Reference
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning and Identity. New York: Cambridge University Press 

Click here to see the powerpoint presentation that accompanies this abstract.

The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. Anchor Books 

What is shown above is the abstract for that presentation.  The accompanying powerpoint presentation, which provides more detail, can be accessed by clicking here. 

[Please note that the various film clips and animations which were used are not accessible in this powerpoint presentation.]

Community Houses are diversely responsive not-for-profit agencies which variously deliver three key dimensions of service to their communities of interest:

1. They provide space for community resources and services.  This means they serve as a meeting hub for the communities of interest and communities of practice which operate within them.  The size of the operational footprint that each house serves seems to determine the extent to which space is needed.  For large pockets of population such as in cities, larger shared buildings, often comprising a multitude of small spaces, appear to operate for a kaleidoscope of stand-alone agencies.  However, for smaller population pockets such as neighbourhoods, small cottages with many fewer spaces seem to be the norm.  And within cities where community houses are located in neighbourhoods, the size of buildings varies from medium to small depending upon the size of neighbourhood and population being served.  Irrespective of size, a reasonably useful indicator of the effectiveness of all such spaces seems to be not so much the numbers of people coming in and out of a building, but rather, the percentage of time each of the discrete spaces within those buildings are used.
2. They offer learning and development activities.  These programmes can be structured (non-formal programmes of learning) or unstructured (informal and incidental learning episodes).  They may involve facilitated learning exchanges, information giving and receiving, problem solving and/or conflict resolution, social development and knowledge creation and/or distribution. They are offered to people of all ages - young children (as per Plunket) through to the aged.  Moreover, the learning and development activities offered by community houses are open to all, irrespective of culture, ablility, disability and status.  Community Houses are, therefore, educationally egalitarian in outlook and seek to be so in practice - they are agencies which are led by practitioners and facilitators of lifelong learning and development.
3. They provide servant leadership.  This involves the facilitation of development so that individuals and groups may grow; it also involves the provision of remedial services which can ameliorate community inequalities and address injustices.  The provision of servant leadership is the means by which resources become marshalled and programmes of development delivered.  It is the flux which binds together the successful operations of community houses. 

Importantly, Community Houses seek to ensure that the developmental futures of the numerous communities of practice with which they are connected are assured. Community houses seek to enable individuals and groups to flourish with independence and integrity.  These groups and individuals must be allowed to do so at their pace and in their own time.  They must be able to prosper not only in places and spaces governed by community house members, but equally, they must be helped to operate within spaces which are more familiar to client settings.  This means that the remit of those working from community houses ideally extends beyond the walls of the house into all of the community.

I especially enjoyed what the panel had to say because, in many ways, it blends well with the ideas about Etienne Wenger's communities of practice I introduced during my presentation.  So if you have a closer look at the final slides of the powerpoint show that follows, you'll see some congruences between the two sessions.

When I prepared the key-note, I created a power-point show within which were displayed a number of hyperlinks.  These hyperlinks were internal links to WebPages which I'd saved to the hard drive on my laptop.  (I'd done that in case there'd been no capacity to hook up to the Internet.)  In the spirit of enabling, which is another hallmark of community houses, I've uploaded the slideshow onto this site.  But because the hyperlinks which were embedded within the slides have been removed, the slides don't link to anything external.  If you want to have a look at what was produced, though, click here.  And as always, feedback is very welcome. 

Jens 

Institutional research success, highly effective teaching, and student academic excellence are interrelated but just how, if at all, can this interrelationship be explained and harnessed?  This paper proposes that a rich and active institutional research culture is actually a necessary pre-condition to growing effective faculty teaching and, consequently, to promoting improvements in scholastic standards.  We note that far too many personal student stories and far too many NZQA audit reports indicate that research remains the Cinderella of the ITP sector.  Consequently, a persuasive argument can be made which proposes that academics teaching diploma and degree qualifications are unlikely to attain maximum academic effectiveness until they become adept researchers themselves as well as consummate teachers of how actually to do research.  This means academics need to learn about the why, when and how of undertaking research rather than merely learning about how to tell students about research projects that have been completed by others.  This paper, therefore, proposes strategies that need to be adopted by tertiary institutions in order to develop a realistic research culture.  We conclude that to be an effective learning organisation, institutions concerned with higher education, must first become developed so that they are research organisations.  Otherwise the algorithm for success won't work. The accompanying ten item slide show can be accessed by clicking here. 

Adequate government research and development funding within the tertiary sector may seem to be an oxymoron.  In part, research funding is elusive and scarce because government coffers do not unfurl largess.  Hence entrepreneurial tertiary leaders necessarily explore alternative funding sources.  They increasingly seek support from benevolent agencies (trusts, endowments, Iwi Authorities, etc.).  They unhesitatingly broker partnerships with industry and/or the not-for-profit sector and/or with government departments.  And sometimes, triadic arrangements between government, industry and consortia of tertiary agencies are formed to capture mighty research dollars!  This presentation explores the catch-22 nature of the contemporary tertiary research funding pursuits across two tertiary institutions.  The imperatives of staff being research active, increasing layers of managerial costs, bourgeoning demands on staff time and a comparative absence of comprehensive research skills by academics, are issues with which tertiary leaders need to grapple.  We tentatively conclude that ways in which research funds are currently pursued and priced disadvantages tertiary institutions by inflating costs whilst undermining potential for quality scholarship.  In-depth scholarly research seems to have become replaced by quick-fix solutions or alternatively, projects become farmed out to commercial agencies who can do it cheaper but, we venture, not necessarily better.  We, therefore, propose some possible strategies for consideration. There is a slide show that can be accessed by clicking here but please note that because the augmentative AVs are not embedded, they are unlikely to activate.  

Dr. Narottam Bhindi, University of Wollongong, NSW, Australia (Project Leader) with:

Dr. Richard Smith, Auckland University of Technology, Auckland, New Zealand;

Dr. Jens Hansen, Woodhill Park Research Retreat, Auckland, New Zealand;

Dr. Dan Riley, University of New England, Armidale, NSW, Australia.

 
Below is the abstract of a paper about some research that is still in the making.  The paper we presented at the most recent NZEALS conference in Auckland, early in 2008 was a preliminary consideration of a study of authentic leadership. That study will involve academics from Australia and New Zealand and fieldwork will likely be undertaken during the first term of 2009.  

Authentic leadership is emerging as an alternative perspective on leadership in different organisational settings including education (Bhindi & Duignan, 1997).  The presenters draw upon the extant research and commentary on authentic leadership and its relevance to leaders engaged in human service organisations, especially education.  Missing/unacknowledged dimensions of the current leadership literature will also be identified with respect to authenticity.  By analyzing a blend of survey data and focus groups findings the researcher intend to map teacher perceptions of authentic leaders.  Specifically, they want to determine the dynamics needed to promote authentic rather than contrived collegiality.  It is contended that authentic leaders will empower communities of learners through the creation of vibrant, safe, fulfilling schools. 

To view the paper, click here and to see the powerpoint show, click here (please note that because this was a highly augmented AV, it is very possible that film clips and sound bytes may not work.)