Transforming academia: The role of education

Scientific research is usually presented as the driver that provides progress and meaning to the academic ecosystem. Higher education on the other hand, is typically imagined as something that naturally follows scientific research. In the academic ecosystem, education often retains a more marginalized position than scientific research and in many of the predominant accounts of the academic ecosystem it is even neglected. As a result, higher education and teaching tends to be treated as duty work that retracts resources away from research. In response to such accounts the present article proposes an alternative perspective in which higher education can assume a proactive role that affects institutions’ research. The article presents a case that demonstrates how social scientists at the Technical University of Denmark, in response to new demands for autonomous economy within Danish universities, invented the controversial, yet successful, ‘Design and Innovation’ engineering program. Design and Innovation’s controversial curricular composition brought together: creativity, social awareness, and product innovation and heralded the salvation for the declining status of engineering in Danish higher education. The article contributes to contemporary discussions on transformations within the university system by illustrating educational development as a transformative practice whereby the value and purpose of scientific disciplines get rearticulated in conversation with contemporary understandings of social needs.     

Impaired pulmonary and cardiac function after maximal exercise

The cardiopulmonary response to maximal rowing exercise of short duration was studied in six healthy well-trained oarsmen. The lung diffusing capacity for carbon monoxide was significantly decreased below the pre-exercise value for 2.5 days post-exercise (P less than 0.05). Residual volume (RV) showed a significantly increased value at 30 min of recovery (P less than 0.01) with no change in total lung capacity. There was no significant change in transthoracic electrical impedance following exercise but a decrease may have been masked by the increased RV. The changes in the pulmonary parameters may reflect the occurrence of a transient interstitial lung oedema. Exercise-induced bronchoconstriction may be a part of the cardiopulmonary response as peak expiratory flow rate (PEFR) was significantly reduced at 30 min of recovery. The reason for the increase in pulmonary extravascular water volume may be a marked distension of the lung capillaries due to increased blood volume in the lungs and as a consequence increased vascular permeability. The changes may also be caused by impaired myocardial contractility indicated by a split impedance dZ/dt waveform, not previously described in healthy persons, which occurred in all six subjects immediately following exercise.     

Challenging the “deficit model” of innovation: Framing policy issues under the innovation imperative

As innovation is increasingly becoming an imperative for policymakers around the globe, there is a growing tendency to frame policy problems as problems of innovation. This logic suggests that we are unable to address grand societal challenges and ensure economic competitiveness because our societies, institutions, scientific activities or individual predispositions are not sufficiently geared towards innovation. In this paper, we analyze this “deficit model” of innovation in which a lack of innovation is routinely invoked as the main obstacle to social progress. Drawing parallels to research on the deficit model of public understanding of science (PUS), we develop a theoretical framework that captures the dynamics and normative implications of deficit construction, highlighting five salient dimensions: problem diagnoses, proposed remedies, the role of expertise, implied social orders, and measures of success. We apply this framework to three empirical case studies of recent innovation strategies in Luxembourg, Singapore, and Denmark. Attention to this deficit framing around innovation is important, we argue, because it is an essential part of how innovation transforms societies in the 21st century: not only through new technological possibilities or economic growth, but also by shaping public discourse, narrowing policy options, and legitimizing major institutional interventions. The implied pro-innovation bias tends to marginalize other rationales, values, and social functions that do not explicitly support innovation. It further delegates decisions about sweeping social reconfigurations to innovation experts, which raises questions of accountability and democratic governance. Experiences from the history of PUS suggest that, without a dedicated effort to transform innovation policy into a more democratic, inclusive, and explicitly political field, the present deficit logic and its technocratic overtones risks significant social and political conflict.