Search results

The purpose of this paper is to provide a reflective evaluation of the concept of the teaching commons as presented by authors Huber and Hutchings and to summarize expected outcomes from participation therein.

An appraisal of the book The Advancement of Learning: Building the Teaching Commons is presented to explore the conception of the teaching commons. This review addresses the definition of the teaching commons and explores the establishment of, and participation in, the teaching commons as a means of advancing the scholarship of teaching and learning and for improving student learning.

A fundamental premise is developed suggesting that the development and utilization of a teaching commons will improve teaching and learning through the provision of a defined safeplace for conversations about teaching and learning and specific avenues to share information about teaching innovations for improving student learning. Sustained faculty engagement in a teaching commons must be supported by formalized institutional recognition and appropriate rewards.

A practical resource for faculty members involved in the scholarship of teaching and learning and for administrators developing teaching and learning centers or resources for utilization by faculty members.

This review examines the definition and establishment of a teaching commons for improving the scholarship of teaching and learning at the college and university levels.

The paper seeks to describe the establishment and progress of an online initiative: RIC – Researching the Information Commons.

Who has really challenged and thought through in a research sense about the issues that surround the commons provision of information; a concept dear to the hearts of many of the world's librarians? This question leads to the development of a researcher networking initiative, represented on the web as RIC (http://infocommons.curtin.edu.au).

The web site has a growing number of participants, not all working together, but who are interested in information commons matters from a research point of view.

RIC is a federated network of colleagues researching in this many faceted arena and it is slowly gathering momentum. Expressions of interest to join have been sought, and a web site has been developed.

RIC will operate through: openness and feedback; shared decision making; diversity within the commons; honouring social and legal equity amongst its members; and fostering sociability within the commons.

The vision for the RIC Group is to nurture and mentor a community of researchers interested in matters relating to the information commons, by being in itself an information commons.

The topic of information commons has considerable use and currency but there appears to be only one RIC.

Libraries are exploring the meaning of the “information commons” and have responded to the technological needs of the diversity of digital access trends. The purpose of this conceptual article is to explore the possibilities of the next step of developing dynamic “learning commons” using examples of projects and ideas presented by librarians in the field.

The “learning commons” model has the potential to be a laboratory for students, librarians and faculty. It is a collaboration space and requires partnerships and cooperation across disciplines. Ideas about user behavior and types of projects to be explored are included.

Funding for learning commons is linked to measured outcomes. The role of the librarian changes to include advocacy and project planning.

This paper demonstrates that the change in library service via the learning commons concept requires planning, interdisciplinary collaboration and a certain amount of risk taking.

This paper is useful for librarians who are designing and/or implementing “learning commons” spaces and concepts into their libraries and library services.

This study aims to help develop “business principles for stakeholder capitalism” in two steps. First, the study defines internal logic of three theories of capitalism and two variants within each theory. Second, it examines approaches to integration into modern democratic capitalism. Treating the three theories as substitutes identifies relative strengths and weaknesses; complementarity and partial overlap approaches to integration study the institutional settings within which stakeholder capitalism operates. Empirical outcomes reflect competition between market and stakeholder businesses for participants, with institutional conditions determining the scope of collective action.

The approach aligns three typologies in a unique conceptual arrangement defining the three theories of capitalism: forms of capitalism, potential failures of each form and associated types of goods. The first method examines the internal logic of each theory of capitalism. The second draws on traditional narrative review of references documenting each theory of capitalism and variants together with modern Marxist anti-capitalism.

Three typologies align uniquely with the theories of capitalism, each having two variants. Both variants of stakeholder capitalism are compatible with compassionate capitalism, constitutional government or polycentric governance but not with self-interest capitalism, dictatorship or Marxism. A theory of modern democratic capitalism allocates roles for private, club and social goods with empirically variable mixes occurring across countries. Competition among different types of enterprises provides an empirical test for comparative advantages of stakeholder capitalism. Future research should consider approaches for testing the proposed conceptual scheme in practice concerning capacity to deal with grand challenges, wicked problems and black swan events.

Research approach is limited to logical examination of theories and literature documentation without direct empirical confirmation. The study does not address practical implications for managers and public officials or social implications concerning private incentives, stakeholder cooperation or collective action.

Originality lies in shifting terms of debate about stakeholder capitalism from advocacy of substitute theories to understanding of its relationship to market capitalism and collective action capitalism. Value lies in explaining desirability of theoretical integration of three types of capitalism into a comprehensive framework for modern democratic capitalism.

