As students and teachers constantly, and necessarily, cross boundaries of all kinds on a trip like this, we were reminded of our situatedness and the illusion of firm distinctions between the historical and the contemporary; as if these would present us with alternative worlds to inhabit, as if we could change, at will, from one habitat to another when we engage the academic.
The historical and the contemporary are different focal points on a discursive continuum
When we and the students discussed our way through time, space, overlapping group identities, and interactions it became increasingly clear to us all that the historical and the contemporary are better thought of as different focal points on a discursive continuum, and that we, as analytical beings, need to always echo the one as we engage the other.
While this is where our research leads us, our academic institutions still seem to reinforce somewhat watertight boundaries between studying the past and analyzing the present. At TF, for example, we distinguish between two fagenheter based on whether they deal with the contemporary or the historical. Such distinctions are, of course, both practical and serve important administrative functions. Still, we need to think beyond them both as we engage in research and when we teach.
The changing perceptions of overlaps between the historical and the contemporary as academic tasks were the topic of a very interesting TFF last Wednesday, when Sivert Angel led a discussion of how we as scholars can work to engage first-year students through highlighting precisely the connectedness between the here and now and the past. Our invited guests from the Institute of Archaeology showed us how this could be done, and how it impacts – as shown by statistics – the students. For those of you who didn’t make it to this TFF, do feel free to get in touch with Sivert and/or others who were there to learn more. I believe that discussions such as these may bring us forward and highlight new pedagogical approaches and tools which will benefit our students enormously.
Crossing disciplinary boundaries moves us forward both in research and in teaching
This TFF also showed how important it is for us to stay close to the other faculties at UiO, so that we may learn from them just as much as they may learn from us. Crossing disciplinary boundaries, which are often the result of rather arbitrary but practical and administrative considerations, moves us forward both in research and in teaching.
International cooperation with other universities
The same is true of our international cooperation with other universities; crossing boundaries and moving beyond our own academic culture is key as we develop our research and teaching. We are now very close to signing a Memorandum of Understanding with Yale University, the Divinity School, which will enable us to send two students a year to them, and allow their students to study at TF. Likewise, we hope to close a deal with Australian Catholic University in Melbourne before summer, in which we jointly advertise and supervise PhD fellows. More information on this will be given as soon as these agreements are in place.
Teaching and research are very closely intertwined
Returning to the field trip with which I began, such teaching initiatives embodies, I believe, and shows very concretely, that teaching and research are very closely intertwined, and that through placing our students in contexts beyond the familiar we enable them to see further than they likely had otherwise done; to move beyond that with which we have become accustomed and embrace complexity as a fruitful and inspiring space to inhabit intellectually.
As we say farewell to May and enter June, preparing for the next semester, let’s keep conversations such as this buzzing – the return of such investments looks most promising, both for our students and ourselves.
Onward!
Anders Runesson