Category: Featured

  • Money and Vibes | HESA

    Money and Vibes | HESA

    As I mentioned yesterday, I recently spent some time at the International Association of Universities’ (IAU) annual meeting in Tokyo earlier this month. It’s tough to organize a meaningful international meeting about what you might call the “hard” issues in university management (resources, budget allocations, management styles) because these vary so much from one part of the world to another, and so the program tends to be taken up with more universalist themes like “values.” 

    The interesting thing about values was the divide in the room(s) about how insecure everyone felt about them. The white folks in the room spoke a lot about “challenging times,” which was mostly code for “holy crap, not Trump again, won’t we ever get out of this authoritarian populist nightmare?” But interestingly, the Africans in particular were not really interested in this discussion. They deal with strong-arming governments nearly all the time, and so there was a slight edge of “wake up, times are always challenging” to some of their interventions. 

    I’ll spare you the blow-by-blow, but something occurred to me as I listened to the various sessions: “vibes” are really the way that universities keep score of their successes, collectively at any rate. Sure, it’s nice that governments give them money—and they are bloody expensive to run—but what really matters is whether they are loved and respected. 

    For an empiricist like me, this is really annoying. I can measure investments and can compare them from one university or one country to another. But vibes? Very difficult to measure. Hard even to come up with a definition that makes sense across countries: in Canada we do measure how much the public “trusts” universities, but in other countries the vibes are much more directly about their ability to accept new students, or whether they are helping the country advance economically.

    But what the hell? Let’s give it a try!

    Below is a 2×2 (it’s not social science unless there is a 2×2!) that shows change in both total financial resources and vibes over the past five years in various countries. Data for the money axis is from my own records and analysis (you can see some of it back here from the talk I gave in Helsinki a couple of months ago), while data on the vibes axis is totally made up, based on my own observations. I’d be happy to discuss a better way to operationalize and measure this axis, but for the moment let’s just say this attempt to visualize how universities are faring is illustrative rather than in any way definitive and move on to the exercise itself

    (If you’d like to argue for a specific source of information for various countries, or just argue my choice of placement of a particular country on the vibes scale, get in touch!)

    What you can see plainly from Figure 1 is that higher education systems occupy one of three quadrants. There’s the one where both money and vibes are changing for the better (Turkey, India), one where money is going up but vibes are going down (the USA), and places where both money and vibes are headed in the wrong direction (the UK). 

    What we don’t see, really, are any countries in the top left quadrant where vibes are going up but money is going down. And I think what that tells you is that good vibes are not absolutely required in order for universities to receive new money, but they make it a whole heck of a lot easier. Which is of course why university Presidents are so concerned with public opinion.

    Anyways, this is all pretty theoretical. But I think it points to the possibility that perhaps measuring public sentiment about universities in consistent ways across countries might yield some interesting insights into the determinants of public funding. And in any event, if vibes are the way that universities measure their own success, shouldn’t we try to measure that in the same way we measure institutional finances?

    Source link

  • HEDx Podcast: Time to partner with students and tech – Episode 147

    HEDx Podcast: Time to partner with students and tech – Episode 147

    The last episode from HEDx’s Future Solutions conference features interim pro-vice-chancellor of teaching and learning at the University of Queensland Professor Kelly Mathews.

    She joins Martin Betts to discuss a survey of over 8000 university students about how they use artificial intelligence.

    She is followed by a panel that included deputy vice-chancellor (education and students) at the University of Technology Sydney Kylie Readman, deputy vice-chancellor (academic) at Deakin University Professor Lix Johnson, vice-chancellor of Western Sydney University George Williams, president of Torrens University Linda Brown of Torrens, and industry executive of higher education at Microsoft Katie Ford.

    They call on universities to partner with students and the tech company eco-system. Is HE brave enough to get out of its lane?

    Do you have an idea for a story?
    Email rebecca.cox@news.com.au

    Source link

  • Tesla chair to lead research and development review

    Tesla chair to lead research and development review

    Robyn Denholm has been chair of Tesla since 2018. Picture: Lyndon Mechielsen/Courier Mail



    By: Erin Morley

    in Industry & Research, Research Funding, Research News, Top Stories


    December 4, 2024

    A Strategic Examination of Research and Development review is to evaluate how to maximise Australia’s existing research and development (R&D) spend, and convince industry to adopt innovation.

    Please login below to view content or subscribe now.

    Membership Login

    Source link

  • Monash University owes casual academics up to $9m

    Monash University owes casual academics up to $9m

    Monash University is facing allegations it underpaid casual staff up to $9m. Picture: NCA Newswire/Andrew Henshaw



    By: NCA Newswire

    in Top Stories, Workforce


    December 4, 2024

    Monash University is facing fresh wage theft claims from casual academics, which could force the tertiary institution to pay back millions of dollars.

    Please login below to view content or subscribe now.

    Membership Login

    Source link

  • Doctoral Recipients by Undergraduate College, 1958–2023

    Doctoral Recipients by Undergraduate College, 1958–2023

    This is a popular post each year with high school and independent counselors working with students who are already thinking about a doctorate.  It shows the undergraduate institutions of doctoral recipients from 1958 to 2023.  (It does not show where the doctorate was earned, to be clear.)

    It’s based on data I downloaded from the National Science Foundation using their custom tool.  It’s a little clunky, and–this is important–it classifies academic areas differently before 2020 and after, but with a little (OK, a lot) of data wrangling over the long weekend, we have something for the data junkies out there.

    This is for fun and entertainment only, because, as I indicated, the categories are not quite the same, and for the sake of clarity, I had to combine similar (but not identical) disciplines.

    There are two views, using the tabs across the top.  The “All Data” view allows you to filter to your heart’s content.  The purple boxes allow you to limit the type of institution of the bachelor’s degree recipients: You may want to look at Public Universities in the Southeast, for instance, or all Catholic colleges (listed as “Roman Catholic” in the filter, by the way).  The tan boxes allow you to specify the doctoral degree area (Chemistry, or Political Science, for instance), and to limit the years.  You might want to look at 2017 to 2023, or you might want to get nostalgic and look at 1958 to 1965, for instance.

    The bars, which are colored by Broad Carnegie type, display the counts.  Us the scroll function at the right to see more data.

    The “Top 30” view limits to those places that produce the most students earning doctorates.   The labels show you the Rank (in orange), the counts (in blue) and the percent of total (in purple).  The percents are only calculated on the group you’ve selected, not the grand totals.

    This always generates four questions:

    Can you show these as a percentage of the graduates of this institution?  No, because not everyone who graduates with a doctorate does it in the same time.  I’d have to take lots of data and make some wild guesses. 

    Can you show what these students majored in at the undergraduate level?  No, that’s not available in the public sets, and I don’t want to apply for the restricted use license.  If you do, and you want me to work on this, let me know.

    Can you crosstab this data to show, for instance, where the Stanvard graduates earned their doctorate?  Again, it’s not in the public data set, so no. 

    What about other doctorates, like MD or Pharm.D or DDS?  It’s not included: These are research doctorates only. 

    If you use this in your business and want to support my time and software and hosting costs, you can do so here.  If you’re a high school counselor or a student or parent, just skip that link.

    Source link

  • The Key Aspects to Keeping Children Safe Online

    The Key Aspects to Keeping Children Safe Online

    In today’s digital age, ensuring student safety online is a top priority for both parents and schools. Technology has opened new doors for enhancing student learning and engagement, but it also requires thoughtful strategies to ensure students remain safe.

    As schools embrace these technological advancements, both parents and administrators must work together to implement safety measures and address the evolving responsibilities that come with digital education. Experts from the Association for Educational Communications and Technology (AECT) share their insights on how to navigate these opportunities effectively while keeping students safe.

    Evolving safety protocols

    Cathy Leavitt, an instructional technologist and AECT member, explains that schools have increasingly adopted tools to safeguard students on digital platforms. “There are great apps and software that record what children are doing on devices,” Leavitt notes, emphasizing the importance of tools that monitor and restrict access to harmful content. However, technology alone isn’t enough. Leavitt stresses that digital literacy is vital to fostering a safe online environment, teaching students how to navigate the digital world responsibly.

    The importance of digital literacy

    Bruce DuBoff, Ph.D., past president of the NJ Association of School Librarians and nominated Ethics Officer for AECT, identifies a gap between today’s digital skills and the safety practices needed in schools. “We live in a world rocked by Future Shock,” DuBoff says, which describes the rapid technological advancements that have outpaced current educational approaches. He advocates for early education in ethical online behavior, with librarians playing a pivotal role in integrating technologies like podcasting, game design, and web development, which not only enhance learning but also ensure safe online engagement.

