Challenging librarians : the relevance of the doctorate in professional practice

We, as librarians, are adept at challenging academics, students and administrators about the crucial role of information literacy in higher education and lifelong learning. Consequently, the push for strategic partnerships with academics is frequently in the foreground of our thinking. Concomitantly, the push for academic status for librarians is raised occasionally, particularly as a pay and equity issue. Yet, our purposes may appear somewhat misguided or rhetorical when contrasted to the nominal prerequisites required for professional practice, especially when compared with those of academics. The issues of information literacy and knowledge production within a knowledge economy compound such debate. This paper argues that ‘credential creep’ is catching up with librarians in the university sector. In order to be regarded as integral to academic endeavour, those of us who ‘teach’ information literacy may need to match the qualifications normally required by academics. Consonant with this proposal is the Australian and New Zealand Information Literacy Framework: Principles, Standards and Practice (Bundy, 2004) of the Australian and New Zealand Institute for Information Literacy (ANZIIL) and the Council of Australian University Librarians (CAUL). The Framework mirrors many of the desired outcomes of a doctoral degree, a degree possessed by approximately one per cent of Australian librarians but, in comparison, by more than fi fty-four per cent of Australian academics. This paper challenges—not academics—but librarians, to embrace the notion of undertaking doctoral study to enhance our professional (or amateur) practice and our information literacy. The recommendation is derived in essence from my study on doctoral research and information literacy (Macauley, 2001). It also incorporates the current discourse on these issues and uses personal narrative to articulate the findings. It seeks also to explore those tensions and contradictions commensurate with practising what we preach.

Biopharmaceutical innovation and industrial developments in South Korea, Singapore and Taiwan

South Korea, Singapore and Taiwan are well known as export-oriented developmental states which for decades employed industrial policy to target particular industries for government support. In the past fifteen years, these three countries all identified the biopharmaceutical industry as a strategic sector. This article explores, through economic analysis, the rationale for this decision and the strategies chosen for linking into the global bio-economy with the objective of catching up in biopharmaceuticals. The paper identifies three comparative advantages enjoyed by these countries in the biopharma sector: (1) public investments in basic research; (2) private investments in phase 1 clinical trials; and (3) a potentially significant contract research industry managing latter-stage clinical trials. Governments employ a range of industrial policies, consistent with these comparative advantages, to promote the biopharmaceutical industry, including public investment in biomedical hubs, research funding and research and development (R&D) tax credits. We argue that the most important feature of the biopharmaceutical industry in these countries is the dominant role of the public sector. That these countries have made progress in innovative capabilities is illustrated by input measures such as R&D expenditure as share of gross domestic product, number of patents granted and clinical trials, and volume of foreign direct investment. In contrast, output indicators such as approval of new chemical entities suggest that the process of catching up has only just commenced. Pharmaceutical innovation is at the stage of mainly generating inputs to integrated processes controlled by the globally incumbent firms.

International ‘benchmarking’ studies and the identification of ‘education best practice’: a focus on classroom teachers and their practices

 Abstract:The disproportionate focus on classroom teachers and their instruction—teacher effectiveness—in order to confront and address under-achievement and disadvantage appears as a contemporary education policy theme in Australia. Phrases such as ‘high performing schooling systems’, ‘the best teachers’, ‘high performing countries’, ‘quality teaching’, ‘under-performing schools’, ‘the right change’, ‘operationally feasible’, ‘targeting of reforms’, ‘degrees of under-performance’, ‘educational drivers’, ‘teacher quality and improved teaching’ and ‘external standards and governance’ are constantly mentioned and given continual attention and prominence by policy-makers. The paper questions and critiques a policy-making direction that uses teacher effectiveness research to force and steer reform in education. The distinctive and narrow concern with teacher effectiveness works to the specific exclusion of breadth and scope concerning debate about broader education related issues and questions, for example, matters of student achievement, exclusion and disadvantage. This article uses a qualitative research approach informed by critical theory to examine three influential private sector reports on education and schooling: The McKinsey Report ( 2007 )—How the world’s best-performing school systems come out on top, The Nous Group ( 2011 )—Schooling Challenges and Opportunities and The Grattan Institute ( 2012 )—Catching up: Learning from the best school systems in East Asia. The article subjects the reports to close critical scrutiny and examination and finds that classroom teachers are positioned so that their specific and explicit instruction becomes the differentiating ‘variable’ in matters of student achievement and success.