Disruptive Methodologies in Academia – Take 1
In my recent reads about influential trends that affect society and Higher Education in particular, design thinking and disruptive technology seem to take the lion’s share of discussions around how to plan systems of tomorrow, whether these are technological processes or social ones. Academia falls predominantly in the latter and in spite of seeing it’s fair amount of disruptive technologies in last decades, its evolution seems to have remained relatively linear, and may need a major rewrite in coming years to remain relevant to society’s needs. But before I explore the notion of circularity vs. linearity, let’s discuss disruptive technology.
A commonly used example of disruptive technology is how the exponential growth of mobile, and particularly smart, phones in the last decade has altered not just what we use to communicate but also how we do it and how we access and share information. The exponential growth of technological innovations in the transistor industry (also known as Moore’s Law), has led to a major revolution in communication and human connectivity.
A recent example of disruptive technology, close to my field of environmental science, and leading to adaptive methodologies, is the development of long-distance electric trucks. Apparently, Tesla’s new long-distance semi electric trucks are finally making financial sense for delivery companies looking to shift away from diesel and as a result save substantially each year. As with every introduction of a major disruptive technology, large social consequences ensue. I think we could call these new ways of doing things disruptive methodologies. What starts as a financial justification for electric trucks, has the potential to translate into a huge boon for air quality and thus livability in urban regions through the potential reduction in fine particulate matter emissions (especially during idling) and ozone production. What this technological shift will do to the value (or resistance) people associate to truck traffic is unknown. But for this to be a valid option, there needs to be an additional disruption to our fuel and electricity supply chain throughout our highway and road systems. I view this as a good example of how disruptive technology can alter our linear economy into a circular economy, one that values closing the loop in the cradle to grave production, including production and use of energy, and thus leading to some disruptive methodologies.
As mentioned earlier, institutions of higher education are constantly incorporating new technologies into its classrooms as well as creative and research spaces. However, I’ll argue that not many disruptive methodologies have ensued in either. Thomas Friedman writes in Thank You For Being Late that “universities are now experimenting with turning over their curriculum much faster and more often to keep up with the change in the pace of change – putting a “use-by-date” on certain courses”. This very optimistic view of how universities align with circular thinking is, however, not consistent with the still prevalent linear and long-lasting preservation of a disciplinary-based curricular tradition. To understand why Friedman’s thesis may be an exception in universities, rather than the rule, one needs to understand where curriculum value and assessment rest. The accreditation process requires that faculty have authority over the curriculum design, which includes developing its content, and evaluating its quality and effectiveness. Curriculum change is thus driven by faculty whose own intrinsic valuation of their discipline’s essential knowledge is rooted in decades of experience and accrued expertise.
The need for quick change and adaptation, as noted by Thomas Friedman, is one that is more akin to design thinking, not expert thinking. In his piece in the Chronicle for Higher Education, Lee Gardner states that “design thinking is an odd fit with academe in some respects. In design thinking, the experts are the end users, not the scholars sitting on decades of research. Emotion can outweigh intellect. A fast, cheap stab may lead to a better outcome than an expensive, fussed-over pilot program. Screw-ups are to be taken in stride, not minimized in embarrassment.” Rarely do faculty intentionally approach the curriculum from a design perspective rather than an expert one. Because we are so deeply invested in the production and translation of our knowledge, we can ill accept screw-ups… The result is a focus on fundaments and a slow curricular review, rather than a ductile and flexible development of programs that respond quickly to disruptive technologies and methodologies in society.
While knowledge generation is definitely an incremental effort, and one that takes years to reach consensuality (the agreement reached within a group of experts that form a community of peers), it would benefit our students and faculty if some parts of our curricula evolved quickly to match direct societal needs. In fact, because it is expected that graduates’ careers will evolve through a number of iterations and work options during their lives, having some essential parts of our academic programs designed around flexible curricular concepts may offer students a way to explore learning adaptation early on. Recently, a manager at a Fortune 500 company who employs a number of our graduates said that he particularly appreciated their capacity to be coached to the demands of a new job and their work ethic. To adapt to the fast moving pace of disruptive technologies and methodologies, we may need to rethink the role of curriculum design and focus some of our effort on inputting flexibility in the learning outcomes we aspire our students to acquire. Other universities are already doing this. Whether it is the new “engineering program enriched by liberal arts” from Wake Forest, or the “Data Dexterity” requirement for all undergraduate students at Rensselaer Institute of Technology, these efforts are focusing on metacognition and preparing students to adapt to an evolving future workplace place. Our own College of Engineering is taking a stab at this approach through their Interdisciplinary Engineering and Multidisciplinary Engineering and Technology programs. Shouldn’t we build some flexibility into all our curricular design?
More on disruptive methodologies in “Take 2”…