    Dr. DuBoff argues that the biggest threat isn’t Artificial Intelligence (AI) but the social media algorithms that create information silos, limiting students’ exposure to diverse viewpoints. By educating students on the risks of these algorithms and promoting digital literacy programs like Common Sense Education’s Digital Citizenship curriculum, schools can better equip students to navigate the online world safely.

    The role of parents

    Parental involvement is essential in maintaining online safety. Leavitt advocates for parents to monitor their children’s digital activities, even if it might feel like an invasion of privacy. She calls for a “unified approach” between schools and parents, with regular communication to ensure parents understand the risks their children face online. Schools play a crucial role by educating parents as much as students and providing ongoing resources to reinforce safe practices at home.

    Cybersecurity and administrative challenges

    As schools adopt more digital learning platforms, cybersecurity threats such as data breaches and cyberattacks have escalated. Leavitt points out that strong security measures such as two-factor authentication and regular updates are critical to safeguarding student data. However, these measures introduce additional challenges for school administrators, who must balance tight budgets and manage the growing costs of technology maintenance and staff training. Schools need to allocate resources strategically, ensuring that cybersecurity is prioritized without unnecessary overspending.

    Moving forward

    Keeping students safe in the digital world increasingly requires collaboration and a unified approach between parents, teachers, and administrators at schools. Open communication between all three groups from a common framework of understanding provided in comprehensive digital literacy programs combined with strong cybersecurity measures are essential to creating safer online environments for our loved ones while managing the administrative challenges that come with these advancements.

    Source link

  • From Jazz to Symphony | HESA

    From Jazz to Symphony | HESA

    I spent all last week in Asia, at events put on by the International Association of Universities (IAU) in Tokyo and the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) in Jakarta. As usual, these meetings were interesting for me not so much because I can discover secrets of “how they do things better elsewhere” (they don’t, by and large, we’re all screwed for roughly the same reasons, which is that the public does not want to pay for the kind of institutions that academics want to work in), but simply because they help me get a wider take on the direction that global academia is heading.

    And here’s the thing: having sat through five days of meetings, I am more convinced than ever that universities are, globally, caught in a conflict of their basic institutional logics. And also, that for some reason, no one wants to talk about this openly even though it is self-evidently a pretty big deal. Let me explain.

    Over the course of the 19th and 20th centuries, at different paces in different parts of the world, universities went from being purely institutions of instruction to institutions that also engaged in advanced research. In the United States, where this process went the furthest, the fastest, it was shaped substantially by one man: Vannevar Bush, President of MIT and special scientific advisor to President Roosevelt during WWII. Bush was appropriately excited by the strides made by American science during the war, and wanted the party to continue after the war was over only with one difference: instead of giving scientists untold billions and placing them under military control as was the case for the Manhattan Project, Bush thought the correct path forward was for the government to give scientists untold billions and then leave them alone to make their own decisions about how the money should be spent. That’s not quite how things panned out, but there is no question that the system of curiosity-driven research that emerged gave an awful lot of power to individual researchers and left universities as mere intermediaries for funding. Or, as a colleague sometimes puts it, with respect to research missions, universities are simply holding companies for the research agendas of individual professors.

    And let’s face it, this worked well for many decades. The scientific output of universities working under this model has been amazing (see my interview with David Baker on global science from a few weeks ago). And it didn’t require universities to take on a particularly dirigiste role with respect to the faculty. In some ways, quite the opposite. It was during this period after all that a professor challenged then-Columbia President Eisenhower with the immortal words: “we faculty are not employees of the university…we are the university.” So as far as anyone could tell, the public could just dump money on scholars working in hubs and good things would happen.

    Somewhere over the past few decades, though, the mission of universities changed. Instead of being asked to provide research, they were asked to promote local economic growth, or provide solutions to “grand challenges” or sustainable development goals. And these were challenges that universities took on—gladly for the most part. “Look!” they said to themselves, “Society wants our knowledge/help/advice, we get to show how useful we are, and then people will love us and give us even more money.” And trust me, this is happening All. Over. The. World. Oh sure, the details vary a bit by place in terms of whether the push is more on institutions to push local economic growth or to help deliver social progress, and the extent to which this obligation is imposed on institutions and to what extent they embrace it on their own…but the trend is universal, unmistakable. 

