One of the characteristic aspects of the human condition is the ability to investigate. The social and historical evolution takes place under various circumstances derived from the investigative condition.
The development of personality, the acquisition of knowledge, the lexicon, work, in short, everything that the human being creates, develops and produces is deeply related to research. Hence, the person is a natural researcher: she is born with the faculty to ask, to inquire, to learn, to know. However, this natural condition is not enough for it because at all times and under various circumstances it should enhance investigative activity.
It is true that some people manage to develop the investigative condition more -as it happens with the faculties, including the will and intelligence-, but in all of them resides that potentiality to search, to discover, to question and to learn. In this sense, education corresponds to the task of propitiating the human investigative condition to emerge with all its potential, which in turn is oriented towards the purposes considered fundamental, and these have to do with integral, personal and social fulfillment.
The term education is not only complex and broad in its meaning, but also in its social and systemic understanding. From there, alluding to extreme importance due to their human and social condition and function, it becomes essential that their management take root in our societies cultural patterns that characterize and define the evolution and direction of each person.
However, education and research have a reciprocal relationship. Research produces education, in turn that educates a society, and education enhances research; both allow the person to recreate, perfect, develop and perform in the corresponding spacetime. It is for this reason that this correlation is developing an investigative dimension in education and that it has currently recovered an unusual boom in planning not only at the educational level but also at the state level. Now, research is manifested according to values, personality, cultural traits, but also, research and education must obey each context, event and particular situations, and must be related to broader aspects, such as advances in thought, science and technology,ideas, and cultural trends of a global nature.
From the foregoing, it is important, therefore, to limit that research occurs at all times, is a continuous and permanent human condition. There is no set age for research, for inquiry, for creativity, all ages are important and potential for research. Thus, it is valid to affirm that one of the first weaknesses of the educational system is to see the formative and educational process of the person as a process by stages or fractional, and not as a process that begins from birth to beyond life. If the research culture does not accompany the training activity from the earliest ages, later it will become more difficult to develop research habits in people who start studies at higher level institutions.
It is necessary, therefore, that macrosocial educational planning understand the educational phenomenon as a process of permanent continuity, thus responding to exploit at each stage of life the relevant potentialities to reach a higher level with the optimal investigative vocation to contribute and reward society the academic training of each person. It is the role of the educational management to create an educational system according to the needs and the social context, where from the first formative moments the abilities and intellectual faculties of the people are inspired and stimulated, so that they finally develop and develop fully as a social entity that contributes to the country's social, cultural, academic and university dynamics.
That is why, from higher education, one of the problems that the educational institutions of our society suffers from, is not having enough potential for the creation and scientific production at the academic-student level, an indispensable condition to reveal the potential teacher-researcher. It is proposed here that an important aspect of educational management at a higher level must be addressed: respond, transform and reverse the reluctant attitude -of the university student community-, to life and scientific vocation, guaranteeing the research continuity of universities from the country.
Thus, the subject of this essay is oriented to the understanding of educational management as a means to promote and increase in our country -through educational institutions at a higher level-, the production of research -from the beginning of university training - that respond to our social, cultural, political, economic, technological context, among others, and thus contribute to leveling the scientific institutions of developed countries as a channel of exploitation for economic growth and development.
On the other hand, the search for knowledge is one of the responsibilities, together with teaching and extension, of university institutions of higher education. Research is the means by which these institutions can provide contributions to innovate and update education. However, the research activity carried out by these institutions lacks effectiveness and social relevance (Michelena, 2001).
This fact is serious because it shows that higher-level educational institutions are not achieving all of their objectives, their mission and vision, and consequently, they are not fulfilling their commitment to society. This argument raised by the author Michelena, however, could be refuted by contrasting some statistical figures regarding research in the universities of our country, for example, La Universidad del Zulia. However, the author's statement is valid to recognize that there must be no conformity with the current nor a limit to which it is reached, but quite the contrary, one must always go in search of improvement, growth and transcendence to guarantee the permanence and effectiveness of what is being produced.
