No abstract

Purpose -The purpose of this paper is to report on efforts to develop two stand-alone subjects on sustainability and corporate social responsibility (CSR) in a mainstream business curriculum at Monash University, Australia. Design/methodology/approach -This paper presents details on the educational rationale and design of the two subjects in corporate sustainability and CSR. Findings -Although many universities offer support for education for sustainability, previous research indicates that most curriculum initiatives in this area have been driven by individual faculty. This paper provides examples of curriculum development that emerged from the grass-roots initiative, in the absence of an integrated and mainstreamed programme for sustainability. Practical implications -The paper encourages all faculty, no matter their circumstances, to consider the development of curriculum for sustainability. While individual subjects cannot effect wholesale change, each effort can, no matter how piecemeal, make a difference. Originality/value -The cases in this paper highlight the importance of skills, knowledge and values to the curriculum for sustainability and CSR. Because there is no formula for how these are integrated into the curriculum, the paper illustrates how individual faculty members have brought their own disciplinary and pedagogical backgrounds to their curriculum design.

There are many reasons to develop closer links between research and teaching. To do this, we argue the need to move beyond university rhetoric that fractures the engagement of teaching with research and instead focus on the development of what is necessary to bring these two core academic activities closer together. Opening with a review of the current literature on research-led teaching, the paper then highlights the various debates about whether or not the divide between research and teaching can be broached. We then explore a number of often contradictory myths that we argue universities subscribe to in their efforts to bring teaching and research together as they simultaneously create structures to separate them. The paper seeks to better 'marry' research and teaching activities in higher education settings, concluding with a set of principles that could be used by university leaders to guide the implementation of research-led teaching. IntroductionOur purpose in this paper is to shed light on why, despite wide recognition of a reciprocal relationship between universities' core activities of research and teaching, relations between them are often experienced by academic staff as quite distinct and differentially rewarded activities. We do this by reviewing the literature on researchled teaching to then analyse our experience of institution-wide efforts to bring research and teaching closer together. We then interrogate a range of myths around research-led teaching that not only deny the complexity of the issue but then come to operate as accepted assumptions that guide subsequent policy development on research-led teaching. We, along with Brew (2006) and Healey (2005), argue that research-led teaching relations are complex, disciplinary-based and universitycontextual. In recognition of this we conclude with a set of guiding principles for university leaders that acknowledges the role of disciplines and the institutional environment that shape the relationship between research and teaching.We start our discussion with the catchy 'sound bites' recently articulated by two of the most senior academics at Monash University, an Australian, research-intensive university. The first is the phrase 'the twin peaks of excellence' to describe the aspirational goals for teaching and research to be pursued by academic staff at Monash. The second is the description of teaching and research as 'the two solitudes'. Although

The aim of this paper is to evaluate the impact of internationalisation on academic work within a department of management in a large Australian university. It has been argued elsewhere that internationalisation strategies have transformed the nature and demands of academic work through the massification and commodification of educational curricula. Drawing on one of our university's projects to develop and deliver internationalised common curricula to students in Asia, South Africa and Australia we contend that internationalisation strategies have contributed to what we identify as the "Taylorisation" of teaching and learning. Frederick Taylor's principles of scientific management, exemplified by the growing trend towards standardisation of delivery and curricula, are readily identified in the pedagogical processes and expected academic practice in higher education. This paper draws on the work of others who highlight the complexity of internationalisation issues in the development and delivery of curricula and suggests a comprehensive programme of internationalisation that more effectively addresses the economic and social demands of the current global competitive environment. We argue for a programme of internationalisation that is counter-hegemonic, ongoing, comprehensive, multifaceted and integrated and we offer some practical suggestions to redefine the principles and practices of internationalisation within an Australian university.

No abstract