    Except (how can I put this?) I am fairly sure that the lessons institutions learned with respect to growing research outputs do not translate well into these new missions. Research is something that can be done within academia; these new tasks require partnerships and relationships. Things which institutions are a lot more capable of delivering reliably than individual professors, whose commitment to particular endeavors may be more transitory, shaped as they often are by the availability of funding streams, changing research interests, the occasional switch of institutions, etc.

    It has taken universities awhile to work this out. The initial assumption that universities could take on all these missions could be met in much the same way that the research mission was: just assemble a lot of smart people in one place, and wonderfully imaginative solutions will naturally emerge. No central coordination necessary, and great universities could continue working as they had always done: like a great jazz band, where the anarchy is the point.

    But if these new missions actually imply a need for more durable structures to bring stability to partnerships and relationships, then a jazz band approach is probably not such a hot idea. If these missions require institutions to be able to act corporately, strategically, then jazz doesn’t cut it anymore. Neither does Big Band. You need something closer to a symphony orchestra. And boy, the implication of that change is significant. The locus of control and responsibility shifts upwards from professors to the larger institution. Professors, increasingly, would need to be treated as if they are second cello—that is, as parts of a larger musical enterprise—instead of as Thelonius Monk or John Coltrane. It would be a fundamental re-think of what it means to be an academic.

    There you have it: an old version of a university in which great things happen just because you put a bunch of smart people in close proximity to one another, and another which requires substantially more organization and (in a Weberian sense) bureaucracy. And it’s not that universities are being asked to choose—they aren’t. It’s worse than that: because these new missions are meant to be in addition to the older ones of teaching and research, universities are being asked to be both of these things at the same time. And that’s a recipe not only for unhappiness, but also for incoherence. Universities are simply becoming less effective as their missions multiply. 

    None of this has escaped the notice of governments. They were mostly quite enthusiastic about the idea of universities as community resources, places that in effect apply brain power on-demand to various types of social and economic problems and are getting frustrated that jazz-based universities can’t deliver. Despite promises to the contrary, old-style universities simply aren’t set up to deliver the promised results, leaving an expectations gap that is souring relations with that subset of governments that don’t view higher education as the enemy in the first place.

    And this, in turn, is contributing to a widespread recession in vibes around universities: simply put, they are not liked and admired the way they used to be. But more on that tomorrow.

    Source link

  • The Power of Personal Storytelling in Higher Education Leadership

    The Power of Personal Storytelling in Higher Education Leadership

    When I became president of the University of La Verne in 2011, I often shared the story of why I was drawn to this role—and why it resonated so deeply with my family’s values. My husband and I were committed to raising our daughters in a community that embraced inclusivity, service, and the transformative power of education. These were not just abstract ideals; they were principles we wanted to live by and instill in our children. And sharing this connection wasn’t just about explaining my leadership—it was about building trust and fostering relationships across campus.

    Today, as higher education leaders face unprecedented scrutiny—from political attacks on academic freedom and diversity efforts to growing public skepticism about the value of a college degree—this kind of authenticity and connection is more critical than ever. Our institutions are being challenged to prove their relevance and align their missions with the needs of diverse and sometimes skeptical communities. In this climate, personal storytelling offers a powerful way to build bridges, humanize our roles, and reaffirm the values that define higher education. In navigating the complexities of our current environment, storytelling is not just a leadership tool—it’s a leadership imperative.

    Why personal storytelling matters

    Building authentic relationships: Personal stories bridge the gap between leaders and campus communities. Sharing your experiences, challenges, and successes makes your role more relatable and human. When leaders share stories authentically, we foster trust and encourage deeper connections with our students, faculty, alumni, donors, and other stakeholders. A compelling story has a way of bringing people together, sparking that feeling of connection through common experiences.

    Inspiring action and change: Stories are powerful motivators. They show how education can transform lives, encouraging students to pursue their dreams, sparking innovation among faculty, and connecting with alumni and donors. At the University of La Verne’s annual Scholarship Gala, I used to share my mother’s story—how, as an immigrant, she stayed committed to education despite countless challenges. When she, her two older sisters, and their parents first immigrated to the United States from Czechoslovakia, they had to build a new life, learn a new language, and adapt to new customs. My grandfather would bring used tires to their home, where the family would cut them into small squares and sew them together to create doormats. He sold these mats door-to-door, and the money they earned not only supported their daily life but was also saved so that my mother could attend nursing school.

