A Revised Approach to Implementation … But
to Enhance the Process, a Paradigm
Shift is Necessary
It will be clear to the readers of these articles that
the problem being discussed is deeply rooted in human nature (while in
practice, the only possible solution is through improved basic education) and thus
that it is global in scope … and consequently, that any solution to it must also
be global.
Further, the sociopsychological situation in
virtually all nations around the world – see paragraph six, article #20 (2019) – leaves little doubt as to the
seriousness of the problem and thus the urgent necessity for a solution.
And yet, in spite of the evident urgency and in spite of the soundness
of the arguments of these articles, there seem to be lingering doubts on the
part of academics/educators about their readiness to get involved.
A foremost reason for this hesitancy may be due to the
implication of a corollary to the thesis of these articles – that the
foundation on which education has been built for the past two-and-a-half
millennia is on shaky grounds … for education to-date has failed to address a most
vital/pivotal concern of human wellbeing.
(In all likelihood, educators are largely unaware that such a concern
even exists, thus it is no surprise that to-date there is no solution to the
problem.) And this concern in its turn is symptomatic of a much deeper ailment of world basic education regarding its primary purpose – see article # 13 (2015).
A second reason may be the departure of these articles from the
accepted academic norms in some important ways, foremost among them being that
their arguments are not supported by references. Given that academic scholarship is usually based
on referencing, the articles, however sound their logic and/or rationale, are therefore
perceived deep down and at an emotional level to be wanting.
Perhaps a third and a more immediate reason for the
reluctance may be that academics/educators are not used to global thinking;
their focuses usually being limited to their favourite projects, apart from teaching.
There are other possible reasons as well, but the above three
are probably the most significant …
As to references, one might want to be mindful that this is
a pioneering work, implying that it is at best unlikely that related references
could be found. Expecting references to these
articles is akin to expecting Nicolai Copernicus to cite references to his heliocentric
theory when the world at large believed in the then prevalent geocentric
worldview. Or take the notion of a spherical
Earth when everyone else believed the Earth to be flat. Pioneering works, by definition, don’t have
precedents, and therefore references. They stand or fall by virtue
of the soundness of their arguments; their reasoning/consistency – and not by
what someone else might or might not think of them; there is no scope for social
proof in pioneering works.
Thus a paradigm shift is called for regarding one’s
cherished beliefs – which drive all of us – if we are to find a viable solution
to one of humanity’s most compelling and entrenched problems.
And towards facilitating the implementation of the solution
suggested in these articles, a different approach could be adopted than was originally
suggested, which called for a simultaneous global effort. To make the process more manageable, a more
localized approach can be adopted initially.
This is a merely a tactical retreat, however, and the
ultimate solution should be global – it has
to be global since the problem is global and since today the world is interconnected
and interdependent, and thus to be worth anything, the solution to the problem also
has to be global in scope.
The effort could start in either the education department or
the psychology department of any large university – since our problem is
psychological in nature while the solution is through education. Or, for that matter, it could start with any of the other four of the six disciplines identified as being pertinent to the problem, namely, philosophy, sociology, political science, and communication (see article # 9 (2014), paragraph 10) – as long as the focus is kept initially, when analysis of the problem is the concern, on the psychological aspect of the topic and subsequently on its educational aspect when dealing with the solution.
Two factors that can especially enhance the process are: i) those
departments belonging to a university with a global reputation, and ii) such a university
being in close proximity to other such universities. The process can proceed without them, of course – just that they will prove to be very helpful bonuses.
This way, efforts in one department can expand
to the relevant departments in the same university as well as in neighbouring universities – face-to-face interaction
being of vital importance in this earlier stage.
The involvement of more than one university will be especially helpful in refining and augmenting the ideas of these articles and thus bolstering the final product
for the peer-review process that has to follow necessarily.
The latter will involve expanding both nationally and globally, and
the ease of modern video interaction will minimize the spatial friction arising
from distance, especially if such interaction is supported by a dose of personal
familiarity. Details can be worked out
as to the best practical approach to adopt.
From here, it will be fairly easy for the effort to achieve
global academic notice … and acceptance.
Please note that the above process, while somewhat
different, is in good accord with the second part of article #9 (2014), which was more congenial
to the comprehensive and global approach initially suggested.
And as outlined in the post #14 (2016), and if it is deemed worthwhile,
I can be of help in clarifying
any ambiguities and/or elaborate on any aspect as required, and in coordinating
and bridge-building among the relevant professions, in spite of my not having
expert knowledge in any pertinent field – but as readers will be aware, I do have an
excellent overview of the broader dimensions of the situation.
Finally, there is the ultimate issue of the proposals distilled from the process becoming actual public policy. This has been conceptualized at the outset, in the endnote of article #1, Introduction – simply that whatever is in the collective heads of the educators will become public policy, for even dictators rely on those who have relevant degrees to actually run their education establishments.