Situated within the Irving K. Barber Learning Centre at the University of British Columbia (UBC) in Vancouver, Canada, the Chapman Learning Commons (CLC) has been offering academic transition and learning support programs targeted to first year students since 2002. A recent addition to our suite of services is the Profs-in-Commons program which invites faculty members to conduct their office hours and host events in the CLC. The program has been an important initiative for the Learning Commons and the UBC campus community because it encourages student–faculty interaction outside of the classroom; it increases student’s attendance in course-based office hours – hosted by faculty members and it leverages the status of libraries as neutral, collaborative, and community-oriented learning spaces. The program is grounded in student engagement research consistently showing that students’ transition to university is greatly enhanced when they foster academic connections with faculty members. Profs-in-Commons also responds to research into best practices for how to support student transition to university academic environments. This chapter will elaborate on the theoretical foundations of the Profs-in-Commons program, share how the UBC-Vancouver Profs-in-Commons program was initiated and is sustained, and discuss the program’s benefits and challenges.

Undergraduate information commons have become pervasive in the academic library landscape. In recent years, librarians and administrators have come to identify the need for comparable commons’ spaces and services for graduate students. This chapter serves as a review of recently developed models of graduate commons—in this discussion referred to as Scholars’ Commons—as defined by an integration of physical learning spaces, personnel, and a dynamic availability of research support services that support assist graduate students throughout their academic life cycle. These provisions serve as the foundation for the development of enhanced library-supported graduate student success.

Still a rare commodity, existing models from selected institutional web sites were examined using a framework for analysis consisting of several criteria: new use of space; segmented services; partnerships; and new organizational structures. Through a synthesis of the commonalities prevalent in these systems, this chapter aims to provide recommendations for prospective Scholars’ Commons models and proposals for their development. Library organizations contemplating the development of a Scholars’ Commons need to consider the needs of their target population, potential new or reallocated spaces, feasibility of providing support and research technologies, and possible staffing models. As well, the authors consider the importance of library-based graduate student support that bolsters cross-divisional collaborative partnerships across the academy.

Warner Winslow Gardner's notes on The Institutional Theory of John R. Commons (1933) are published here for the first time, as far as the present editors can determine. The typewritten manuscript was found among the Robert Lee Hale papers at the Rare Book and Manuscript Library of Columbia University.² Gardner (1909–2003) was born in Richmond, Indiana. He went to Westtown School, a Quaker preparatory school in Pennsylvania for five years, and then to Swarthmore College, graduating in 1930. To escape unemployment, as he stated in his recorded reminiscences, Gardner took graduate work on a fellowship at Rutgers University, receiving a Master of Arts Degree in economics in 1931.³ From there he went to Columbia Law School, graduating in 1934. Quite significantly, Gardner attributed his decision of shifting from economics to law to his reading of Commons’ Legal Foundation of Capitalism:It would be 1930–31 and, in the course of that year, I read and was much impressed by a book by John R. Commons at the University of Wisconsin in which he tried to weave together economics and law. I thought, “aha,” here is a field that had real attraction and real potentiality. I ended up with an MA at the end of that year. Instead of going for a Ph.D. in economics, I thought I’d go to law school, study law and try to weave the two disciplines together into a meaningful structure. (Gardner, 1972, p. 16).

Neoclassic economics is a thing of considerable beauty. It yet finds an increasing tendency on the part of those trained in its discipline to rebel from its neatly fitted abstractions and intriguing diagrams. The rebellion stems from two sources. Veblen's sweeping attacks upon its postulates¹⁶ shock its theoretical foundations. The rapid changes in the industrial and business world discredited it on another front by bringing into increasingly sharp relief the divergence between the institutional assumptions of the orthodox theory and the conditions actually obtaining. The giant corporation, overhead costs, and the necessity for maintenance of volume, industrial concentration, the trade association, a widening spread among income classes, advertising, the growing inability of the consumer to gauge quality, the resort to reorganization instead of the “going out of business” of the long-run analyses – what place could the orthodox theory give to these important characteristics of the existing business economy?

The chapter advances some critical reflections around commons and commoning in the smart city. It suggests that so-called smart commons – that is, forms of ownership of data and digital infrastructure increasingly central to the discourse around appropriation and co-production of smart technologies – tends to focus more on the outcome (open data or free software) rather than the process which maintains and reproduces such commons. Thus, the chapter makes a positional argument for a “smart approach” to the commons, advocating for a central role for the public as a stakeholder in advancing, nurturing, and maintaining urban commons in the smart city. The argument is illustrated through three brief case studies which reflect on instances of commons and commoning in relation to the implementation of public Internet infrastructure.