    Each year following my story, students would respond with their own incredible stories of resilience. Those moments didn’t just inspire greater scholarship donations—they raised awareness about the challenges that so many students face, underscoring just how vital access to education really is.

    Shaping institutional culture: Personal stories are a big part of what shapes a university’s identity, creating a sense of inclusion, resilience, and shared values. Early on in my time at the University of La Verne, a board member told me why the university—her alma mater—meant so much to her and why she chose to give back as a donor and leader. She often spoke about how she and her husband met while attending La Verne, and that they both loved the supportive and inclusive environment at the university. Then one of her children enrolled, and a particular professor took him under his wing and helped him with his academic career. She felt La Verne was always there when she and her family needed support.

    Her story stuck with me, and I shared it often as an example of how personal connections can inspire others to support the university’s mission. By encouraging storytelling like this, we brought our community closer together and reinforced our shared purpose.

    Engaging with diversity: Every story brings something unique to a campus community. When we make room for diverse voices, we naturally build stronger connections and a sense of belonging. Serving on the board of Antioch University, I’ve had the privilege of hearing a wide range of students and faculty share their experiences—some inspiring, some challenging, all meaningful. These moments are a great reminder of how much we gain when we listen to and learn from each other.

    Strategies for Effective Storytelling

    Connect stories to the institution’s mission: Personal stories are powerful, but they work best when they connect back to the institution’s goals. I once attended a university event where the president’s stories, while memorable, didn’t really support the message of the institution—they overshadowed it, leaving the audience entertained but not necessarily inspired about the university’s future. It’s a good reminder that storytelling should always reinforce the mission and build confidence in what lies ahead.

    Balance sharing with relevance: Finding the right balance between personal and professional storytelling is key. Oversharing can make people uncomfortable or distract from your message. A story might be heartfelt, but if it’s too detailed, the audience might lose track of why it matters. The best approach is to share meaningful anecdotes that highlight your points while keeping your audience and the setting in mind.

    Maintain honesty and humility: The best stories come from a place of honesty and humility—they build credibility and trust. Think about great leaders: the ones who acknowledge the contributions of others tend to connect more than those who focus on their own achievements. On the flip side, self-congratulatory stories can feel off-putting and even break trust with the audience. Keep it grounded, which always resonates better.

    Avoid unethical exaggeration: Stretching the facts or making up stories can seriously damage trust. And people can usually tell when a story isn’t genuine, whether it’s because of over-the-top details or a lack of authenticity in the delivery. It’s important for leaders to stay honest, sharing meaningful details without straying from reality. In today’s world, where fact-checking is everywhere, even small inconsistencies can hurt your credibility—and by extension, the reputation of your institution. Keep it real, and your message will always carry more weight.

    Repetition without redundancy: Repeating key messages can really help drive them home, but it’s all about balance. When you tell the same story to different audiences, it can show consistency and authenticity, which is great. But if you overdo it, people might start to tune out, feeling like they’ve heard it too many times. We all recycle our favorite speeches and stories when we speak often, and that’s fine as long as we’re mindful of keeping it fresh. A thoughtful approach to storytelling means your message stays powerful without losing its impact.

    ************

    Personal storytelling is one of the most powerful tools leaders in higher education have at their disposal. When done right, it builds trust, inspires action, and strengthens the sense of community. Sharing authentic stories helps connect audiences to the mission and values of an institution, creating a shared sense of purpose and vision.

    As higher education continues to navigate challenges like public skepticism and political scrutiny, storytelling offers a way to highlight the transformative power of education. It allows us to address concerns with honesty and integrity, while keeping the focus on the positive impact education has on individuals and society. Reaching beyond the academy, these stories help build connections with the wider community—and ideally, around the world—showing how education shapes lives and strengthens society.

    dotEDU Global Voices

    This December, ACE will feature a special podcast series, dotEDU Global Voices, which will spotlight personal stories from accomplished international women university presidents. These leaders share their unique challenges, insights, and strategies, offering authentic and inspiring perspectives on leadership.

    The series builds on my book, Spotlighting Female Leadership: Strategies, Stories, Perspectives, which highlights the journeys of ten accomplished university presidents. To learn more, download the book here and tune into the podcast for further inspiration.

    Episode 1: Trailblazing Leadership in Turkey: Gülsün Sağlamer

    Episode 2: Discovering Your Leadership Path: Sue Cunningham

    Episode 3: Changing History at Colegio de México: Silvia Giorguli

    If you have any questions or comments about this blog post, please contact us.

