Interview with Antonio Genovese
By Bijoy M. Trentin and Emanuela De Luca
The processing path of the Law on the reform of the university is uncertain, for the events finanaziarie, but for the protests, large and complicated that accompanied the parliamentary process.
The law requires changes at all levels, from education to governance issues.
Now, many researchers are not favorable to the willingness to assume responsibility for teaching courses for custody / substitution in the academic year 2010/2011, it is not formally required to undertake this specific type of learning activities: this will not be irrelevant, because many courses are 'kept' by the researchers own time (in) determined. If the measures envisaged for the career opportunities of these are deemed insufficient, for those so-called 'precarious researchers' are still considered inadequate. The main problem, however, is - you know - Economic: funding is lacking, even in the process of reform. The bottleneck greatly reduces the chances of recruiting teacher-researcher, leading to the impoverishment of the university specializations (certainly not those of mercerized easily) in a magma general, all focussing on the criteria economic, that does not consider the potential of specificity, even in the face of valuable data quantities, which should not lead to the creation of reserves or even harmful dismal deletions: the relationship that is emerging between centralism and autonomy will provide more than the standard shared and effective enhancement of capacity?
on these and other issues of university reform, we interviewed Anthony Genovese, professor of General and Social Pedagogy (http://www.unibo.it/docenti/antonio.genovese). [BMT]
Regarding "Gelmini decree" there were particular locations in the Faculty in which you work? Yes
Meanwhile, there was an initiative very well organized, researchers structured. Because these legislative proposals seem, for what he knows today, build a black hole for the current researchers do not understand well what career opportunities may be, what will their future placement. And this, I truly believe, is a very dangerous situation because these researchers are not only research university, but also teaching. There is a substantial load of university teaching that is in danger of being blocked. In addition to these government initiatives is, in my opinion, an attempt to mask situations.
What do you mean?
I try to explain why I believe that on this issue should take a step back. Within the university reform, which is necessary, it also raises the issue of the legal status of teachers. The current model, although regrettable, is a model that includes two bands of teaching in theory, but in fact there are three: the researchers, associate professors, full professors, with little distinction between the role of Associate el 'ordinary, but with a strong differentiation between ordinary / and the band of researchers. Model, as I said, criticism, but had its own logic: it was born as an attempt to rationalize the presence of researchers and teachers in the university: providing, at the end of the degree, a training, paid through scholarships, a PhD. Among the postdocs, or rather in a location between the PhD, was to open the tender on the basis of merit for the post of researcher. And the model predicts that the researcher initially intended to be formed both in research and in teaching, could then have in front of her career aspirations with the move - through competition - to associate professor. Then, associate professor, could improve the economic well (so to speak) the professional status and research, with the transition to full professor. Of course, not all researchers would become associated with, and not all members, ordinary: the competitions would have selected the best! This is a model that included a university while mass and qualified university of mass within which they could live together research and teaching, where teaching was to be brought to life through the research. A model that included several stages, ranging from training to professional maturity through rigorous selection mechanisms such as competitions. Would be to write a history on these issues, you should go and see what has happened in the past with subsequent blocks that there were competitions that have gradually created the "funnels" that prevented long careers. So many researchers are now "old" in the role did not even have the chance to have a competition ol'hanno had only in recent years, as well as many members very often have not even had the opportunity to participate in a contest from ordinary, if not in recent years.
So this model would be changed completely?
This is a model that, in my opinion, had its own logic, and even criticism, in my opinion had many positive aspects, in particular the fact that providing for the moments of his career training next to a time when, say, explicit, manifest their professional skills. Although there was an upstream block, the PhD has had a small scholarship at the time of the doctorate, but just finished this time, since there is or ever since there were few (and very diluted in the time) courses for researchers, was formed there as a huge bag of insecurity - with very diverse forms, with the check going to the semi-annual allowance co.co.co in short, a bag of great insecurity. So, just because there was this bag of strong insecurity, was asked by many and many years to rationalize this situation and create a sort of junior researchers, "on time (that could last three years, four years) that is a figure which was to replace this jungle of insecurity. Instead, on this have made a sort of "shell game" is gone, the researcher structured, role, and has been inflated this hypothesis of the researcher fixed term contract of 3 +3 years at the end of which, if it exceeds the competition, will never enter college or more. But if it comes, to what end? Here then comes back out here that the problem of the model is now being proposed on the legal status of staff. In my opinion, the model is implied by "American private university, which is the lecturer who has a cohort, sometimes very large, unstructured and collaborators under this group continue to exist, in my opinion, a band of insecurity.
So it's a model that responds to a logic of economic reform is not by the minister Gelmini, what really is making reforms Tremonti. The budget is yet another expression of this theme must reduce staff, it must reduce public spending. The university is thought of in another way, the public university will be a few teachers and many temporary workers to perform the duties and functions sia della ricerca sia della didattica e accanto all’università pubblica cominceranno a nascere le università private (e soprattutto quelle telematiche, vedi per esempio l’università di Mediaset, E-campus). Presto ci troveremo in un panorama diversificato: ci saranno molti diplomifici e poche università in grado di dare competenze elevate ma per le élite. Il modello americano è così. In America, vi sono alcune università di grande qualità, private e anche pubbliche, poi molte università di di media qualità private e pubbliche e poi c’è un livello bassissimo, dove i titoli di studio si possono anche prendere col solo riconoscimento delle attività professionali svolte. Laddove c’è l’assenza del valore legale del titolo di studio è evidente che il titolo non ha più significato in sé, ma lo ha in relazione alla qualità di chi lo attribuisce. A me questa sembra una strada davvero pericolosa, perché noi dobbiamo garantire che il medico laureato in Italia possa andare a fare il medico anche in Inghilterra o in Olanda, cioè occorre un titolo di studio riconosciuto a livello europeo. Insomma, è da anni che si sta lavorando sia sugli standard comuni, sia sulla necessità di arrivare a valutazioni che permettano di capire, diciamo così, anche gli standard differenziati e differenti. A me sembra che ci sia davvero una inversione di marcia notevolissima che ci porta verso i meccanismi della privatizzazione.
