Thursday 14 December 2006

More Opening Re-Marks and KEYNOTE


Disneyization - I wonder how this applies to the rigmarole of academe and of conferences? A kind of self-parody: the language, linguistic gestures, the compliments and references to wider bodies of discourse. There's also a suspension of something; a putting on hold of certain urges, to dispute not just the content of what's being said but how it is being said. The current speaker is talking about leadership in higher education, which seems germane to the conference. I wonder what impact this paper, its delivery and its standing at the beginning of the conference has on the remainder of the conference? Why this paper at the start: what qualities are being assumed about this paper as a paper? The warrant for this presentation are wholly academic; its gestures are firmly within the language game of academic research; the field of play for the conference seem to be in the process of being laid down here - the goal posts erected, the lines painted on the grass, the referee doing his final warm-up, and us, the players, pushing back into the chairs of comfort in having expectations met (namely, of attending a conference in an academic institution). I wonder about the conference's duality between practitioner and theorist and the strap line of 'knowledge into action' is, or is not, valued here...

Interesting hiatus - the speaker has just reached for his glass of water and I noticed his hand was shaking. Now this could mean many things. Then, just after I noticed this the slide became stuck; the zapper wasn't working and the next slide couldn't be shown. After Kim stepped up and fiddled with the PC, the correct slide came up and the speaker continued. During the 30 or so seconds whilst this 'technical hitch' was being remedied, a murmur arose in the audience. I only mention this as part of my foregrounding of the apparatus of the conference, which is an emphasis related to the focus of my paper on re-focusing our eyes on the apparatus of education and the role this plays in its referent - in the case of this conference, leadership.

The conclusions from this opening keynote: how are the conclusions to be orchestrated and are they as multiple as I'm saying they are? One conclusion from this paper is that we need more research about what constitutes leadership in higher education. HE is conservative and possibly the research agendas on leadership in HE reflect the same conservatism. Some formal conclusions, from the speaker, are that the topic is less to do with "getting more out of followers" and more on "the ends of HE education leadership". What other conclusions exist around the room - wouldn't that be interesting to find out? We're breaking for tea soon, so I'll try and capture some other opinions

No comments: