
Creso’s new University Affairs column discusses how the Advisory Panel on the Federal Research Support System continues a ritualistic cycle of reviews and reports into Canada’s scientific support infrastructure. Read full-text.
Professor | University of Toronto
Creso’s new University Affairs column discusses how the Advisory Panel on the Federal Research Support System continues a ritualistic cycle of reviews and reports into Canada’s scientific support infrastructure. Read full-text.
On December 1, Mike Klassen successfully defended his PhD thesis titled “Curriculum Governance in the Professions: A Comparative and Sociological Analysis of Engineering Accreditation.” His thesis examines the political and organization dynamics of professional accreditation in comparative context, encompassing Australia, the UK, Singapore, and South Africa.
Drawing from interviews with leaders of professional and accreditation bodies, experts, and academic administrators in the four countries, he explains how power differences are crucial in analyzing accreditation at various levels. At a global level, the thesis shows that the Washington Accord has evolved into an explicit regime that shapes policy decisions of its signatories, as well as other countries that consider applying to join.
Suppose you are in charge of a government initiative with a large budget and lots of visibility. And that in launching the initiative you make a splash around the country. You host several town halls promoting it. Read full text.
Check Karin Fisher’s article in the Chronicle of Higher Education on the impacts of current geopolitics on open research and international collaboration. If you’re not a Chronicle subscriber, you may be able to access it through your library [if you are affiliated with U of T, click here].
In this month’s column, Creso discusses the Council of Canadian Academies’ recently released report Powering Discovery, which was commissioned by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada. “This is a serviceable but, by design, unambitious report, generally speaking; it is more interesting for what it tells us about Canadian science policy than for the conclusion it reaches.”