Encouraging the intellectual craft of living research:tattoos, theory and time

This chapter contributes to the anthology on learning to research - researching to learn because it emphases a need to design curricula that enables living research, and on-going researcher development, rather than one that restricts student and staff activities, within a marketised approach towards time. In recent decades higher education (HE) has come to be valued for its contribution to the global economy. Referred to as the neo-liberal university, a strong prioritisation has been placed on meeting the needs of industry by providing a better workforce. This perspective emphasises the role of a degree in HE to secure future material affluence, rather than to study as an on-going investment in the self (Molesworth , Nixon & Scullion, 2009: 280). Students are treated primarily as consumers in this model, where through their tuition fees they purchase a product, rather than benefit from the transformative potential university education offers for the whole of life.Given that HE is now measured by the numbers of students it attracts, and later places into well-paid jobs, there is an intense pressure on time, which has led to a method where the learning experiences of students are broken down into discrete modules. Whilst this provides consistency, students can come to view research processes in a fragmented way within the modular system. Topics are presented chronologically, week-by-week and students simply complete a set of tasks to ‘have a degree’, rather than to ‘be learners’ (Molesworth , Nixon & Scullion, 2009: 277) who are living their research, in relation to their own past, present and future. The idea of living research in this context is my own adaptation of an approach suggested by C. Wright Mills (1959) in The Sociological Imagination. Mills advises that successful scholars do not split their work from the rest of their lives, but treat scholarship as a choice of how to live, as well as a choice of career. The marketised slant in HE thus creates a tension firstly, for students who are learning to research. Mills would encourage them to be creative, not instrumental, in their use of time, yet they are journeying through a system that is structured for a swift progression towards a high paid job, rather than crafted for reflexive inquiry, that transforms their understanding throughout life. Many universities are placing a strong focus on discrete skills for student employability, but I suggest that embedding the transformative skills emphasised by Mills empowers students and builds their confidence to help them make connections that aid their employability. Secondly, the marketised approach creates a problem for staff designing the curriculum, if students do not easily make links across time over their years of study and whole programmes. By researching to learn, staff can discover new methods to apply in their design of the curriculum, to help students make important and creative connections across their programmes of study.

Current knowledge on the role of the inferior frontal gyrus in Theory of Mind - a commentary on Schurz and Tholen (2016)

Schurz and Tholen (2016) argue that common approaches to studying the neural basis of “theory of mind” (ToM) obscure a potentially important role for inferior frontal gyrus (IFG) in managing conflict between perspectives, and urge new work to address this question: “to gain a full understanding of the IFG's role in ToM, we encourage future imaging studies to use a wider range of control conditions.” (p332). We wholeheartedly agree, but note that this observation has been made before, and has already led to a programme of work that provides evidence from fMRI, EEG, and TMS on the role of IFG in managing conflict between self and other perspectives in ToM. We highlight these works, and in particular we demonstrate how careful manipulation within ToM tasks has been used to act as an internal control condition, wherein conflict has been manipulated within-subject. We further add to the discussion by framing key questions that remain regarding IFG in the context of these. Using limitations in the existing research, we outline how best researchers can proceed with the challenge set by Schurz and Tholen (2016).