 A Capital Friendly Culture for Further Education
Academy Chains
After the Hillcole Group
Against What We Are Worth
Ambassadors of Capital in Schools
An Educational Mansion House for Business
Apprenticeship and the Use-value Aspect of Labour Power
Artistic Outlook
Ayers Rocked In His Own Universe
B Generation
Bourdieu on Capital
Bourdieu on Cultural Capital
Bourdieu on Social Capital
Brown PFI Monster
Business Sponsorship of Schools
Business Takeover of Further Education
Cambridge University Occupation
Caught in the Storm of Capital
Co-payment in Hospitals and Schools
Cold Hands and Quarter Moon
Communitarianism for Schools
Compulsory Consumption and Uni-Nanny
Conforming Schools Conforming Kids
Copy/South Dossier
Creating Monsters
Creeping Privatisation in Higher Education
Critical Mass
Critical Pedagogy and Capitalism
Critical Space in Education
Delivering E-Learning
Digital Rights Management
Distillation
Dorothy L. Sayers
Douglas Kennedy: best-selling novelist
E-learning for Free at the BBC
Edison Schools in the UK
Education and Inspections Bill (2006)
Education As Culture Machine
Education Fireworks
Education for Debt
Education Incorporated
Education Markets and Missing Products
Education Repetition
Education the HSBC Way
Education White Paper
Education, Globalisation and the Learning Society
Employers and School Leavers
Evaluating Different Teaching Methods
Everything Louder Than Everything Else
Finance and Fear
Five Endings of Desires
Foibles, Frolics and Phantasms
Freedom
Freewill
French New Wave Cinema
Full Report Ruth Rikowski's Book Launch for Globalisation, Information and Libraries
Gender and Spokesperson in Group Work Issues
Global Trading
Globalisation and Education Revisited
Habituation of the Nation
Higher Education and Confused Employer Syndrome
Hitchcock: classic auteur
Human capital, the knowledge economy and business
In Retro Glide
In the Dentist's Chair
Kids in the Land of No Dreams
KM Critique
Lazy Brit Kids
Learning in the Earthworks of Capital
Learning Investments
Learning to the Max
Librarianship and Human Rights
Lifelong Learning and the Political Economy of Containment
LSBU Strategy
Marketisation of the Schools System in England
Marx and Education Revisited
Marx and the Future of the Human
Marxism and Education Revisited
Marxist Educational Theory Unplugged
Maturity and Freedom
McDonaldization and Education
Michael Jackson
Michele Roberts
Miss Allison and Novel Writing
Moneythought in Higher Education
Mrs Thatcher and Holes in the Kitchen Floor
Multiculturalism and Faith Schools
My Tony Blair
New Ideas in Ruth Rikowski's Book - Part 1
New Ideas in Ruth Rikowski's Book - Part 2
New Labour Policy for Schools
Nietzsche's School
Nihilism and Educational Values
No Learner Left Unhassled
Notes on the Confessions of John Denham
On Education for Its Own Sake
On Education Studies
On the Capitalisation of Schools in England
On Transhumanism and Education
Open Access
Outsourcing Public Services
Peter Wilby on School Privatisation
Planet of the Capitorg
Plato
Playgound Risks and Handcuffed Kids
Poems by Gregory Rikowski
Poems by Victor Rikowski
Post-Fordism and Schools
Post-Fordism in Primary Schools
Postmodern Dereliction in the Face of Neoliberal Education Policy
PowerPointlessness in Higher Education
Private Schools as Charities
Privatisation of Schools in England
Privatisation of Student Debt
Races in the Imperial War
Readings for Teaching Course
Recruitment and Labour Power
Revealed Recruitment Criteria through the Use-value Aspect of Labour-power
Robotic Ethics
Ruth Rikowski Updates (Archives)
Ruth Rikowski Updates (Archives)
School Fees and the 1944 Education Act
Schools: Building for Business
Science Fiction Films and Horror
Second Time as Farce
Snowballs and Risk in Schools
Social Contract Theory and Political Obligations
Socialism is not Dead
Speed of Life - Part One
Speed of Life - Part Two
Stroppy Individuals and Oppositional Cultures in Schools
Sustainability Policy at London South Bank University
Ten Points on Marx, Class and Education
The Business of Becoming a Business for Academies
The Capitalisation of Schools - Federations and Academies
The CBI and the Business Takeover of Schools
The Commodification of Education
The Education White Paper and the Marketisation of Schools
The Evolution of Federations of Schools
The Last Parents Evening
The New Japanisation of Schools
The Profit Virus - The Business Takeover of Schools
The Standards Language-game for Schools in England
The Which Blair Project
Three Types of Apprenticeship - Three Forms of Mastery
Tony and Caroline Benn
Tony Benn: Letters to Grandchildren
Transport
Turney's and PPU
Uninspiring Towers
Universe of Capital and My Space
Universities in a Neoliberal World
Utopia and Education
What Can Nietzsche Teach Ya
When Bullies Roam the School
When the Bowers Break
Why Employers Can't Ever Get What They Want
Will Hutton and His E-Foss
Wolf on Marx Without Sparks
Women in World Wars
| LONDON SOUTH BANK UNIVERSITY (LSBU) STRATEGY:
A CRITIQUE
FACULTY OF BUSINESS, COMPUTING AND
INFORMATION MANAGEMENT
LEARNING AND TEACHING PLAN, 2005/6 – 08/09
AND OTHER RELATED LSBU STRATEGIES
Ruth Rikowski
For this critique I decided to focus on the London South Bank University (LSBU) Faculty of Business, Computing and Information Management Learning and Teaching Plan, for 2005/6 – 08/09 as I teach in this Faculty, so thought it would be likely to be particularly beneficial for me. Within this, though, in order to make sense of it and to effectively develop a critical approach I thought it would be useful to examine some other LSBU strategies, as they all influence and impact on the BCIM plan. These other strategies are:
London South Bank University Learning and Teaching Strategy 2005/06 – 2007/08
LSBU Centre for Learning Support and Development – Development Plan 2006/07 – 2008/9
LSBU People Development Strategy and Corporate Learning and Development Plan – 2006/07 – 2008/09
Each of these strategies will be considered briefly below.
The first of these, the LSBU Learning and Teaching (L&S) Strategy outlines the fact that each Faculty has to develop a Learning and Teaching Plan, over a 3-year period – so the BCIM plan has been designed and implemented as a direct requirement and a result of this L&S Strategy. The LSBU vision for Learning and Teaching are outlined in the strategy. These include: “pedagogic innovation”; “excellence in teaching”; “an exemplary record for widening participation, student retention and graduate employment”; “a successful track-record of working in partnership with local and regional employers and other educational providers”; and “developing and sustaining confident independent learners” (p.2). This vision is also included in the BCIM Learning and Teaching Plan itself. The vision also reflects the Mission, Strategic Aims and Strategic Priorities in the University Corporate Plan, 2006/07-2008/09.
The second of these, the LSBU Centre for Learning Support and Development Plan concerns the development plan for resources and learning support, which is obviously essential for both students and academic staff, including those of us in BCIM! The Centre for Learning Support and Development (CLSD) was formed from the merger of 3 separate departments which all provided learning support to South Bank students – these were the Learning Development Centre, the Learning Resources Centre and the Learning and Information Services. CLSD has a number of strategic aims. These include: improving services delivered to its customers; developing “a range of different and high quality learning and studying environments”; developing different services “to equip students to succeed in their studies”; and working with the Faculties to “develop their learning, teaching and research activities” (p.3). Each of the objectives are considered in some detail in the plan, in a table format. One of the operational objectives for improving services delivered to its customers, for example, is to improve stock availability by implementing RFID and on-demand publishing (p. 4).
The third of these is the People Development Strategy (PDS) and Corporate Learning and Development Plan, 2006/07 – 2008/09, which also links to the LSBU Corporate Plan. PDS is concerned with the professional and personal development of LSBU staff, which obviously again includes staff in BCIM! The People Development Strategy is based on the concept of partnership. This involves: individual staff reviewing their performance and assessing their development needs; and managers assessing both individual and team needs and the University, particularly through the Staff Development Unit (SDU) providing learning and development programmes and support systems, to aid personal and professional development. The strategy says, for example, that leaders and managers have a responsibility to:
“Work with their colleagues to support them in achieving their full potential within their current role. This is an on-going process which is captured annually through the staff appraisal procedure” (p. 15).
