To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
This chapter introduces the context and rationale for the book, noting the increased media and policy focus over the last decade, as well as the broader sociopolitical context of the Covid-19 pandemic, post-Brexit, and post-Trump milieux. The case is made for revisiting and challenging the dominant national frame for understanding academic freedom, noting the internationalisation and massification of higher education globally. The outline of the book is situated as addressing this gap and examining three theoretical and interrelated challenges: i) the presumed dichotomy between freedom and diversity/inclusion, ii) the relative lack of attention to the role of academic freedom in knowledge production, and iii) the lack of recognition of the transnational nature of academic freedom.
The relationship between academic freedom and knowledge production is examined in in this chapter. Various contested constructions of knowledge within and across the different geographical contexts and by discipline are critically interrogated, and the implications of these constructions are considered for pedagogy, research, and understanding of academic freedom. As such, conceptions of knowledge invoke particular conceptions of the value of education and its aims. This is examined in relation to neoliberal discourses of skills, impact and marketability, positionality, and decolonisation of knowledge initiatives. The temporal and geographical positionality of knowledge is critically interrogated, recognising the Western hegemony of knowledge and its production, calling for the need to situate knowledge sociopolitically and historically. This necessitates the recognition that academic freedom is similarly situated in space and time, with discussions of examples across the four national contexts. Debates surrounding the organisation and gatekeeping of knowledge through the disciplines and the rise of interdisciplinarity are also addressed in this chapter.
This chapter considers a range of internal and external restrictions (individual, institutional, national, and international) on the production of knowledge, which is situated in the dominant framing discourse of global neoliberalism. Recognising forms of restrictions on knowledge relates to how academic freedom itself is constructed, invoking the proposition that certain prerequisites are necessary for the practice of academic freedom. The chapter examines how university governance and funding mechanisms can constrain academic freedom. Within the university context, it extends its consideration to the role of ethics committees, bureaucratisation of university procedures, role of students, and university environment. The role of self-censorship at the individual level and the notion of scholars’ responsibility as well as freedom are critically examined. State-level restrictions are also considered. The chapter also situates these university-level and state-level restrictions within transnational restrictions, including international law and movement across borders.
This chapter draws together the findings to argue for a transnational theory of academic freedom and the production of knowledge. Based on original empirical data from Lebanon, the UAE, the United Kingdom, and the United States, I argue for the necessity of taking account of the complexities of globalisation, internationalisation, and geographical and historical inter-connectivities, as well as the particularities of context. I argue that the construct of academic freedom is premised on inclusivity, rather than the principles of academic freedom being construed as in tension with the principles of diversity and inclusion. This argument is developed from the recognition of the positionality of the knowledge producer, thereby positioning knowledge as relational, contextualised, and within the politics of power relations. Methodological conclusions consolidate arguments for a move away from the methodological nationalism underpinning the study of academic freedom and for its transnational framing in theorising the relationship between academic freedom and the production of knowledge.
This chapter addresses a fundamental debate in the field – the presumed irreconcilability of the principles of academic freedom on the one hand and diversity and inclusion on the other. It examines contested conceptions of academic freedom through academics’ experiences in Lebanon, the UAE, the United Kingdom, and the United States. In response to polemical and polarised debates, it has been theorised that the principles of justice and inclusion and the principles of academic freedom are complementary rather than contradictory. However, this potential complementarity has not been examined to date in relation to the production of knowledge. This chapter makes the original proposition that this complementarity between inclusion and academic freedom is also a requisite in the production of ‘inclusive knowledge’.
