How the institutions of higher education, idea production, and peer review should change
I’m disappointed by how many mainstream theories are incomplete or uni-dimensional. Admittedly this is how they. But ideas are supposed to combine. Thats the purpose of higher education & the culture of ideas–if not that–then what???
Why does this take place?
1. Tradition and history and doing whats always been done. Institutional bureaucracy.
2. Institutional bureaucracy. What it takes to get published.
How could this change? Changing the nature of peer reviewed work & peer reviewed journals–actually mostly the articles themselves:
1) Systems analysis & analytic thinking
2) Multi-dimensional analysis/Cross disciplinary
3) Integrative analysis
4) Better feedback loops on the initial models (perhaps even semi-transparent–aka on the document itself)
5) Better ranking or filtering of existing models (promote the ones that work & have utilitarian value)
6) Visualization (going beyond just words)
7) Develop systems of systems which are themselves labeled & named systems.
If you boil this list down:
1) Systems (including analysis)
2) Multiple: Perspectives/Modes of Thought/Realms of Thought
4) Feedback loops & ranking/filtering
(Somewhere between the list of 7 and the list of 4 there is a happy medium)
Its astounding that the most innovative place on the planet should be universities…and that they’ve used basically the same functional model of article for the last 100 years with very few changes. And those changes that are created individually–aren’t scaled.
I don’t think there is any comprehensive analysis of the tropes of articles or the effective practices of articles…..I may be wrong…..in fact very wrong. I kind of hope I am.