It also acknowledges the role of research and publications in this enterprise (see point 5, on ‘amendments’, below; also point 7).
Thus, the above strategies all have to be in existence, in order for the Business, Computing and Information Management (BCIM) Teaching and Learning Plan (T&L Plan) to be effective. BCIM was created in September 2003, with the merger of the Business School and the School of Computing, Information Systems and Mathematics. This is the second Learning and Teaching Plan for BCIM.
The BCIM Teaching and Learning Plan is expected to reflect the University Learning and Teaching Aims which includes: providing “a curriculum that meets students’ learning needs”; “supporting students’ on-course and on progression to employment and/or further study”; providing “quality programmes” and providing “staff with the necessary skills and resources to support students” (p.2).
The previous BCIM plan had a number of specific objectives, including improving retention and progression; promoting the use of e-learning and developing the vocational relevance of BCIM programmes. Progress has been made in all these different areas, and these are outlined in Appendix A at the end of the plan. The objectives will continue to be of relevance in future plans.
The University Learning and Teaching Aims are inserted on a grid in the BCIM T&L Plan and the action that the Faculty intends to take. Various Faculty actions are outlined in response to the first University aim, for example, such as “To provide a curriculum that meets students’ learning needs…” These actions include the organisation of learning and teaching seminar series and publication of faculty pedagogic activity profile (p.6).
The second half of this critique will go through and respond to the points as listed on p. 13 of the document for the CLTHE course entitled ‘Compiling your portfolio: some guidelines, Unit One’ (2007).
1. Relating the strategies to my own work
On initial reading it seemed difficult to see how the strategies related to my work specifically. Obviously, the LSBU ‘Learning and Teaching Strategy’ relates in a very broad way to my teaching, as the BCIM strategy is formulated in response to this strategy, and the strategy includes ‘key performance indicators’ such as “Student satisfaction with all aspects of the learning, teaching and assessment on their programmes of study” (p.6) and “All programmes have identified PDP opportunities” (p.8). PDPs (Personal Development Plans) form an important part of many of the courses that I teach on, and students often have to complete PDPs as part of their coursework. Similarly broad relevant objectives are also embedded in the other strategies, such as reviewing building standards and accommodation in the CLSD plan with the target being to have “More suitable environments for study” (p.5) – such objectives are obviously highly beneficial to my students, can help to enable me to teach more effectively, as well as providing useful resources for myself.
Relating it to my teaching in other ways is not so self-evident, although there clearly are some areas. Examples include: developing the E-learning plan; taking up VLE usage; increases in the number of placement opportunities and student satisfaction with personal tutoring (in the BCIM plan).
The previous BCIM plan (2003/04-04/05) emphasised the importance of developing Blackboard and the Intranet for student use (which was subsequently carried out) and that obviously now impacts on my teaching as we are all being encouraged to use Blackboard more – including using it on this CLTHE course itself.
It also had the following to say about the MBA Programme, which I have had some involvement with and also relates to the comments made by George Bell below in regard to internationalisation:
“On the MBA Programme the curriculum has evolved to make international/contemporary management more central to the learning and teaching of management and this now helps to drive the direction of personal development within the MBA and helps to reflect management in a global context” (p.15).
In regard to management working within the “global context”, George Bell has invited me on several occasions to give guest lectures on my published works to the MBA students. This has included guest lectures on globalisation itself.
Furthermore, lunchtime seminars for academic staff were also referred to in the previous plan. It says:
“In order to promote and disseminate learning and teaching experience and good practice…the faculty has initiated a seminar series in which speakers from among faculty staff and from outside are invited to lunchtime seminars. These have been well attended and can be seen as a way of starting to initiate a dialogue within the faculty relating to learning and teaching issues. Although this is relatively new, it is hoped that it might lead to the development of a community of practice in learning and teaching which would be an important development for the faculty” (p.16).
