Exercising QS: Quantitative skills in an exercise science course

This study seeks to bring the discipline of exercise science into the discussion of Quantitative Skills (QS) in Science. The author’s experiences of providing learning support to students and working with educators in the field are described, demonstrating the difficulty of encouraging students to address their skills deficit. A survey of students’ perceptions of their own QS and of that required for their course, demonstrates the difficulties faced by students who do not have the prescribed assumed knowledge for the course. Limited results from academics suggest that their perceptions of students’ QS deficits are even more dire than those of the under-prepared students.

Social ties as key knowledge transfer agents between Indonesian and Australian universities : Perspectives from an Indonesian university

As two neighbouring countries, the number of transnational programs between Indonesian and Australian universities is significant. However, little is known about how transnational programs can facilitate knowledge transfer between the partner universities, which is often assumed by the Indonesian universities. Based on a case study regarding a dual degree program between an Indonesian and an Australian university, this paper outlines preliminary findings concerning the role of social ties between the staff of the two partner universities in creating positive inter-university dynamics that is vital for successful knowledge transfer. Using an inter-organisational knowledge transfer theoretical framework, social ties between the staff of the two universities are viewed as an important agent in facilitating knowledge transfer by building trust between the partners, moderating the perception about risk in the partnership, and creating a more equal power relation between the universities. Based on this study, Australian lecturers of Indonesian background and Indonesian lecturers who are alumni of Australian universities are important to initially establish these social ties. While face-to-face contact is still perceived as the ideal means of transferring knowledge and building trust among the Indonesian university staff, those who have stronger social ties with their Australian counterparts tend to use ICT-based communication to acquire knowledge from the Australian university compared to those who have more limited social ties with their Australian counterparts. This paper concludes with some implications for building positive social ties between Indonesian and Australian university staff to strengthen the knowledge transfer process.

A critical assessment of the Australian OHS accreditation system's "Body of Knowledge (BoK)"

In response to an increasing perception of poor OHS consultancy quality amongst the Australian public, regulator and OHS professionals, the Safety Institute Australia (SIA) was tasked by the Victorian government to establish an accreditation process for OHS professionals. The OHS accreditation board decided to base its accreditation on a core "body of knowledge" (BoK), against which applicants are assesssed. While the foundation and structure of the BoK is unclear, the BoK consists of a collection of essays from a variety of invited authors. The BoK comprises about 811 pages in 34 chapters, with significant redundancy and considerable subjective components. The SIA BoK is benchmarked against two international best-practices, the German "Core Definition, Object Catalog and Research Domains of Labour Science (Ergonomics)" (Luzcak, Volpert, Raeithel & Schwier, 1989)(100 pages) and the American "Core Competency Model" for the "Master's Degree in Public Health" (Association of Schools of Public Health, 2006) (21 pages). Both "core definition" and "core competency model" are on a comparative level to the BoK. While the German expert panel consisted of 14 eminent professors, the American panel consisted of 135 members, organized in 6 groups chaired by discipline leading academics. The Australian approach employed a broad approach, where 137 professionals, consultants, emerging academics and academics contributed to 8 workshops. Both the German and the American panels maintained an open communication amongst members and with the discipline community throughout the process, whereas SIA applied an open and directed peer-review process. Moreover, the German process involved an analysis of all congress content and journal publications in the scientific domain in a set timeframe, which were then systematically clustered. These results were further expanded by structured interviews with 38 professors in the discpline, grasping their research and teaching practice. The American workgroup however assumed core scientific areas, underlying the domain. Based upon the a-priori assumption, they then established well defined competencies across all areas using a modified Delphi process. Although the BoK attempts to explore the knowledge in the OHS domain without an imposed structure in a bottom-up approach, it does not result in a structured systematic of the science. We conclude that the outcome of the German, rigorous academic approach, and the US American democratic approach under unambiguous academic leadership both outperform the Australian advocacy group approach. This product was determined for both structure and content of the taxonomy delivered through the processes.

Reflection on the SIA Ltd professional project and the body of knowledge

In the last five years the Safety Institute of Australia Limited (SIA) has developed and implemented a number of strategies to gain professional recognition for the ‘generalist occupational health and safety (OHS) professional’ in Australia and internationally. Despite a considerable amount of work by the SIA aimed at gaining professional status, there does not appear to have been any published debate or reflection about how the drive for professionalism (the ‘professional project’) will contribute to the prevention of occupational disease and injury. Professionalisation has been promoted as a sign of maturity for the SIA and as an unquestionably good outcome, as it has been assumed that professionalisation will provide unmitigated benefits for workplace health and safety. The aim of this paper is to critically reflect on the processes of professionalisation (the professional project) and discuss the ways in which this project may shape the field of occupational health and safety.

Information feudalism: Who owns the knowledge economy? A book review

Back in 1995, Peter Drahos wrote a futuristic article called ‘Information feudalism in the information society’. It took the form of an imagined history of the information society in the year 2015. Drahos provided a pessimistic vision of the future, in which the information age was ruled by the private owners of intellectual property. He ended with the bleak, Hobbesian image: "It is unimaginable that the information society of the 21st century could be like this. And yet if abstract objects fall out of the intellectual commons and are enclosed by private owners, private, arbitrary, unchecked global power will become a part of life in the information society. A world in which seed rights, algorithms, DNA, and chemical formulas are owned by a few, a world in which information flows can be coordinated by information-media barons, might indeed be information feudalism (p. 222)." This science fiction assumed that a small number of states would dominate the emerging international regulatory order set up under the World Trade Organization. In Information Feudalism: Who Owns the Knowledge Economy?, Peter Drahos and his collaborator John Braithwaite reprise and expand upon the themes first developed in that article. The authors contend: "Information feudalism is a regime of property rights that is not economicallyefficient, and does not get the balance right between rewarding innovation and diffusing it. Like feudalism, it rewards guilds instead of inventive individual citizens. It makes democratic citizens trespassers on knowledge that should be the common heritage of humankind, their educational birthright. Ironically, information feudalism, by dismantling the publicness of knowledge, will eventually rob the knowledge economy of much of its productivity (p. 219)." Drahos and Braithwaite emphasise that the title Information Feudalism is not intended to be taken at face value by literal-minded readers, and crudely equated with medieval feudalism. Rather, the title serves as a suggestive metaphor. It designates the transfer of knowledge from the intellectual commons to private corporation under the regime of intellectual property.