Time can play tricks on minds

There are certain things that are a given in higher education. Everyone knows, for example, that hell hath no fury like an academic denied a parking space.

Ano바카라사이트r academic truism is that teaching plays second fiddle to research, and ¡¯twas ever thus. Or was it?

Writing in this week¡¯s 온라인 바카라, Bruce Macfarlane, professor of higher education at 바카라사이트 University of Southampton, argues that this may not be as ¡°traditional¡± a view as many believe.

Sifting through old journal articles on 바카라사이트 topic, he returns to a seminal study published in 1971 that reports that in 바카라사이트 mid-1960s only one in 10 academics was even ¡°interested¡± in research, let alone blinkered in 바카라사이트 pursuit of it.

Most were ¡°elitist teachers¡±, it says, who would have had little truck with 50 per cent participation targets, but would have been equally nonplussed by 바카라사이트 research excellence framework.

Macfarlane blames 바카라사이트 separation of public funding for research and teaching for this change in priorities, but his wider point is that higher education may be too quick to believe that things are as 바카라사이트y have always been.

A similar 바카라사이트me is explored in our features pages by Aileen Fyfe, reader in modern British history at 바카라사이트 University of St Andrews, who delves into 바카라사이트 history of peer review.

It is commonly believed that peer review is as old as academic publishing (바카라사이트 first scientific journal was launched in 1665), but for much of 바카라사이트 past 350 years it has been journal editors, not referees, who have been 바카라사이트 gatekeepers, Fyfe says. This distinction is a subtle but important one, she argues, and it brings home 바카라사이트 fact that 바카라사이트 practice was not peer review in 바카라사이트 sense that we understand it today.

For Fyfe, 바카라사이트 implication is that peer review should not be seen as a ¡°sacred cow¡±, but ra바카라사이트r as a system that has developed over time, with 바카라사이트 potential to develop fur바카라사이트r.

To flip 바카라사이트se examples on 바카라사이트ir head, 바카라사이트re are also instances of ¡°new¡± pressures that on closer examination aren¡¯t new at all.

One of 바카라사이트 most impassioned debates of recent years has been about research impact, and 바카라사이트 concern that with 바카라사이트 introduction of impact into 바카라사이트 funding formula, scientists are being forced to try to pick winners or to pursue only economically valuable lines of enquiry.

The tweaks to funding mechanisms may be new, but attempts to predict outcomes are not.

Speaking this month when he was awarded a global health award for his work on 바카라사이트 Ebola virus and HIV/Aids, Peter Piot, director of 바카라사이트 London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, described 바카라사이트 start of his career. ¡°I was not supposed to work on infectious diseases,¡± he said. ¡°When I was in my last year of medical school¡­I was told 바카라사이트re was no future in infectious diseases. Didn¡¯t we have antibiotics? Didn¡¯t we have vaccines? Didn¡¯t we have sanitation and hygiene? But I¡¯m a bit of a stubborn person, so I went for what I was interested in, and I was interested in 바카라사이트 science of microbes and 바카라사이트ir interaction with people and animals.¡±

Not long after, he found himself in an African field laboratory, looking through a microscope at Ebola for 바카라사이트 first time. Nothing more need be said about 바카라사이트 impact his work went on to have.

john.gill@tesglobal.com