Search results

It is unfortunately too easy to find examples of absurd functioning in the university. It has never been a perfect institution, because that is an impossibility. One observes in recent years that while its chronic problems have not disappeared, they have lost prominence in the face of a steamroller working at the planetary level. The university has plunged into an even greater absurdity. This institution that was created to be free and clearly work for human emancipation, through the expansion of knowledge, has chosen to submit itself as a slave to the dynamics of the current global model of society. By so doing, it further fosters slavery by strengthening this global hegemony. In the present contribution I choose three concrete examples of this absurdity. The first alludes to the recruitment and shaping of obedient teachers. In this sense, the university is not an exception to the banking system of education, but it raises the production of individual adaptation and obedience to its maximum exponential. The second example refers to the renunciation of the social usefulness of the knowledge that it produces. This is done by adopting operational models from the production of commodities, such as quality measurement and the like, which undermine the institutional mission of universities. The third great absurdity refers to the destruction of thought and language diversity, which are two sides of the same coin. While the aforementioned processes are readily noticed, there are alternatives to the absurd university that entail encouraging projects and realities under construction. My aim with this contribution is to present an analysis of the absurd university, and give visibility to these alternatives under way, linked to grassroots university movements and other hopeful socio-educational projects. This chapter has a particular focus on language, due to its complexity and relative neglect in academia.

The purpose of this paper is to address the dangers for a highly trained group of professionals – academic librarians – in responding to the challenge of divesting their libraries of a very large amount of printed material.

The approach takes the form of a general view of the current state‐of‐play in library management vis‐à‐vis the e‐revolution, in terms of the corresponding preservation of printed materials.

Traditionally, the majority stock of any library, rarely used printed books and journals seem to have become a liability and a burden in this web‐spun, e‐raddled world. Academic librarians are becoming active participants in the rush to achieve a “print→less” heaven. For the first time in history on such a scale and in any period of war or peace, the next 20 years could witness a huge and deliberate global dispersal and even destruction of a substantial portion of the printed word in university, college and research libraries. This Fahrenheit 451‐equivalent event would be carefully planned not by ruthless despots and capricious censors riding roughshod over the bodies of librarians to re‐write historical records, but by … the librarians themselves. This is not just “bibliobabble” – defined here as the reactionary ravings of the bibliophile against a tidal wave of e‐books and digital content. Given librarians' innate professional ability for organized thoroughness, a series of small local projects, largely unremarked in the wider world, would be very speedily executed, leading to global and possibly uncoordinated weeding. This sustained dispersal or destruction of printed material from the protective walls of universities and colleges, without the usual finesse or adequate time or resources, will re‐classify “ordinary” works into titles of “relative” or even “absolute” rarity worldwide. Academic librarians will have created a new profession for themselves – “rare book engineers” – by massively reducing the number of copies held in the world's libraries and relying on private book collectors (if they still exist in 2060) to acquire any of the millions of discarded titles and preserve them for posterity.

Librarians need to consider carefully how and where lesser‐used printed materials will be disposed of and sent.

Using practical examples from many years of experience in librarianship, the author states some strong personal opinions on this matter.

It is eminently fitting that the Greeks who gave us their word for “speaking fair” should also have supplied us with the ultimate exemplification of its use. They were wont to refer to the Furies, a group of avenging goddesses, as the Eumenides or “The Fair Ones.” Since the Furies were imagined as having a batlike shape which was adorned with a profusion of snakish hair, they were not fair at all, but rather terrifying, intimidating in the highest degree. To euphemize a phenomenon is to call it something other than what it most particularly is, anything at all provided the new designation is gentler, milder, less offensive, less threatening. It is even possible, as in the case of the Furies renamed Fair Ones, to effect a 180‐degree reversal of meaning.

This chapter introduces the goals of the book Digital Humanism: A Philosophy for 21st Century Digital Society. It outlines the book’s chapter structure and discusses societal development as the context that requires Radical Digital Humanism today. The chapter argues that we need to ask the following questions: Why is Humanist philosophy important in the contemporary digital age? How can Humanism help us to critically understand how digital technologies shape society and humanity? What kind of Humanism do we need to make sense of digitalisation in society? The book Digital Humanism: A Philosophy for 21st Century Digital Society contributes to the renewal of Humanist philosophy in the digital age.

This paper is written to add to current knowledge of the views of science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) discipline early career researchers (ECRs) about creativity. It aims to explore their understandings of and attitudes towards creativity, as well as their perceptions of which environmental factors facilitate creative research. By discussing the findings in the context of earlier work, the paper seeks to challenge developers to re‐examine current practice in developing creativity by suggesting a broader and deeper approach than is currently often taken.

The paper reports on a qualitative study which collected data from semi‐structured in‐depth interviews with STEM researchers. A thematic analysis was performed on the data.

This research demonstrates that young researchers have a complex range of perceptions of creativity, and that negative attitudes towards it are common in the STEM environment. Three key environmental facilitators of creativity were also uncovered which are: a positive research environment; sufficient constructive communication; and time and space to be creative. It is argued that more emphasis should be placed upon optimising the environment for creative work to occur.

Whereas most previous work has focussed on experienced scientists, this paper outlines the complex and important issue of creativity in the context of STEM ECRs. It offers those who wish to support such researchers an accessible summary and recommendations of how to improve practice in the development of creativity. In particular, the paper argues that placing a greater emphasis upon optimising the environment will enhance the impact of creativity development efforts.