Research at universities is mostly of the basic or fundamental type. In few cases, you will find universities' scholars engaged in applied research. In industrial plants, most of the research in the R&D sections is of the applied type with little basic research. When there are problems in mass production of low quality products, then applied research is called upon but then we cannot blame the universities unless they have been actively involved in such situations.

Rafael,

That's a huge topic to address in a single sentence question! What is it you really are asking? From my vantage point I understand your question to say There is a general consensus that current mass production processes have efficiencies of scale though lack the value added level that can be appreciated by a discriminating consumer.

 I also read you hold an implicit assumption that the consensus believes there is an urgent need to change the status quo.

I don't assume a pro or con position when attempting to clarify your question in the effort to assist you. I only seek to offer some assistance in finding a leverage point to move your efforts forward in whatever you choose as your focus.

Therefore, first, In order to avoid frustration due to unrealistic approaches, I give a caveat that research performed in universities regarding theory is essentially a construction of new knowledge or reconstruction/correction of previous ineffective or inappropriate knowledge hierarchies. Research results in a change in the mind (knowledge construction or cognitive hierarchies) (Novak, 2002) of the researcher.

Next, if the researcher has sufficient clarity of thought, skills in communication, and an audience that views the researcher as an authority whose opinion they value, (ie the researcher has some political clout), his or her projection may influence the cognitive structures of others. I doubt the research from the university will change the production processes of large scale producers unless there is an economic advantage for them. Remember the cost of scaling up limits the likelihood of quickly changing the production processes.

Therefore, to be realistic, change is a slow and arduous process and often goes backwards as often as forward. Some individuals promote rapid change through revolution and this is risky. Often revolution is promoted by, or power seized by, individuals or groups who lack moral and social integrity and seek personal or selfish agendas.

Finally, if 1) you would like to address large scale issues of global impact and 2) you would like "us" to address these with you then I suggest 1) we first consider the tools we have available and 2) if they are sufficient to address the problem chosen.

Maybe a smaller scale problem at a local level could best be addressed (pilot study) to develop an understanding first of what variables are malleable to influence. Then, if you can identify variables that correlate to the concerns you have, next determine if they explain variations in the dependent variables you selected.

I appreciate your vision and enthusiasm. Perhaps you will be the one to lead a tribe of collaborators toward a mutually determined future outcome that improves life for many.

My writing was intended to clarify the question and to propose a few thoughts for creating a practical approach to moving your concerns forward..

Kind regards,

Janet

This is an interesting debate and part of the problem is the nature of research evaluations. For example, some universities evaluate by a simple tallying up of outputs each year. This leads to a need to produce a large number of outputs, with little or reference to quality, due to inter-departmental competition for funding, etc.

At the same time, more stringent evaluations by external agencies priviledge having a limited number of high impact outputs, where quality does matter but other factors such as the peer review lottery and in-built journal biases have to be taken into account. This system is common in Anglophone contexts but is being imposed on other countries as part of "reforms" relating to austerity programmes.

The real problems arise when both evaluation systems run concurrently , so you are doing quality and quantity, and probably going quite crazy due to over-work.  

David,

I believe you have captured the current unifying trend in globalization. There does seem to be an element bringing Western efficiencies and its focus on outputs to Eastern relational and collectivist organizational designs. I have read articles that forewarn of the potential damages to individuals in the systems as a result of these imposed and overarching global norms.

I know personally of reports of many individuals whose desire to meet hierarchical imposed expectations conflicts with their human ability to perform to the level demanded by the organization in order to meet the ever-increasing output (including quality dimensions). The increasing organizational demands results in sickness; both physically and psychologically.

Of course ethical leadership includes the dimension of caring for and developing the individuals within the system. So we seem to be at an impasse through globalization trends that distance decision-makers from the followers (imposed).  When decision makers are detached emotionally and geographically from the followers it is unlikely they can meet the ethical dimensions of leadership because the beginning point of ethics is personal relationships (Northouse, 2007).. 

The conundrum for today's leadership is, that as one imposes uniformity, a natural response by individuals is to increase display of individuality to ensure ego stability.

I also read another  statement you made as highly insightful. You reference the importance of the assessment methods used; as these drive organizational behaviors. Of course a perfect example of this is the trend toward nationalization of standardized assessments (even globalization of curriculum standards assessed by national exams once per year). Assessing through the lens of uniformity is diametrically opposed to the ethical as well as epistemological nature of meaningful learning.

In my mind the tension is between efficiencies of scale (and resulting limitation of power to a few) and the moral and ethical recognition of the needs and unique nature and characteristics of the individual. Leadership that helps develop the individuals they lead and focuses on the unique goals within each organizational context is servant leadership.

So the ideal must challenge the real. We have those who have not developed moral and ethical qualities that recognize the value of the individual and therefore will use the system to produce increasing efficiencies and gain.

The tension within systems is in creating an efficiency that can be sustained while creating a safe space for individual well-being and personal development that can be passed to future generations for a quality and sustainable living.

I appreciate your ability to say so much in so few words. I wish I had that quality.

Kind regards,

Janet

Hello Janet,

Many thanks for your comments and insights. As you can probably infer, I write from first hand experience of these issues, having observed situations wherein people are expected to do the impossible due to a combination of weak institutional management and unrealistic external targets. For example, expecting Portuguese academics to publish in American Journal of Sociology.  

Having said that, I am sure that I can squeeze out an article on this theme...if only I had the time.

Best wishes,

David

And humor too! Terrific!

PS Here is a quote from Skerrett and Hargreaves (2008) on Poststandardization approaches:

Poststandardization is firm on goals but flexible about means. Standardization, however, is insistent on means though often evasive about the moral purpose of its goals (p 939)

Skerrett, Allison ; Hargreaves, Andy (2008) Student Diversity and Secondary School Change in a Context of Increasingly Standardized Reform. American Educational Research Journal, Vol.45(4), pp.913-945