutions that quite frankly, you know, they don't deserve support anymore.
And I've had numerous conversations with my three previous universities
(45:06):
and I'm not not God anywhere in terms of asking
them what what they think they're doing with with all
this money? You know, it's just they've just become puppets
of government or of big farm. You know. It's it's
very depressing.
Speaker 3 (45:24):
I think in.
Speaker 1 (45:25):
General, there's a very significant lack of transparency in universities
when it comes to like, you know, what do they
actually use their like, you know money, like funding from
the government even but like definitely from private donors, from
like you know, big quests and things like that, like
you know, if like you know, if a university, and
there's plenty of examples even in my local stadia in Queensland,
(45:46):
where they received significant amounts of money from, say, for example,
the Bill and an Inda Gates Foundation, right, and it
says on their website, like you know, it would say
on the foundation's website that such and such a university,
Queensland University, this particular institute in queen Then University received
over the last like or twelve months, three point.
Speaker 3 (46:03):
Five million, right.
Speaker 1 (46:05):
And then you go in, like, you know, you ask
that particular like you know, division within Queensland University, what
did you do with the money? Well, it's first of all,
they're not compelled to answer, even though they're like you know,
public non for profit institutions and all that sort of
stuff funded by the government predominantly or significantly. In Second
of all, sometimes even if they if they were compelled
(46:26):
to provide that information, sometimes they don't even track it,
so you don't even know where that money went.
Speaker 3 (46:31):
For went to. So obviously it creates a big problem.
Speaker 2 (46:34):
Yeah, and this is another topic of you know, conversation
even this morning and one of the meetings I was
in the fact that you know, there are these buildings
all over the world, a lot of them are empty
for most of every day, you know, and they could
be used I mean the public, public money has been
spent on building them and servicing them and everything, and
(46:57):
yet they're somehow in access all to the public. And
why is that there's no good reason for being allowed
to have access to these spaces, the the it and
the you know, the libraries, the other facilities that are there,
and they're not I mean, I've just heard this morning
(47:18):
that there's you know, another round of redundancies from one
of the institutions here that they can't they're not sustainable.
I mean then they never were sustainable ten years ago,
so now they're you know, they're totally broken. I mean,
they've got far too many staff and that you know,
the outcomes by even by oec D standards in New Zealand,
(47:41):
the learning outcomes here are very low and there's just
no way that they can continue to support and New
Zealand for this amount of population to have eight universities.
It's just ridiculous, frankly, that lots of staff are being
made redundant. And and you know the staff that are
(48:02):
you know, high up, they should have retired a long
time ago. They're the ones that have been controlling the narrative.
A lot of them with their tall poppy syndrome strategies.
You know, there was never a proper succession or quality
you know, continuous improvement plan or anything. It was just
all about making as much money as they could and
(48:24):
and exploiting students, especially overseas students. So yeah, it's going
to there's lots of changes happening, Michael, lots of changes.
I think that's what's happened. You know, that's what's needed
in some ways to have a bit of a shake
up of the whole education system. And you know, more
and more parents are taking their kids out of school
(48:46):
because they don't they don't feel you know, they have
no trust now in the education system or and the teachers,
and that's going to again that's going to have a
knock on effect to other areas of education. So yeah,
it's a total paradigm shift. And who knows how long
(49:07):
is it or and what might be the outcomes. You know,
we've just got await and say in some respects.
Speaker 1 (49:13):
Yeah, So speaking of paradigm shifts, I guess that's like
a little bit more of a kind of like to
close it off, a bit of a philosophical question. But
I mean, you know, I mean when we look at
the history of like you know, teaching and lack you know,
I mean that.
Speaker 3 (49:25):
Goes back thousands of years. But one of the common
characteristics that basically was the case.
Speaker 1 (49:31):
Up until probably like you know, the emergence of the internet.
Speaker 3 (49:34):
Like really in the early.
Speaker 1 (49:35):
Ninety nineties was the fact that like for people to
independently access information was actually very very difficult. You know,
you had to ask someone, or you had to find
an expert, or then you need to go to a library.