However, even though I have a significant publication record, with 2 published books (see Rikowski, 2005 and 2007) and numerous articles (see for example, Rikowski, 2002a and b), I have not been invited to speak and contribute at one of these seminars. Neither have I been invited to speak at one of the early evening sessions that take place periodically. This has surprised me, given that they are on topics that would be of interest to BCIM, (indeed, I would go so far as to say tha, in the long-run, it is likely to be very important that BCIM takes an active interest in these topics) – i.e. globalisation, knowledge and knowledge management and information technology. But perhaps I will be invited to speak at some future date.
It also said that:
“…the faculty has started publishing a collection of articles and research papers related to teaching and learning produced by BCIM members” (p.16-17).
It is good that there is interest in publications in the department in this way, but it would be better if it was more broadly-based, I think, rather than focusing so specifically on teaching and learning. All in all, research and publications are an important part of the activities of a university and can also improve the quality of teaching.
In sum, the strategies do relate to my work in regard to both my teaching and my publications. In regard to teaching, it is rather general. In regard to publications the strategy aims in the MBA programme have provided me with a platform to speak around subjects in my published works, and I can help to develop and improve the MBA. But other opportunities to speak have not been so forthcoming. Also the strategy in BCIM focuses on teaching and learning publications, rather than publications in general, although the People Development Strategy has a much broader publication remit (see points 5 and 7 below), and so this relates to my work more specifically.
2. How much my colleagues/managers know about the strategies
I emailed no less that 21 members of academic staff in BCIM, as well as the University’s Document & Copyright Services Manager and the Head of Learning and Teaching Enhancement asking them about the strategies. Contacting them was easy for me because I send Updates on my latest work and interests out regularly to these people (who are included amongst over 400 others receiving the ‘Ruth Rikowski Updates’ – and reproduced also on an AOL blog, see references below). Thus, these people already know that I am studying for the CLTHE.
I asked them if they could consider and reply to me on the questions as laid out in the assignment in the light of one or more of the 4 strategies named above – i.e.
i. Why it was felt to be necessary (government requirement or local need)?
ii. Who was involved in writing it (Senior Management Team or an individual member, specific committee, working group)?
iii. How were the priorities set (external requirements, discussion with individuals, wider consultation)?
iv. How the department/faculty/university plans to meet the targets or achieve the aims.
However, I only received six replies and they were only of limited help and application in regard to answering the specific questions. Helen George’s reply was by far the most helpful in terms of answering the specific questions. She was a Principal Lecturer in BCIM when I first started working in BCIM myself, but now she is Head of Learning & Teaching Enhancement at LSBU. Hence, she has a lot of knowledge and understanding about the relevant strategies. She addressed her answer to the University’s Learning and Teaching Strategy specifically, and answered questions 1 and 2 fully, and question 3 but not question 4. Helen’s reply to question 1 was as follows:
“The L&T Strategy (and an Action Plan) is a requirement from HEFCE - in return we receive ring-fenced L&T funding known as the Teaching & Learning Enhancement Fund (TQEF) – at the moment this is worth approx £400K a year. This funding process has been in operation through successive rounds since about 1998/99 although in each round - which is usually phased over 3 years - the criteria & process has been altered slightly by HEFCE - just to keep us on our toes!”
Regarding question 2, Helen said that:
“The process for generating our own L&T Strategy is that it was drafted by a sub-group of the University L&T Committee, based on the outcomes of various working groups that had been working through the previous year looking at different aspects of L&T e.g. e-learning, assessment, 1st Year Experience & Employability. The working groups had about 60 members drawn from across all the faculties & learning support. This draft was sent to Faculty L&T Cttees & Academic Standards Cttees for comment and consultation then re-drafted & re-submitted to the University L&T Cttee, Quality Standards Cttee, SMT and finally Academic Board. The faculty L&T Plans were written in response to the strategy - progress on these was reported back to the University L&T Cttee in June. We've already identified that whilst the strategy's reasonably well understood at a faculty level it is less well understood or embedded at departmental & individual level. For most individual colleagues the only time they're likely to engage with it is if they're applying for support with a project or fellowship - in which case it'll be one of their points of reference.”