    Source link

  • Quick Update on Research Funding

    Quick Update on Research Funding

    Remember the spring budget, when the Federal government announced a heavily back-ended $1.8 billion (spread over five years) boost to research grant funding, as well as the creation of a capstone research organization which might have its own funds to co-ordinate challenge-based research? Well, the federal government has recently been fleshing out these announcements through a series of badly coordinated media releases. And so today, we’re going to go on a quick government press release safari to try to work this out.

    The three granting councils have all issued statements about how much new funding they expect to receive over the next five years. SSHRC says that its share of the $1.8 billion will be $316 million. CIHR says it is in line for $540 million over five years. NSERC does not provide a figure over five years, but it does say it what it will receive in years one and five, and since these figures are both pretty close to the numbers CIHR cites, I’m going to go ahead and say that NSERC is set to get something around $540 million as well. Total to the councils is therefore $1.396 Billion over five years.

    In addition to this, the government says it is going to give $182 million over five years for the creation of 224 new Canada Research Chairs. It also says it will be providing $452 million to the Research Support Fund (RSF) for things such as establishing digital tools to support research and cybersecurity and supporting inclusive and indigenous research. A separate press release says it will be providing $354 million to support the indirect costs of research. 

    Now, if you’re counting carefully, you’ll realize that total government announcements total to $2.03 billion. Which, it should be superfluous to add, is not $1.8 billion.

    Confused? Me too.

    And the government is not done with announcements. Recall from the spring budget that one of the key announced changes was the creation of a “capstone” organization which would sit above the tri-councils without actually directing them. Details on what it would do and how were scarce, mainly because ISED and Finance were at loggerheads over the issue and so the feds did what they always do and punted the question for a few months with the magic words “details to come in the Fall Economic Statement.” 

    Now, it’s not entirely clear that there actually will be a Fall Economic Statement (Dec. 21st is fast approaching and there’s still no date set), but one key question it was meant to resolve was whether or not the capstone organization would, as recommended by l’Université de Montréal’s estimable Frederic Bouchard and the rest of his Advisory Panel, have funds of its own (beyond those run by each of the tri-councils) for a) multi- and interdisciplinary research that falls through the cracks between the councils and b) mission-driven research. I think the general assBudumption in the research community is that while the capstone organization might not get a ton of money for these activities, the sum would nevertheless be non-zero. So we’re more than likely not just $200 million dollars over the originally-announced budget but probably $300 million or more.

    It’s not peculiar that this government might go over budget on something. What is peculiar is that the current government, famous for believing (or at least giving every evidence of doing so) that spending money is in and of itself evidence of program effectiveness, wouldn’t take credit for it. If they were actually bumping up their overall spend, past form suggests they’d be shouting it from the rooftops instead of letting some random higher education blogger work it out on his own and then share it with a few thousand of his closest followers. 

    A mystery to be cleared up soon I guess. 

    One other point of note here is a wrinkle in how the additional indirect support grants will work. Overall, indirect support has been equal to about 22% of “direct” funding: that is, for every dollar of tri-council grant that goes out, 22 cents accompanies it to cover overhead (most informed observers think actual overhead is closer to 50 cents, but this is another story). The sum being allocated in these announcements—$354 million to accompany a $1.4 billion increase in council grants—is more or less in line with this figure.

    BUT—and this will be a big but for some people—the money is only going to be given to institutions which receive more than $7M/year in tri-council grants, which basically means the U15 plus a half-dozen others. Why? Well, because that 22% average is just that: an average. The biggest tri-council grant recipients (i.e. the U15) only get indirect funding equal to about 18% of their tri-council grant haul. At some of the smallest institutions, the figure can be as high as 80%. This equalization formula has, as you can imagine, driven the U15 absolutely spare over the two decades it has been in force, and so you can read this part of the announcement as a victory for the Big Rich Universities. 

    More when we get a Fall—or possible a Winter—Economic Statement. See you then.

    Source link

  • HESA’s AI Observatory: What’s new in higher education (December 1, 2024)

    HESA’s AI Observatory: What’s new in higher education (December 1, 2024)

    Good evening,

    In my last AI blog, I wrote about the recent launch of the Canadian AI Safety Institute, and other AISIs around the world. I also mentioned that I was looking forward to learn more about what would be discussed during the International Network for AI Safety meeting that would take place on November 20th-21st.

    Well, here’s the gist of it. Representatives from Australia, Canada, the European Commission, France, Japan, Kenya, the Republic of Korea, Singapore, the UK and the US gathered last week in San Francisco to “help drive technical alignment on AI safety research, testing and guidance”. They identified their first four areas of priority:

    • Research: We plan, together with the scientific community, to advance research on risks and capabilities of advanced AI systems as well as to share the most relevant results, as appropriate, from research that advances the science of AI safety.
    • Testing: We plan to work towards building common best practices for testing advanced AI systems. This work may include conducting joint testing exercises and sharing results from domestic evaluations, as appropriate.
    • Guidance: We plan to facilitate shared approaches such as interpreting tests of advanced systems, where appropriate.
    • Inclusion: We plan to actively engage countries, partners, and stakeholders in all regions of the world and at all levels of development by sharing information and technical tools in an accessible and collaborative manner, where appropriate. We hope, through these actions, to increase the capacity for a diverse range of actors to participate in the science and practice of AI safety. Through this Network, we are dedicated to collaborating broadly with partners to ensure that safe, secure, and trustworthy AI benefits all of humanity.

    Cool. I mean, of course these priority areas are all key to the work that needs to be done… But the network does not provide concrete details on how it actuallyplans to fulfill these priority areas. I guess now we’ll just have to wait and see what actually comes out of it all.

    On another note – earlier in the Fall, one of our readers asked us if we had any thoughts about how a win from the Conservatives in the next federal election could impact the future of AI in the country. While I unfortunately do not own a crystal ball, let me share a few preliminary thoughts. 

    In May 2024, the House of Commons released the Report of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities regarding the Implications of Artificial Intelligence Technologies for the Canadian Labour Force.

    TL;DR, the recommendations of the Standing Committee notably include: to review federal labour legislation to protect diverse workers’ rights and privacy; to collaborate with provinces, territories and labour representatives to develop a framework to support ethical adoption of AI in workplaces; to invest in AI skills training; to offer financial support to SMEs and non-profits for AI adoption; to investigate ways to utilize AI to increase operational efficiency and productivity; and for Statistics Canada to monitor labour market impacts of AI over time.

    Honestly – these are quite respectable recommendations, that could lead to significant improvements around AI implementation if they were to be followed through. 

    Going back to the question about the Conservatives, then… The Standing Committee report includes a Dissenting Report from the Conservative Party, which states that the report “does not go sufficiently in depth in how the lack of action concerning these topics [regulations around privacy, the poor state of productivity and innovation and how AI can be used to boost efficiencies, etc.] creates challenges to our ability to manage AI’s impact on the Canadian workforce”. In short, it says do more – without giving any recommendation whatsoever about what that more should be.

    On the other side, we know that one of the reasons why Bill C-27 is stagnating is because of oppositions. The Conservatives notably accused the Liberal government of seeking to “censor the Internet” – the Conservatives are opposed to governmental influence (i.e., regulation) on what can or can’t be posted online. But we also know that one significant risk of the rise of AI is the growth of disinformation, deepfakes, and more. So… maybe a certain level of “quality control” or fact-checking would be a good thing? 

    All in all, it seems like Conservatives would in theory support a growing use of AI to fight against Canada’s productivity crisis and reduce red tape. In another post previously this year, Alex has also already talked about what a Poilievre Government science policy could look like, and we both agree that the Conservatives at least appear to be committed to investing in technology. However, how they would plan to regulate the tech to ensure ethical use remains to be seen. If you have any more thoughts on that, though, I’d love to hear them. Leave a comment or send me a quick email!

    And if you want to continue discussing Canada’s role in the future of AI, make sure to register to HESA’s AI-CADEMY so you do not miss our panel “Canada’s Policy Response to AI”, where we’ll have the pleasure of welcoming Rajan Sawhney, Minister of Advanced Education (Government of Alberta), Mark Schaan, Deputy Secretary to the Cabinet on AI (Government of Canada), and Elissa Strome, Executive Director of the Pan-Canadian AI Strategy (CIFAR), and where we’ll discuss all things along the lines of what should governments’ role be in shaping the development of AI?.

    Enjoy the rest of your week-end, all!

    – Sandrine Desforges, Research Associate

    sdesforges@higheredstrategy.com 

    Source link