The library was far away. It had a limited amount
of like you know, obviously books and resources. It had
like a set like you know, opening like you know,
opening hours and things like that. So it was it
(49:57):
was very access to information was very restricted.
Speaker 4 (50:01):
Now, as the internet emerger emerged, basically we can every
single person on the planet, or at least that we're saying,
like in a developed country can access the entirety of
human knowledgy as it is now like from their smartphone.
Speaker 3 (50:14):
It's literally in the palm of your hands. So, I mean,
is the.
Speaker 1 (50:19):
Traditional approach to teaching and to education, which is still
pretty much in place as far as I can tell everywhere,
is that even still relevant, Like I mean, people have
like different interests. Like you know, people have like different
ways that they learn, even like the media that they learn.
Speaker 3 (50:37):
They have like you know, different aptitudes and things like that, and.
Speaker 1 (50:42):
Is like, you know, the one size fed all approach
even even relevant, not to mention appropriate in this day
and age.
Speaker 2 (50:49):
Yeah, it's an interesting one. I think for me personally, Michael,
it's more about encouraging my students to be critical thinkers.
So it's less about or subject area and more about
broadening out their perspective on the world, maybe you know,
doing some traveling if they can, or you know, reading
(51:12):
a book. I mean, God forbid. You know, so many
students now have openly admit that they've never sat down
and read a whole book, you know, from cover to cover,
which is quite depressing. So I yeah, I'm not I'm
always an optimist, as you know, I'm not necessarily you know,
when I think about these classic books like nineteen eighty
(51:32):
four and Fahrenheit four or five one, you know, there
were always people that overcame these challenges, and the human
spirit is very innovative and creative and we'll find a
way through somehow. You know. The censorship isn't entirely across
the board. There are ways, as we found out ourselves,
(51:53):
there are ways through. So just really the priority for me,
as I say, for my students is always mentees, is
always to help them to try to see the bigger
picture and help them to try to see, you know,
that that perhaps what they've known all of their lives
(52:15):
or been led to believe isn't entirely correct, you know,
and there are very clever ways, especially in creative writing,
you know, either writing it yourself or reading or both
ways to get people to think through. I mean, that's
what's so effective about you know, George Orwell or Oldest
Hutley or you know the poems, the short stories by
(52:38):
Ursula la Gwin. You know, there's there's there's science fiction
and dystopian writings that allow the brain to sort of
have a bit more of an open sort of idea
about how how the world works and and and a
different way of thinking.
Speaker 1 (52:58):
Do you think that you know, it's there properate in
this day and age for like you know, for kids
to spend like you know, twelve years in the schooling system.
I mean, do you think twelve necessary to kind of
get the outcomes that we need for them to be
like you know, productive and more more importantly, even like
you know.
Speaker 3 (53:16):
Happy members of like in a modern society.
Speaker 2 (53:19):
Yeah, I mean I can't. I can't really comment on
that too much because you know, my husband and I
never had kids. Yeah, the only experience I had personally
of those early years of school were, to be honest,
pretty horrendous.
Speaker 3 (53:35):
Yea.
Speaker 2 (53:36):
So no, I haven't got a very good and the
kids that I know that are at school at the moment,
you know, they're not having a very happy time. And
that's because the teachers that I saw, you know, I
saw those teachers being taught to be teachers by teachers
who were failed teachers.
Speaker 3 (53:56):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (53:57):
Yeah, So it's no surprise to me that those classrooms
are not fun, happy places to be, especially now we've
got you know, people in masks and disinfecting everywhere and
all the rest of it. Briefly, my answer to you
would be definitely know that there is not a place
where any child should be situated for any length of time.
(54:18):
But on a broader perspective, I think, you know, it
is time for us all to take responsibility personally not
only for our own health and well being, but also
for those around us, and so Okay, the parents might
need to sacrifice some time that they would be ordinarily
spending at home, at work, im in you know, earning
(54:41):
money to buy their home or whatever. It's about prioritizing again,
isn't it. It's about reprioritizing our lives. What is important.
