Troublesome Knowledge of SoTL

This study explores the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (SoTL) as a form of troublesome knowledge (Perkins 1999) that continues to trouble its practitioners. Forty-eight higher education professionals from six countries described their understanding of SoTL in an online survey; ten individuals participated in follow-up interviews to consider how SoTL experiences shape, support, or hinder academic identity and knowing. We categorize our findings according to the dynamic factors—personal, relational, and contextual—identified by Lieff et al (2012); we argue that SoTL serves to illuminate and expose tensions created by competing values and that these values can lead to, or create, a troublesome space wherein promoting SoTL can be enabling and disabling.

Predicting bee community responses to land-use changes: Effects of geographic and taxonomic biases

Land-use change and intensification threaten bee populations worldwide, imperilling pollination services. Global models are needed to better characterise, project, and mitigate bees' responses to these human impacts. The available data are, however, geographically and taxonomically unrepresentative; most data are from North America and Western Europe, overrepresenting bumblebees and raising concerns that model results may not be generalizable to other regions and taxa. To assess whether the geographic and taxonomic biases of data could undermine effectiveness of models for conservation policy, we have collated from the published literature a global dataset of bee diversity at sites facing land-use change and intensification, and assess whether bee responses to these pressures vary across 11 regions (Western, Northern, Eastern and Southern Europe; North, Central and South America; Australia and New Zealand; South East Asia; Middle and Southern Africa) and between bumblebees and other bees. Our analyses highlight strong regionally-based responses of total abundance, species richness and Simpson's diversity to land use, caused by variation in the sensitivity of species and potentially in the nature of threats. These results suggest that global extrapolation of models based on geographically and taxonomically restricted data may underestimate the true uncertainty, increasing the risk of ecological surprises.

The (Im)possibility of the Intellectual Worker Inside the Neoliberal University

The provocation and point of this paper is that universities of the North during the era of neoliberalism of have been sucked of their human life-giving capacities. What remains are closed doors and bare walls. Lest we give the impression of a hopelessly romantic view of the university (and embark upon a lament for some paradise lost), let us be clear from the outset: there is no such place – and there never has been. As will be outlined below, a consideration of the history of the university reveals it was born and has persistently drawn its life breath from oxygen formed in the tension ridden mix of an impulse to human freedom and accommodation to powers of church, state and capital. But, we contend, history is now the witness to the almost complete dissolution of that tension: to the exhaustion of emancipatory impulses in the service of indoctrination, regulation and accumulation. In the church-state-capital triad, it is the latter that has emerged hegemonic. Importantly, we argue, its dominance has emerged with the rise of what Paul Baran and Paul Sweezy describe as monopoly capital: the move from competitive (small entrepreneurial business) forms to monopolistic (large corporate business) regimes of accumulation (Baran & Sweezy 1966). A central feature of monopoly capitalism is its need for significant financial support of national states and the harnessing of public resources such as universities to feed accumulation. It is no surprise that neoliberalism, despite its neoclassical economic pronouncements, is a ‘big state’ advocate (Harvey 2005). Our argument is that neoliberalism, as the political workhorse of monopoly capitalism, has overseen a makeover of universities so they might behave like a monopoly capitalist corporation. Our time is the time of the near global domination of capital. The university has succumbed. In its colonisation – its capitalisation – the university has not only reinvented itself as a willing ally of capital but has also set about remaking itself in its image.