In regard to question 3 she had this to say:
“…generally the criteria are set to reflect national strategic priorities for learning and teaching - in the current round these national priorities are:
1. Ensuring teaching is informed by research or RIT (new)
2. Supporting continuing professional development activity, enabling staff to meet agreed national teaching standards and building a record of attainment against these standards (the Professional Standards Framework is available from the HE Academy website)
3. Broadening the learning experience through support for student volunteering (new to L&T - funds transferred from Widening Participation stream)
4. Supporting success and progression for students with diverse needs
So not difficult for LSBU to relate to these as they fit reasonably well with our mission - except no. 1. Our response to the RIT has been to increase support through the TQEF money for pedagogic research and scholarship – e.g., the L&T Innovation Projects and Faculty Fellowships.”
The second response was from Dr Dieu Hack-Polay, Senior Lecturer in International Human Resource Management and Business Skills Unit Coordinator in BCIM. He answered all four questions very briefly, regarding all four strategies. His answers are given below:
Q1: “While a government recommendation, I think, local organisations also felt they could benefit from the initiative which could enhance the skills of their workforce and enhance the status of the profession.”
Q2: “I think a working group was set up to look into the issue by consulting individual staff and make recommendation to SMT.”
Q3: “Like in many such initiatives there is a strong external pressure though there is often a so-called consultation process.”
Q4: “The departments through their heads are encouraging individuals to take up the opportunity available but there presently, in my knowledge, is no formal strategy or time frame to achieve the targets.”
Two other people said that they did not know the answers to the questions, apart from one who replied “both” to question 1. However, one of these people provided me with a lot of other useful information and his views in relation to the University’s international strategy, which are indicated below. One other academic told me that he agreed with this basic position. Finally, the University’s Document & Copyright Services Manager (Alan Lee) gave me contact details of other people in the University that could help in regard to answering these questions, one of which included Helen George herself. This was very considerate of him, but I did not have the time to follow up all the contacts – though that might be an area that could be explored further in future.
It seems that there is some knowledge deficit and/or little interest in the University (or at least in BCIM) about the strategies amongst many of the academic staff. Helen George advanced this point herself. It could be argued that in some ways this is a healthy situation, as they should perhaps be focusing more on academic issues (their core work), rather than on managerial strategies. However, from my experience I have witnessed that interest and involvement in writing, research and publications is also somewhat limited in BCIM. Professor Deian Hopkin noted this himself (in a brief interview with me), that academic outputs in the BCIM lag behind that of other Faculties. There are, of course, other possible explanations for the lack of response, such as a general lack of communication in regard to the strategies; or myself not giving people enough time in which to respond; or people being too busy etc. etc. Anyhow, there are clearly some issues here that need to be addressed. If BCIM staff played a more active role in regard to these strategies then this could possibly be of benefit, both to themselves and to the organisation.
The person above who said ‘don’t know’, apart from ‘both’ to question 1, was George Bell, who at the time was the MBA Course Director in BCIM. He then provided me information regarding his overall perspective on the University strategies, which I found to be very interesting and informative. This argued that there was a lack of ‘internationalisation’, as well as a substantive lack of will for developing and implementing effective strategies regarding internationalisation as a particular aspect of the University’s operations. He helpfully emailed me some PowerPoint slides on a presentation that he gave with Dr Carolina Valiente, on the topic of internationalisation. George indicated that this was his main strategic interest at LSBU: i.e., how to attract more international students on to courses and adopt a wholly more international look in general. The presentation was given on 8th March 2006, and was entitled ‘Managing global diversity: internalizing stakeholder expectations of internationalization’. The Learning Outcomes for the session were:
* To consider how far LSBU is proactive or reactive to the internationalisation project
* To highlight some of the expectations from the post graduates learning experience at LSBU
Bell and Valiente considered a number of issues, such as: the fact that an international curriculum is crucial; the concept of ‘internationalization at home’ which “…involves the development of curricula and extra curricula processes that focus on internationalization some times with foreign exchange”; international institutional links and international research collaboration. It occurred to me, having looked at the PowerPoint slides, that perhaps the internationalisation dimension needs to be strengthened in the strategies, particularly in the BCIM strategy itself. I put this point to George in an email, and asked him the following question: “Do you think that internationalisation should be a more integral part of the BCIM Strategy that I sent you yesterday?” He replied saying: “Yes, I have been pushing this for over 5 years...”
