By
John M. Toothman, PhD
External Scholar,  IOU Foundation

By Cynthia Jackson, PhD,  IOU Foundation

Key Note Presentation, Florida Memorial University Faculty Senate Conference

I was asked to talk about the “tension” between and among teaching, research, and scholarship. I am passionate about today’s topic. I consider it one concern in higher education that needs to be visited on a regular basis, given the rapid changing environment of producing and disseminating knowledge. I am going to share my thoughts and experiences, and will disclose parts of my journey in coming to where I am on what I consider to be a perceived tension between and among teaching, research and scholarship. What some see as tension, I see as natural shifts in scholarship.

By Mike Curtis, M. A., Henry George School of Social Science

Welcome to the urban dilemma: why our cities can't sustain themselves--and how they could.

Why shifting the source of revenue from confiscatory taxes to a charge that is based on the value of benefits received becomes an incentive to create the maximum number of jobs and dwellings that are economically desirable within every community.

Why shifting taxes from income and wages, sales, and the value of buildings to the rental value of land creates the incentives to rebuild our cities and promote an orderly development of the suburbs and rural areas--one that will make the most efficient use of our roads, sewers, and everything else that governments provide.

 Frank Hakemulder, PhD  State University of Utrecht, The Netherlands 

Introduction

Charles Percy Snow (1905-1980), an influential novelist and former scientist at Cambridge University highlighted the contrast between the Sciences and the Humanities in his The Two Cultures (1959), not in a normative way as the German philosopher Dilthey had done before him, but in a descriptive way. He showed how the working cultures of these two groups of disciplines gradually grew apart over the past hundred years. (“Culture” is here to be understood as the ways, habits, customs, etc. of people acting.) At first sight, his description seems to underpin the view propounded by Dilthey and his followers in the Humanities. Snow seems to agree with them that there are two fundamentally different ways of looking at the world. A Diltheyan view implies that the methods of “understanding” and “explaining” are incompatible with each other, and that one has to choose between the two and also that adherents of either view cannot meaningfully communicate with each other. Snow maintained that one does not have to choose: the two methods can be combined and communication between them is a real possibility. In a kind of postscript to the second edition of his book he added that there may be a way out of this double-tracked view, in that an alternative way may exist. This is what he calls a “Third Culture”: