Transcending Industrial Era Paradigms: Exploring Together the Meaning of Academic Leadership for Diversity
Transcending Industrial Era Paradigms: Exploring Together the Meaning of Academic Leadership for Diversity
复制标题
超越工业时代范式：共同探讨学术领导力对多元化的意义
DOI：
10.18260/p.27073
复制
发表时间：
2016
影响因子：
2.3
通讯作者：
L. Schlemer
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
L. Vanasupa;L. Schlemer
这张海报描述了一项跨学科新生学习计划的发现，该计划涉及2012年至2015年期间的四个队列，来自59个不同专业的200多名新生，与来自圣路易斯奥比斯波加州理工州立大学5个学院的30多个社区机构和20名教师合作。虽然这一倡议的结果表明是成功的，但事实证明，我校很难支持这些活动。所陈述的理由包括声称缺乏效率和对教学方法的怀疑。我们开始相信，这种对差异的系统性不容忍与导致STEM（传统上定义为物理科学、技术、工程和数学）持续缺乏多样性的动力是相同的。我们知道，其他STEM变革推动者也在与这些保留过去方法、途径和价值观的力量作斗争。STEM教育的普遍观点是，系统性缺乏多样性是一个需要解决的问题，而不是当前系统运行的可预测的正常结果。但从系统思维的角度来看，STEM教育中的排斥症状和模式根植于系统架构师所假定的、未经检验的价值观和范式。我们，管理人员，教职员工和参与者，创造和维护产生不平等的结构，政策和实践。我们不是为了多样性而领导，而是为了实现“效率”而运用力量和控制来领导，并保持一种特定的非多样性的制度认同，以服务于保持“市场优势”。我们重视并发展“规模经济”，这需要同质化的思维、行动和结果——没有一种方式支持结构、思维、行动和结果的多样性。为了实现多样性，我们的范式必须从传统资本主义价值观的不平衡优先，如规模经济（一维思维和效率）转向范围经济，即结构、思想和行动的内在多样性。几乎可以肯定，多样性意味着极大的容忍和合作能力。这包括拥抱冲突、模糊性、不确定性和悖论，所有这些或多或少都与规模经济、专业知识的学术货币、效率的传统定义以及STEM认识论基础的客观主义相对立。促进高等教育机构的多样性需要超越这些工业时代的范式和价值观。
This poster describes findings from a transdisciplinary freshman learning initiative involving four cohorts from 2012 to 2015 with over 200 freshmen students from 59 different majors in partnership with over 30 community agencies and 20 faculty members from 5 colleges at California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo. Although the outcomes of the initiative indicated success, the activities proved difficult for our university to support. The stated reasons included assertions of lack of efficiency and suspicion of the pedagogical methods. We have come to believe that this systemic intolerance for differences is the same dynamic that produces the persistent lack of diversity in STEM (traditionally defined as the physical sciences, technology, engineering, and math). We know other STEM change agents are struggling with these same forces that preserve past methods, approaches, and values. The common view in STEM education is that the systemic lack of diversity is a problem that needs to be fixed, rather than a predictable, normal outcome of the current system’s functioning. But from the point of view of systems thinking, the symptoms and patterns of exclusion in STEM education are rooted in the assumed and unexamined values and paradigms of the system’s architects. We, the administrators, faculty, staff and participants, create and uphold the structures, policies, and practices that produce inequity. Instead of leading for diversity, we lead by the exertion of force and control in order to achieve “efficiency” and maintain a specifically non-diverse institutional identity in service to preserving “market advantage.” We value and develop “economies of scale”, which require homogeneous thinking, action, and results—none of which support diversity of structure, thinking, action, and outcomes. To realize diversity, our paradigm must shift from an imbalanced prioritization of traditional capitalist values, such as economy of scale (one-dimensional thinking and efficiency) to economies of scope, inherently diverse in structure, thought, and action. Diversity almost certainly means a great deal of tolerance and cooperative capacity. This includes embracing conflict, ambiguity, uncertainty, and paradox, all of which are more or less antithetical to economies of scale, the academic currency of expertise, legacy definitions of efficiency, and the objectivism foundational to STEM epistemologies. Transcending these industrial era paradigms and values is required to foster diversity in higher education institutions.