And if your child's education is primary importance to you,
which you know, I think most parents would say yes
it is, then things need to change. And definitely the
(55:02):
school system as I can see it here at the
moment in New Zealand, definitely. I mean I wouldn't. I
wouldn't put a child into any school anywhere in New
Zealand at the moment personally. So I think that maybe
that says something. Yeah, it's not It's not a healthy
place to be. And unless you're very blessed with a
(55:23):
very forward thinking, optimistic, creative teacher who is allowed to
use his or her skills in a in a meaningful way,
you know, somehow get through the hurdles that are needed
to be jumped over, then there's very little chance that
a child is going to reach its potential in those
(55:44):
twelve years of institutional curriculum. Yeah.
Speaker 1 (55:50):
Yeah, I think really like the main thing that kind
of stuck me with everything that you say, and this
is really a recurring theme with pretty much everyone I
speak to.
Speaker 3 (55:57):
It is like in a personal responsibility.
Speaker 1 (55:59):
I think, I think at the end of the day,
we all have to like you know, be the change
that we want to see.
Speaker 3 (56:05):
And and like you.
Speaker 1 (56:06):
Know, if people rely too much on other people, on
the government, on companies, you know, to to make those
changes for them, nothing's gonna happen. That's the better option
and the worst option. Something will happen, but they're not
gonna like it. Yeah, So yeah, I think I think
that's probably the best, the best know to kind of
(56:28):
end our conversation. I think personal responsibility is crucial and
and uh, just like in education, just like in healthcare,
just in like you know, in finances.
Speaker 3 (56:38):
Really in everything.
Speaker 1 (56:39):
People have to take responsibility over their lives and navigate
their own kind of path in life because if they don't,
then by definition, there will be on someone else's path
and they may not like where where that path ends.
Speaker 3 (56:51):
So yeah, that's right.
Speaker 2 (56:53):
I Mean, there's you know, there's a fantastic book that
I'll give a club to buy a guy called Ghetto
a DOUBLET that was written over ten years ago, I
think it was two thousand and eight, two thousand and
nine called Weapons of Mass Instruction, which, as you probably
guess by the title, you know, just talks about how
(57:17):
schools indoctrinate children, but for the you know, the the
society as a whole, it's just a propaganda machine. And
that was you know, it's even more timely now that
book than it's ever been the compulsory schooling. What I
think what parents should be asking themselves is what is
(57:39):
the objective? You know, what do I want my child
to achieve through going to school? Because whatever those objectives are,
it's not going to match the schools because the schools
are businesses now. They're not schools for learning sake. They're
not learning for learning sake. They want business outcomes, you know,
measurable outcomes, and learning is never going to be a
(58:01):
cold piece of you know, numerical data that is profitable
that it doesn't work like that, you know.
Speaker 1 (58:08):
So yeah, yeah, yeah, here here, I couldn't really agree more.
Speaker 3 (58:13):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (58:14):
I mean, look, I think I think we've covered quite
a lot of very important topics and hopefully gave people
something to think about, especially in the context of a
personal responsibility when it comes to education, I guess just
to close it off, I mean, if you can tell
us a little bit more about, like, you know, some
of the current projects that you're working on. I know
that you mentioned truth University and also where people can
(58:36):
find you online, where where you're active.
Speaker 2 (58:39):
Yes, so Truth University. We're just in the process of
changing the update in the website, but we do have
a sub stack on the go where we're publishing things
about general education issues, including the freedom of academic speech,
which was in the UK headlines recently with Oxford University's controversy.
(59:03):
So yeah, i'd encourage people to follow us on sub stack.
Other projects I'm involved with are just basically supporting the
freedom groups more locally in New Zealand, so the Nurses
for Freedom group and the Teachers SOS groups, and you know,
we're all sort of in limbo at the moment, waiting
(59:24):
for various court cases to be judge. So yeah, we'll
keep fighting a good fight. Michael. And thank you for
your hard work in this media space, for getting the
getting the voices out there. I appreciate that, really.
Speaker 1 (59:41):
Appreciate your timer. So thanks for coming on board too soon.
Speaker 2 (59:45):
Thank
Popular Podcasts
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
The Bobby Bones Show
Listen to 'The Bobby Bones Show' by downloading the daily full replay.