This chapter investigates ‘forbidden’ knowledge, examining the structures and processes that impede the production of knowledge, and how such knowledge can threaten powerful interests mediated through institutions and sociopolitical and religious cultures. This can entail both formal and informal processes including self-censorship, peer review, internal university restrictions, and external sociopolitical restrictions. The chapter considers the construct of ‘forbidden’ knowledge, recognising it as more than gaps in knowledge, and also in terms of structural and sociopolitical processes, consolidating this knowledge as too dangerous or ‘taboo’ to produce. Drawing on empirical accounts of the daily lived experiences of academics operating within this terrain, four areas of forbidden knowledge – ‘bioethics, psychology, and genetics’; ‘Palestine’; ‘gender and sexuality; and ‘race, religion, security, and extremism’ are explored. In addition, questions of power, agency, positionality, and sociopolitical and historical contexts are critically elucidated.
This chapter examines the discourses of the perceived role of the university and how this relates to the constructions of knowledge and its implications for pedagogy, research, and academic freedom. Furthermore, it examines the role of the university transnationally going beyond the familiar democratic contexts, taking account of increased globalisation and its sociopolitical implications for academic freedom and the production of knowledge. University missions illustrate a range of framings in terms of the conceptions of ‘truth’, ‘public good’, and ‘knowledge economy’, and how these conceptions are translated into curricula objectives is explored in the different contexts of Lebanon, the UAE, the United Kingdom, and the United States.
Recent studies on technology-mediated task-based learning have shown the impact of task design and modality on English as a foreign language (EFL) learning. However, it is unclear what effect technology-mediated tasks have on learners’ English language skills. This paper presents a classroom-based study that showed how using technology-mediated tasks impacted students’ learning experiences and fostered the development of specific speaking and writing subskills in an EFL secondary education context. Forty-two EFL intermediate learners completed two speaking and two writing tasks from the Cambridge B2 First exam using mobile devices. The participants were divided into a pen-and-paper group (N = 21) and an iPad group (N = 21). Learning outcomes were measured using a pre-test/post-test design with a statistical comparison of ratings across tasks. A qualitative content analysis of lesson observations and student and teacher interviews served as an additional dataset to shed light on learners’ experiences. Descriptive statistics revealed that the iPad group achieved higher scores in pronunciation and accuracy (speaking) and essay organisation features (writing). Tasks involving the active use of the tool for content creation, rehearsing speaking performances, and accessing authentic materials were the most successful among students.
In recent years, automated written feedback (AWF) has gained popularity in language learning and teaching as a form of artificial intelligence (AI). The present study aimed at providing a comprehensive state-of-the-art review of AWF. Using Scopus as the main database, we identified 83 SSCI-indexed published articles on AWF (1993–2022). We investigated several main domains consisting of research contexts, AWF systems, feedback focus, ways of utilizing AWF, research design, foci of investigation, and results. Our results showed that although AWF was primarily studied in language and writing classes at the tertiary level, with a focus on English as the target language, the scope of AWF research has been steadily broadening to include diverse language environments and ecological settings. This heterogeneity was also demonstrated by the wide range of AWF systems employed (n = 31), ways of integrating AWF (n = 14), different types of AWF examined (n = 3), as well as varied research designs. In addition, three main foci of investigation were delineated: (1) the performance of AWF; (2) perceptions, uses, engagement with AWF, and influencing factors; and (3) the impact of AWF. We identified positive, negative, neutral, and mixed results in all three main foci of investigation. Overall, less positive results were found in validating AWF compared to results favoring the other two areas. Lastly, we grounded our findings within the argument-based validity framework and also examined the potential implications.
This book traces the transition to the graduate labour market of a cohort of middle-class and working-class young people. Using personal stories and voices, it provides fascinating insights into their experience of graduate employment and how their life-course transitions are shaped by their social backgrounds and education.
The field of digital technology in education has long been under-theorised. This book will enable the reader to reflect on the use of theory when explaining technology use and set out ways in which we can theorise better.
COVID-19 has widened inequalities in schools and left the future uncertain. Richard Riddell argues that the increasingly narrow focus of education governance has made new thinking impossible and has degraded public life. Nevertheless, he highlights new possibilities for democratic behaviour and the opening up of schooling to all it serves.