Neil Olanoff's thoughtful post is intriguing for what it asserts and what
it assumes.
I interject some comments
>The University and the Church are mankind's most enduring institutions.
>Companies and associations, in contrast, have shorter lifespans. Why? The
>answer is, societal support and strong core values which produce
>resistance to change. In the case of the University, this includes
>persistent 'siloing' or separation of operational / interest groups
>(colleges and departments).
Perhaps the family should be in that list, but the statement includes
other puzzles. If strong core values produce resistance to change,
couldn't we conclude that learning organizations interested in fostering
change should seek to foster weak core values?
Could it be that the two institutions survive because, as the serenity
prayer suggests, they preserve what needs to be preserved, change what
needs to be changed--and seek to distinguish between the two?
While it seems self-evidently true that Harvard, Yale, and Oxford, like
all other corporations, are interest groups, what is the point here? (And,
of course, all teams, including the Yankees and "collaborative work teams"
are interest groups.)
Neil, you choose the silo metaphor to set the stage for your proposal,
which one would predict would be to open the doors of the silos and mix
the wheat, oats, rye, and barley.
Could it be that th silos of separation lead to the specialization that
has produced our science and technology and economic productivity? And
that multigrain may be an interesting cereal but multidiscipline an
indigestible lowest common denominator?
>For example: Colleges of Arts and Sciences within Universities consist of
>many separate departments which have precious little to do with one
>another. (The traditional Arts & Sciences concept itself implies two
>immiscible areas of study with a wide gulf in between.) As a result,
>cross-fertilization of ideas between departments is rare. It's very
>difficult for faculty to sponsor 'multi-disciplinary' or
>'cross-disciplinary' classes because the University accounting system and
>culture fight against the idea.
Perhaps overstated: there are also integrating bodies on campus called
Curriculum Committes and Faculty Senates, but let's accept the thesis that
it is difficult for faculty to sponsor multi or cross or interdisciplinary
courses.
Is there some evidence that supports the contention that the university's
teaching and scholarship would be improved by such courses?
Or: is it possible that the university, as a learning organization, has
learned from its hundreds of attempts with such coures that they don't
work very well?
How well have such edone,Neil, when instituted?
Suppose we begin the history of such attempts, which go back at least to
Rousseau,. with Harvard's famour Red Book proposal for "general
education" in 1945 which spawned hundred of interdisciplinary courses.
How well did they teach? And why are they gone? And why did Harvard itself
lose heart and faith?
>Learning organizations must share and circulate new ideas to survive. The
>University survives because of its place in society and culture, and
>because of it's conservative institutional stance and cachet. Not because
>of it's 'knowledge organization' qualities, if it has any!
What you seem to be saying here,Neil, is that because the academic world
tried your proposal, and decided it didn't work as well as announced, and
abandoned it, it is unwilling to learn.
--Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>