Search

This paper examines how and why academics in different parts of the academy collaborate. In this paper we argue that: (1) There is a useful analytical distinction to be made between collaboration (fluid and expressive) and Collaboration (concrete and instrumental); (2) These two are not mutually exclusive and their use varies between disciplines; and (3) This distinction is an informative one for policy making that aims to encourage collaboration. Two interview based studies were used to explore the differences in collaborative practices across disciplines. The first was small and confined to a single university (n = 36) and the second was a larger study conducted in three countries (n = 274). Cross tabulations and analysis of open ended questions demonstrated many differences across the humanities, sciences and social sciences in collaboration. The C/collaboration distinction proves useful in understanding different disciplinary approaches to research, and in pointing to implications for research policy and funding. Attempts to increase collaborative research through Collaboration only, may well have deleterious effects on both collaboration and Collaboration. Research policy and funding should bear these differences in mind when seeking to stimulate collaborative research, so as to gain better outcomes across a range of disciplines. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article introduces a model for group facilitation in the humanities based on Carl Roger's model for group psychotherapy. Certain aspects of Carl Roger's reflective learning strategies are reappraised and principles, specific only to psychotherapy, are introduced. Five of Rogers's axioms are applied to the tutorial discussion model: a non-directive approach, climate-setting, facilitation, reflective listening and positive regard. The model, which has been trialed in tutorials at The University of Queensland encourages active learning, self-direction and critical thinking. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Scholars have studied epistemological development – or how one understands knowledge and knowing – of college students for many years. Research in this domain has included benchmarking studies of epistemological development, examinations of how curricular innovations impact epistemology, and some studies of differences in epistemological development based on disciplinary areas. The latter group of studies has generally focused on differences in epistemological beliefs for students who are studying in two different domains (e.g., nursing students versus physics students). In this study, we qualitatively investigate whether the epistemological perspectives of 60 science/engineering college students differs across the disciplinary areas of the sciences and the humanities. Our results indicate that such differences do exist and include a proposed grounded theory that describes how students' epistemologies may vary across knowledge domains. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]