• Home
• About

Synthesis

Posted on June 2, 2009

Synthesis–the combination of two or more elements into something (or somethings) new–is presumably something we do well at universities. After all, as a university, we apparently encompass it all, the “whole“.

My observation, however, is that we are far better at analysis–separation, deconstruction–than synthesis. There’s a long and much prized history of this, of course. We have schools and colleges in which students and faculty have largely separate research and learning experiences from one another. For faculty members, specialization and specialness seem to govern most of their work lives and focus.  For students, there’s a wide variety of experience depending on their major. The collection of  ”general ed” requirements is an attempt to provide an opportunity for synthesis, but there’s no guarantee that actual synthesis will occur.

There are from time to time increased calls and attempts (to varying degrees of success) for a more integrated experience. The focus of these efforts is largely (and appropriately) curricular.

I’d like to add another dimension to the notion of integration, and that is with regard to academically-focused technology. It’s far less inspiring, I suppose, than addressing “big questions“, but there are good reasons for adopting an integrative approach to academic technology.

Here are a some (and I’m sure you can think of a few others):

1. Technology (and particularly its intensive use to support learning) is pervasive, ever changing, and is here to stay. (It’s also becoming increasingly clear that this technology has the possibility of being transformative, but that’s another conversation already well underway elsewhere.)
2. Some technology is very expensive, whether directly or indirectly. If the initial price tag is free or nearly free, what it takes to implement that technology effectively on a sufficient scale is most assuredly not free. The current economic and political context, as everyone well knows, forces us to be exceedingly aware of all total costs of ownership.
3. Students should have a more-or-less common experience regardless of their home school or college, at least in so far as the fundamental infrastructure of their learning here is concerned. Core academic technology is in my view a utility, like roads, sewer systems, and power are for a municipality.
4. Since technology is only really as good as its effective use, it’s clear that taking steps to ensure that faculty members are prepared to use technology effectively should be a high priority. Achieving this priority is made much more difficult and most likely more expensive with a Balkanized approach to academic technology.

My particular focus over the next several months (and likely beyond) will be to advocate for an integrated perspective on the placement of our institution’s Learning Management System (LMS). I mean this in a metaphoric sense (although given the possibility of outsourcing LMS hosting, I suppose it’s a geographic question too). This fall, we will be sending out an RFP for our next generation LMS implementation. This is by State policy given that our current master agreement with Blackboard will be ten-years old in 2010. This process gives us an opportunity to rethink what the LMS is relative to the institutional mission and relative to a larger academic technology strategy.

For my part, I believe the LMS should be viewed as a utility, a public good. I also view it as a platform, even anchoring point by which to hook together a whole host of current and prospective academic toolsets and technologies. Here’s a simple diagram to illustrate this vision. With more time or cleverness, a better one could surely be created, but I think you can get the idea.

What if, through a well implemented LMS strategy, we could achieve a kind of integrated approach to academic technology, one that is–to use a popular phrase–loosely coupled? It seems entirely within reach that we could define and then support a core set of academic technologies available to all faculty and all students at the institution, still allow for some specialized discipline-specific toolsets, and all on an institutional budget that is sustainable. It’ll take years to execute, and it will require accommodations, shifts in the locus of control here and there. In the end, however, we could create a something new; something that’s not just the sum of the parts. That is, I believe, the essence of synthesis. 

(Incidentally, I like the definition in Wikipedia for chemical synthesis because it includes “purposeful” to the definition, indicating a kind of intentionality to the combining.) 

What do you think? Please feel free to share your comments here or by emailing me directly at keith.lynip@umontana.edu.

Comments