Search

What do attacks on 'unpalatable' research reveal about academic freedom? When academic work is curtailed, this cherished yet misunderstood concept is undermined. Silencing based on moral objection -- rather than wrongdoing -- suggests academic freedom is more constrained than we believe. On paper, academic freedom is rule-bound, yet 'dangerous' ideas produce overwhelmingly visceral reactions. It was these emotional responses I examined to explore the difference between what we believe academic freedom to be, and how it manifests in contentious fields. I conducted qualitative interviews with 18 researchers whose work elicited condemnation or constraint beyond 'legitimate' scholarly critique. I used mixed-methods data analysis to determine shared themes and characteristics. While academic institutions uphold their commitment to unfettered enquiry, 'academic freedom' is highly contingent and subject to the values of players in a range of disciplinary and institutional fields that together yield a generalised field of 'academic research'. This research challenges assumptions about 'freedom' by identifying parameters that bound the notion. I argue the concept is indeed bounded, and that academics become aware of those bounds when they bump up -- often unexpectedly -- against them.

Australian policy relating to knowledge exchange has never been well articulated, notwithstanding that the nexus between knowledge, engagement and higher education in Australia has been on the national agenda for several decades (Grattan Institute, 2013). In universities, this policy deficit is reflected in a lack of project management and collaboration skills, and limited motivation of researchers to engage in collaborative knowledge exchange processes. Taken together, poor policy and inadequate practice constrain the effective use of knowledge in socioeconomic development and national innovation. This paper primarily focuses on the knowledge exchange policy-practice nexus in Australia. We adopt the term "knowledge exchange" while acknowledging many other related concepts, such as knowledge transfer, university community engagement, integrative applied research and engaged scholarship. We draw attention to international contexts in which universities, governments, industry and funding agencies are now explicitly supporting and facilitating collaborative knowledge exchange activities. Our review suggests that Australia needs a clearly articulated national knowledge exchange policy, along with enhanced university capacity to implement knowledge exchange initiatives.

With growing international interest in diversifying sites for pedagogical work within the doctorate, doctoral programmes of different kinds are being developed in different disciplinary, institutional and national settings. However, little is known about how the pedagogical work of these programmes is designed and enacted, and with what effects. In this paper, we present two cases of doctoral pedagogical work being undertaken within different disciplinary and institutional settings to describe how learning opportunities were designed and to theorise what it means to be engaged in doing doctoral pedagogy. Starting from the position that working from a design model supports systematic and rigorous documentation and development of pedagogy, we employ the twin concepts of design and action, drawing broadly on rhetorical and ethnomethodological understandings of pedagogy as social action. Of particular interest within the concept of design itself is the concept of enactment, the translation of designs into the practices of doctoral work. Together, the two cases become a resource for "slowing down" and making visible the practices of doctoral pedagogy that often go unrecognised because they appear so ordinary and everyday. This call for examining close-up existing doctoral education practices and relationships is attending to the "next challenge for doctoral education" (Green, 2009).

Despite much research into doctoral education over the past two decades, theorising the field remains challenging. Recently, identity has been taken up as a conceptualising frame. Views of identity vary but often privilege the reproductive features of society, downplaying how individuals can be intentional in pursuing their desires--with the doctorate but one feature of a broader life. Further, many focus on the experience of the doctorate only rather than the doctorate as situated within earlier experiences and intentions and future imagined careers. This paper draws on evidence from a five-year research programme into doctoral experience to argue for a view of identity, identity-trajectory, that attends particularly to individual agency, interweaving the academic within the personal, and incorporating students' pasts and imagined futures. By re-focusing attention on the agency, resourcefulness and independence of doctoral students, identity-trajectory contributes pedagogically and conceptually distinct ways of framing doctoral experience. (Contains 3 endnotes.)