There are also other states that are moving in this direction or are we alone in Italy?
From what I understood and followed in the past, it seemed that the path points to a kind of convergence between European universities, so much so that our three-year degree is made precisely in order to shorten the training in an Italian to make it similar to what happens in France, Germany and especially in England. So far it seemed that with the Europe Agreements (in particular), Lisbon, there was a sort of general approach in Europe to have some, often, mixed public / private - but they were in state control of the guarantee of some standard quality, which would have allowed the movement of the security in Europe. It seems to me that with these steps in the Gelmini we're going completely the other way!
Yes, but very often attacked this new model of 3 +2 ...
is true, but it happens maybe because we came in drifts that were not foreseen, foreseeable, however. I think the reform of the 3 plus 2, has been a missed opportunity for the university! The university with its autonomy could handle this change in very different ways, has lost a very important opportunity. Instead, corporate logic has prevailed so there was a proliferation of universities e di corsi universitari e spesso, nelle situazioni accademicamente più forti, c’è stato anche un proliferare di cattedre. Non sempre ha prevalso la logica del bisogno della didattica o della ricerca, ma la logica del potere universitario per garantire dei posti.
Ma forse il problema, per quanto riguarda il 3+2, non sta anche nella valutazione dei corsi? Perché finchè i corsi di laurea vengono valutati in base al numero degli studenti laureati ogni anno, se è la quantità che guida il mantenimento dei corsi stessi, ci si appiattisce per forza verso il basso.
C’è un problema vero anche lì, ma è non solo lì. Per esempio, per me sarebbe molto più semplice fare una didattica che seleziona il 50% degli studenti, per cui invece che averne 300, ho solo 150 studenti di cui frequentanti 75; io sono sicuro di lavorare molto, ma molto meglio e quei 75 li porto a livelli alti. Ma questo è il modello di università che vogliamo? Allora il punto decisivo è che bisogna lavorare sulle capacità che l’università ha di tenere gli studenti (cioè di contenere la dispersione universitaria!) e di promuovere le loro competenze…
Facevamo riferimento a quei corsi in cui ci sono veramente pochi studenti ma in cui vengono trasmesse delle conoscenze specifiche in determinati ambiti (per esempio l’astronomia, o certi corsi dell’area umanistica, come quelli di filologia classica); in questo caso la scomparsa di un corso e di certe cattedre poi porta a un impoverimento della stessa facoltà e dell’università.
È un discorso diverso, infatti anch’io son d’accordo su questo punto. Perché il tema della cultura nell’università e nella scuola non può avere sempre e soltanto il parametro economico esattamente per i motivi che dicevi tu. Il latino non va più di moda, non piace più a nessuno: chiudiamo? Una tradizione culturale italiana come quella classica la facciamo sparire perché i costi sono eccessivi, perché ci sono pochi studenti? Se arriviamo a questo, stiamo passando alla barbarie culturale. Perché un’università seriously takes the money where it can take them and then distributes them to help vulnerable situations, because those situations are weak important heritage of our culture, our community. Of course, if I were a Latin scholar I can not have the claim to have teaching, research, etc. I'll hold my aspirations. But from this, just use the ax to economic changes there. University, as in all situations of culture, one can not only use the parameter statement. There are many areas that are a minority, small but important. Even the cutting-edge research: it is clear that in certain situations, those are not immediately productive research, but maybe tomorrow si rivelino un campo di ricerca importantissimo e fondamentale. Il punto decisivo è che il modello universitario italiano, che è anche un modello molto consistente in Europa, vede insieme due aspetti: la ricerca e la didattica, e questi due momenti, secondo me, bisogna tentare di tenerli insieme per davvero: dunque, bisogna trovare anche dei parametri economici per permettere un equilibrio all’interno. Per questo – tornando alla domanda di prima – è vero che non bisogna valutare in base alla quantità di studenti che si laureano, però è anche vero che è importante capire come l’istituzione funziona dal punto di vista della didattica, è un parametro importante. Certo che anche quello, preso in maniera rigid and abstract, leading to the formalism, the loophole of "I promotes all and goodnight." This is the fundamental point: we are in a complex society made up of complex institutions: the culture of those who govern the system analyzes the simplification. So, if I analyze this complex set only with the item "How many failed students, it is clear that there is always the possibility to jump out of the result I want, the one most favorable to maintaining the status quo. This happens if you work on just one parameter, if the parameters are expanded, if there is a longitudinal evaluation of students, the quality of teaching, the media offered agli studenti, se vado a vedere quanti di questi studenti trovano lavoro dopo la laurea nel loro settore di competenza, ecc., allora la cosa è diversa. Tu non hai promosso perché in questo modo il ministero ti valuta positivamente perché hai pochi fuori corso e ti dà i soldi, ma perché hai davvero favorite le conoscenze e le competenze degli studenti. Questo è il punto decisivo: siamo in una società complessa, ma ci si muovere sempre con la logica della semplificazione. La semplificazione non paga; paga momentaneamente, quando devi far quadrare i conti, ma il giorno dopo le cose non funzionano più.
0 comments:
Post a Comment