📑 The risks of treating ‘academic innovation’ as a discipline (opinion)

Bookmarked The risks of treating 'academic innovation' as a discipline (opinion) | Inside Higher Ed by Rolin Moe (insidehighered.com)
Negotiating the future we want with the history we have is vital in order to determine the best structure to support the development of an inventive network for creating research-backed, criticism-engaged and outside-the-box approaches to the future of education. The energy behind what we today call academic innovation needs to be put toward problematizing and unraveling the causes of the obstacles facing the practice of educating people of competence and character, rather than focusing on the promotion of near-future technologies and their effect on symptomatic issues.
Rolin Moe argues that we need to recognise the often negative history associated with ‘innovation’ in the way that we use it. If we don’t do this we risk the word being simply an emotive tool.

Today’s shared language around innovation is emotive rather than procedural; we use innovation to highlight the desired positive results of our efforts rather than to identify anything specific about our effort (products, processes or policies). The predominant use of innovation is to highlight the value and future-readiness of whatever the speaker supports, which is why opposite sides of issues in education (see school choice, personalized learning, etc.) use innovation in promoting their ideologies.

This touches upon Audrey Watters message to respect history, rather than live in the ever present that so many try to perpetuate.

2 responses on “📑 The risks of treating ‘academic innovation’ as a discipline (opinion)”

Mentions

  • Aaron Davis
  • On ‘academic innovation’

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *