The current transnational climate (British Council, 2014) in Europe is likely to continue to generate institutional and classroom situations which dictate that difference and otherness be the norm rather than the exception. Unfortunately, in the 1960's, Black and minority ethnic (BME) migrants from the former British colonies had less-than-favorable educational experiences in Britain due to prejudice and stereotyping mainly arising from cultural differences. Since then there have been a plethora of studies, policies, and reports regarding the perpetuation of discrimination in educational institutions. Today, British higher educational institutions have finally begun to recognize the need to reduce progression and attainment gaps. However, their focus tends to only consider the student “Black and Minority Ethnic attainment gap” with almost no attention being given to educators', or more specifically there is a distinctive lack of thought given to the female BME educators' progression and attainment in British HEIs. As such, this paper draws theoretically and conceptually on critical cultural autoethnography, to illustrate the value of conducting research into a female's BME educators' personal and professional experiences, and “gives voice to previously silenced and marginalized experiences” (Boylorn and Orbe, 2014, p. 15). In doing so, I highlight how higher educational institutions underutilisation of such competencies and contributions have and continue to perpetuate BME underachievement. I conclude the paper by questioning the accountability of providing support for BME educators progression and attainment, challenge educational leaders to consider the value and utilization of cultural knowledge, and implore all educators to reflect on how their personal experiences influence their professional identity.
MULTIFILE
In the Netherlands, a new research role was introduced in higher professional education. In our lectureship participants improve their practices and generate knowledge as action researchers. We started our own action research to better help them. Our question is: how can we help our researchers develop their research identity as part of their professional development and so help them improve their innovation practice? Reflecting on our findings so far, we notice a pedagogy of increasing structure. We believe a research identity involves more than techniques; a research culture (and especially ethics) must be developed if research is to become a tradition.
In our work as lecturers, teachers, researchers, coaches or managers in a university of applied sciences, we do feel that the amount and variety of societal challenges on higher vocational education (HVE) is growing. Institutions in HE are in a process of transforming from traditional ‘either or’ research or education institutions into more complex hybrid knowledge institutions. Nowadays, universities of applied sciences (as institutions for HVE) in The Netherlands have three main objectives: providing education, conducting practice-oriented research to add to the professional knowledge base, and contributing to innovation in the professional fields of work. Education, research and innovation form the three pillars in the strategy of Dutch Universities of Applied Sciences (Educational Council of The Netherlands, 2015). These changing societal demands form an impetus for educational reform and innovation at both organizational and individual employee levels (Cummings & Shin, 2014). Changes in context and roles lead to questions: As a teacher/lecturer/researcher, how do I relate to the different stakeholders? What is the real meaning of being a ‘good’ lecturer or researcher in creating added values, and for whom? Some propose that the new challenges concern everybody and thus should be everyone’s job. But when everything becomes everyone’s job, how can we really realize the required added values? Others promote a more differentiated approach of accurately fitting talents and tasks to create the flow and employee satisfaction that is needed to realize the desired outcomes. But then how do we work together and cooperate with such an individualistic approach? These opposing positions in the discourse concern the question of how to define the ‘professional me’ amongst the ‘we’. In other words, the challenge is how we define and navigate our professional identities within the context of a dynamic multiple-identity organization with increasing pressures for professional diversity (Foreman & Whetten, 2002; Aangenendt, 2015).
Collaborative networks for sustainability are emerging rapidly to address urgent societal challenges. By bringing together organizations with different knowledge bases, resources and capabilities, collaborative networks enhance information exchange, knowledge sharing and learning opportunities to address these complex problems that cannot be solved by organizations individually. Nowhere is this more apparent than in the apparel sector, where examples of collaborative networks for sustainability are plenty, for example Sustainable Apparel Coalition, Zero Discharge Hazardous Chemicals, and the Fair Wear Foundation. Companies like C&A and H&M but also smaller players join these networks to take their social responsibility. Collaborative networks are unlike traditional forms of organizations; they are loosely structured collectives of different, often competing organizations, with dynamic membership and usually lack legal status. However, they do not emerge or organize on their own; they need network orchestrators who manage the network in terms of activities and participants. But network orchestrators face many challenges. They have to balance the interests of diverse companies and deal with tensions that often arise between them, like sharing their innovative knowledge. Orchestrators also have to “sell” the value of the network to potential new participants, who make decisions about which networks to join based on the benefits they expect to get from participating. Network orchestrators often do not know the best way to maintain engagement, commitment and enthusiasm or how to ensure knowledge and resource sharing, especially when competitors are involved. Furthermore, collaborative networks receive funding from grants or subsidies, creating financial uncertainty about its continuity. Raising financing from the private sector is difficult and network orchestrators compete more and more for resources. When networks dissolve or dysfunction (due to a lack of value creation and capture for participants, a lack of financing or a non-functioning business model), the collective value that has been created and accrued over time may be lost. This is problematic given that industrial transformations towards sustainability take many years and durable organizational forms are required to ensure ongoing support for this change. Network orchestration is a new profession. There are no guidelines, handbooks or good practices for how to perform this role, nor is there professional education or a professional association that represents network orchestrators. This is urgently needed as network orchestrators struggle with their role in governing networks so that they create and capture value for participants and ultimately ensure better network performance and survival. This project aims to foster the professionalization of the network orchestrator role by: (a) generating knowledge, developing and testing collaborative network governance models, facilitation tools and collaborative business modeling tools to enable network orchestrators to improve the performance of collaborative networks in terms of collective value creation (network level) and private value capture (network participant level) (b) organizing platform activities for network orchestrators to exchange ideas, best practices and learn from each other, thereby facilitating the formation of a professional identity, standards and community of network orchestrators.