He then said that the following questions need to be thought about in relation to this:
1. What is the intended strategy/business/L&T?
2. How does it relate to the needs of UK and EU International learners?
3. How does it relate to the needs of lecturers who have to deal with LSBU students?
George also emailed me details of a project proposal that was formulated by himself, Dr Ken D’Silva and Dr Caroline Valiente in 2003 on this internationalisation issue. There were 4 research objectives in the project, one of which was:
“To understand the learning expectations of postgraduate international students and to provide a suitable learning and teaching adjustment programme, particularly in the first semester (Masters in Business and Finance/Accounting) and beyond.”
George informed me that the project was agreed to as an LSBU fellowship, but that he was given no money and no time. So, he had to do the work in his own time and that he is still doing it/ Yet, now he is on a fractional post, so that he can continue further with this type of work that interests him, but outside of the university. However, still no-one is really all that interested. Instead, people just keep reinventing the wheel. Due to these facts, he has little faith in LSBU Learning and Teaching Strategy, he said, or its international policy. This, then, seems to be quite a serious situation and is surely something that LSBU should be paying more attention to. It cannot be good to have enthusiastic and hard-working academics disillusioned in this way! George was also more than happy to be quoted in this report of mine as well, so clearly he wants people to be paying more attention to what he is saying and the work that he is doing on this important topic.
3. Were academic colleagues able to help me to understand the purpose of the strategies?
I had a mixed response, but overall it was quite limited. Helen George provided the most useful information (see point 2 above).
4. How relevant are the strategies?
See points above: they are relevant to some general teaching practice, but not so relevant for generating more innovative thinking, it seems, such as the topic of internationalisation, and research and publications on a wider range of topics.
5. Are there points in the strategies that I think need attention? Should they be added to, amended or deleted?
Leading on from point 4, the following should ideally be ‘added to’: research and publications; and internationalisation.
On the first count (research and publications), some suggestions for amendments are given here. There is explicit acknowledgment regarding the integration of the interests of employers, professional bodies and other educational providers into learning and teaching objectives (LSBU L&T Strategy, L&T Objectives 4.2, p.6), but no mention of integrating research and publications in the pedagogy. Furthermore, at the level of the BCIM (BCIM L&T Plan, p.6), there is reference to ‘publication of faculty pedagogic activity profile’ as a required Faculty action, and on p.9 for Faculty to ‘support, where possible, request for staff development that enhance the learning and teaching capabilities of individual (sic) or groups of staff’. These points should be amended to include a wider research and publication agenda, as befitting a higher education institution. The ‘People Development Strategy and Corporate Development Plan’ is better in this respect, noting that “We will encourage staff to develop innovative teaching and learning strategies and to publish scholarly work ...” (p.5 – my emphasis). However, within the same sentence it seems to suggest allying scholarly work with generating ‘additional university income’. Rather, I think the two sentences should be broken up to avoid any possible misconceptions, and in order to emphasise the importance of producing sound scholarly work. To enhance clarification, more detail should be given on the specifics in regard to publishing scholarly work.
On the second count (internationalisation), it is anomalous that a University that gives such importance to diversity and its international presence and outlook, should not have formal commitments enshrined in all of its strategies on this issue. This should be amended as and when appropriate.
6. Does it inform the work I do with my students?
Yes, but only in a general sense: see point 2 above.
7. Can I make use of the strategies with my work and with my students and if so, how?
I do not need to be aware of the strategies in order to carry out my work, but perhaps in the future (following on from this assignment), I could have an input into future strategies, and by this means, they could have more direct relevance to my work. In regard to using the strategies that currently exist, the strategy on the MBA is of relevance here (e.g. with me perhaps having more input into the globalisation part of the programme).
N.B. I am aware of the fact that 2 of the strategies are ‘Learning and Teaching’ plans specifically, and not research and publication-based, but a good publication record can help one to be a better teacher as well! The ‘People Development Strategy’ has wider aims – e.g., to “…sustain a learning community in which all staff are encouraged, empowered and supported to develop professionally and personally to achieve our corporate aims and objectives”(p. 3), and the aim on scholarly work (see above). In addition, it is also concerned with “…the development of all our staff.” (p. 8), and elaborates considerably on staff development and training programmes. This could, possibly, be useful for my work.
In sum, examining these strategies has been a sobering and thought-provoking experience and is something that can now be built on.
References
LSBU strategies (all available from Blackboard – in CLTHE section)
Faculty of business, computing and Information Management Learning and Teaching Plan, 2005/6 – 08/09
LSBU Learning and Teaching Strategy
https://www.lsbu.ac.uk/staff/organisation/keyDocs.html
LSBU Centre for Learning Support and Development – Development Plan 2006/07 – 2008/9
LSBU People Development Strategy and Corporate Learning and Development Plan – 2006/07 – 2008/09
Other references
Rikowski, Ruth (2002a) Studying Knowledge Management at Masters Level, with particular reference to South Bank University (2002), Managing Information, November, pp.56-57
Rikowski, Ruth (2002b) Globalisation and libraries (2002b) in ‘Globalisation’, report by House of Lords, Select Committee on Economic Affairs, Session 2002-03, 1st Report, the Stationery Office. In ‘Volume of Evidence’, part 2, HL5-11 – on CD ROM, pp. 360-371
Rikowski, Ruth (2007) Knowledge Management; social, cultural and theoretical perspectives, Chandos Publishing: Oxford
http://www.chandospublishing.com/catalogue/record_detail.php?recordID=67
Rikowski, Ruth (2005) Globalization, Information and Libraries: the implications of the World Trade Organisation’s GATS and TRIPS Agreements, Chandos Publishing: Oxford:
http://www.chandospublishing.com/catalogue/record_detail.php?recordID=35
See also: ‘Ruth Rikowski Updates’, at:
http://journals.co.uk/rikowskigr/ruth-rikowski-updates
N.B. Many thanks to the academic colleagues that replied to my questions.
Word count (excluding title and references) – 4095
Points for consideration
1. I am aware of fact that this is very much over the word limit, but the subject was incredibly complex, and there was not time to shorten the piece. I am a deep learner.
2. I examined 4 strategies, because they all very much linked together. We had to examine a university-wide strategy, so I could not just confine my report to my Faculty (BCIM) anyway. But obviously, looking at the BCIM strategy is particularly useful for me. So, I decided to take this multi-dimensional approach.
3. I did not get a particularly good response from academics in regard to the questions about the strategies. In particular, I was not able to obtain any good replies at all to Q4. But if I had got a better response that would have made the report even longer! Perhaps, these areas could be explored further at a future date.
4. In some ways I did not cover some of the questions well enough (e.g. Q. 5 could have been explored further), but if I had of done, this would also have made the report even longer!
5. In general, the way this coursework has been designed does not suit me and my learning style. I like to look at the big picture in-depth, think about the complexities and write about them, and then produce smaller versions of my work, for use and publication in various places. There were quite a number of pieces of work that were required, all of which actually demanded a lot of thought and research, if something worthwhile is to be produced, but there was insufficient time in which to complete this work in.
Additional Note This piece was originally written as part of a portfolio for the Certificate in Learning and Teaching in Higher Education (CLTHE) which I was studying for, at London South Bank University (LSBU). Alison Britton, the Course Leader, thought that further examination of the university strategies and policies in general was necessary witin the university. With this and other issues in mind, I thought it would be useful to make this piece available on our website. Hopefully, it can help to contribute to further knowledge, understanding, debate and participation on this topic. Also, that some of the wider issues raised can extend beyond LSBU itself, to incorporate a wider audience and with a wider debate.
14th January 2008
© Copyright, Ruth Rikowski
Print Friendly - Print Friendly with links
|
