le.
artic t
ram
Prog nd do no
ht
lbrig author a rtment
l Fu
fficia se of its U.S. Depa
o
ot an rely tho m, the
n
ra
cle is are enti
Prog .***
arti
ht
ng
re
llowi essed he e Fulbrig nizations
fo
**The ws expr ws of th er orga
*
ie
rtn
vie
The v ent the of its pa
s
y
repre te, or an
a
of St
reality of the Albanian nation. Thus, while organization (yearly
trainings, evaluations, etc.) was crucial during communist times
and education was widespread, access to knowledge was actually
limited, since the knowledge imparted was limited, censored from
the onset.
Now, in the transition, the problem is reversed: knowledge is
(seemingly) unlimited, especially with the wonders of the internet
and open-access academic journals, but organization is in need
of further development. Yet, with this flip from limited, regulated
knowledge to seemingly unlimited, unregulated knowledge,
what’s a professor who was educated in the communist system
to do? I imagine that this transition must be philosophically and
psychologically difficult for Albanian professors—regardless of
whether they consider themselves more “liberal” and “open” to
American-style education or whether they consider themselves
more staunchly traditionalist. After all, the cultural cues of the past
are not easily forgotten; even professors whose formative years
of education occurred during the transition were most probably
taught by traditionalists, and therefore still battle the specter of
the “authority of knowledge” on a daily basis.
The drawback to believing oneself to be an authority of knowledge
on a particular topic is first, falling prey to the old regime’s
assumption that knowledge is finite, as determined by a governing
body. When knowledge on a topic is seen as finite, one lectures,
word-for-word, to students instead of actively sharing information
with students. Furthermore, one believes that there is only one
correct answer, thereby causing students to fear experimentation
and “wrong” answers. Additionally, if one sees oneself as an
authority in his/her respective subfield as opposed to a life-long
learner of that subfield, one might lose excitement when thinking
of doing further research in the field, one might find ways to avoid
collaboration in the classroom with students, collaboration with
colleagues, collaboration on new inter-departmental projects, etc.
One might then offer exams as the only means of evaluation as
opposed to essays and projects, which might encourage students to
think in a fashion other than the classic manner of read-memorizeregurgitate.
The specter of the “authority of knowledge” engenders an unconscious
fear—a paranoia—in academia that, in my opinion, can only be
detrimental. When one is an authority, one is simultaneously secure
and insecure. In fact, one is “secure” so long as no one questions
one’s authority, at which point, insecurity arises. Even if a professor
is perfectly ok with not being an “authority of knowledge” in the
classroom, the specter of this “authority of knowledge” might haunt
him/her in other aspects of his/her professional development: e.g.
through a fear of making mistakes by avoiding new projects with
colleagues, for fear of being seen as “less than” amongst their
intellectual equals, etc.
Of course, professors should be given the utmost respect and
By: Krisela Karaja