This issue of Learning and Teaching: The International Journal of Higher Education in the Social Sciences features authors from Spain, the Netherlands, the United States of America, the United Kingdom and Iraq. They write about a new degree in Global Digital Humanities, academics’ understandings of what constitutes ‘good science’, the role of academic middle managers, what PhD graduates in non-academic careers actually do and obstacles to promotion for academics.
In the first article, Aitor Zuberogoitia, Monika Madinabeitia and Davydd Greenwood explain the origins and purposes of a transdisciplinary Humanities degree developed at the Bilbao campus of the Spanish co-operative university, Mondragon. The degree programme, designed in conjunction with local companies and civic leaders, is intended to contribute to innovation and revitalisation in the city. The whole programme is problem-centred, with modules built around current societal challenges and informed by the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. Collective project work involving organisations outside the university is integral to the learning activities and to the ethos of the programme.
In the second article, Jeannette Pols, Amade M'charek, Sonja Jerak-Zuiderent and Jonna Brenninkmeijer show how academics’ approach to the quality of research differs from that of policy makers. The latter focus on spurring individual excellence through competitive funding, while the former emphasise collective endeavour and the duty of senior researchers to support and encourage new generations. Efforts by Dutch research councils and universities to respond to instances of fraudulent research replicate the focus on the individual, emphasising ethics training and data management. The academics who participated in the study point out that it is the intense competition for funding that damages ethical working, restricting opportunities both for innovative research and for a more diverse contingent of new researchers.
In the third article, Karla L. Davis-Salazar explores the liminal position of associate deans in universities in the USA. Associate deans are senior tenured academics who take on administrative responsibilities outside their own departments. Their appointments are usually for a fixed term, after which they return to teaching and researching in their department or decide to pursue a career in university administration. The author interviewed twenty-two academic associate deans at twelve public universities across ten states. She shows that while they are an important link between academic faculty and university-level administration, their position can be ambiguous, and they can face conflict between their current responsibilities and their academic identity.
In the fourth article, Lynn McAlpine and Montserrat Castelló investigate the experience of PhD holders from UK universities who are pursuing careers outside academia. They interviewed fifteen PhD graduates from the sciences, social sciences and humanities, the majority of whom were employed in the public or parapublic sectors. Subsequent analysis of job specifications showed that the participants’ accounts of what they did at work corresponded to the official description of their job but what they said in the interviews was more detailed and informative. For example, the people who had written the job specifications gave high priority to communication skills but included little information about who the post-holder would communicate with or the types of communication required. While very few of the participants undertook data collection and analysis, other aspects of their doctoral work such as reading and thinking analytically and presenting arguments were very relevant to their employment.
In the fifth article, Zainab Atiyah Dakhil, Moatamn Skuk and May Al-Jorani analyse the barriers to career enhancement experienced by academics in Iraq. Two thirds of the 130 respondents to their survey cited lack of research funding and almost as many identified poor research infrastructure. In the absence of state or institutional funding and despite their already low salaries, academics have to pay travel costs, conference fees and journal article processing charges in order to fulfil the requirements of their posts and to seek promotion. There is a strong perception, even among full professors, that the requirements for promotion are unrealistic and need to be reformed.
The issue concludes with two book reviews. Richard Hil, Kristen Lyons and Fern Thompsett's Transforming Universities in the Midst of Global Crisis: A University for the Common Good is reviewed by Brodie Theis. Donna Hurford and Andrew Read's Bias-aware Teaching, Learning and Assessment is reviewed by Jonny Johnston.
Our thanks go to the authors of the articles and book reviews, the anonymous referees who commented on the manuscripts, the Editorial Board and everyone at Berghahn Journals.
Penny Welch and Susan Wright