Therefore, research in higher education institutions cannot be interpreted in isolation from the operation of the educational structure, and its administration and planning must be according to the particular needs of each cultural context.
To understand the complex and chaotic dynamics of education, it must be understood and imagined that each educational institution represents a focal node of an immense network that is part of a larger network. This analogy corresponds to Capra's (1998) systemic thinking, and that it represents a much broader vision to transcend and plan in educational matters. In other words, "each institution constitutes a partial expression of the functioning of the whole, and there are multiple events, events and interrelationships that influence its results" (Goldstein, 1965, cp Michelena).
By analogy, one of these events undoubtedly corresponds to managerial management. The educational manager at the different levels of the educational structure continuously interacts and produces events, with new relationships involving all educational management activity (Barrera, 1995). Thus, educational management constitutes a totality that, in turn, is part of a larger structure, as is the educational system.
It is known to all that it is up to educational management to plan, organize, direct and control processes, actions, resources, on whose interaction the achievement of academic objectives depends. In this management context, permanent integration and interaction of teaching, extension, research and production is necessary.
According to (Goldstein, 1965), the level of knowledge that the educational manager has, as well as his own activity and purposes is what will allow him to make decisions that allow him to achieve institutional objectives. In this area, it is worth asking what is the responsibility of management in higher education institutions in research management? And, what is the investigative production of your teachers?
Teachers' personal assets are valuable for their knowledge, experiences, interests, concerns, attitudes and skills that they can make available to institutions and their decision will be influenced by the conditions of planning, organization, direction and control of the research function. Thus, it is the responsibility of educational management to promote and channel academic, scientific and other research. Finally, the integrative vision of educational management requires understanding that the institutional mission and vision is based on the proposals and research of others and that their work is part of scientific and social evolution.
The above ideas serve to precede the central core of this essay. In this sense, it will be addressed as an argument that supports the previous idea regarding the importance of educational management for research. To do this, it will start from two essential premises in today's world: the knowledge society as a global context scenario and research as a bridge that generates science, technology, and innovations in each social culture. These two aspects are more than related, interconnected with higher level educational institutions, and thus the central link to interconnect and understand this vast dynamic network is particularly in educational and academic management.
Going into a topic that is very much in vogue and that Sakaiya (1995) exposes very conscientiously in his work entitled "History of the Future: The Knowledge Society", there is no doubt that the world is immersed in a growing intellectual dynamic, where knowledge, Science, technology through research, is the spearhead of all economic systems.
In this sense, the social importance of higher education institutions, then, is not only subject to academic purposes exclusively, but also in addition to economic and political participation, which is very influential and decisive for the construction of societal cultures.
The central idea in the work of Sakaiya (1995), states that the society of the future will be characterized exclusively by the generation and production of knowledge and the social and global impact that information will have will transform and increasingly complex all systems in all their orders. Thus, the value of knowledge will have significant repercussions on the growth of economies and therefore on social development. For this, a society that is inserted in the production of knowledge increases expenses in research, development, technologies, but in turn the Price takes on an increasing weight due to the extension of the subjectivity value of the final products.
For this reason, there is no doubt that educational institutions must be managed around new and changing world events. Higher education institutions are one of the guarantors of the growth and economic and social development of a nation, as well as representing the cultural reflection of a population.
In short, educational management in order to promote research and scientific and technological development in the country is the fundamental pillar to achieve the goals, not only educational but also public policies at the national level.
Educational management model for research in universities
Next, a basic interrelation between three key aspects in educational institutions, specifically in universities, is explained through a simple model called by the author "Triangle C". These three key elements are: knowledge, culture and science. These three important areas in educational dynamics are in constant coordination under the development of educational management. In this model, the intention is to reflect the reciprocal importance that exists between the factors mentioned above, and that the educational system must manage effectively to produce the pertinent effects and results produced by academic, institutional, social, cultural, political, scientific, and technological changes. and economic.
To proceed to explain the model of Triangle C, let us note that at the apex of the triangle knowledge will govern, as the fundamental pillar and primary objective of any academic and educational institution. Thus, at the center of the triangle will be the academic or university context, specifically determined by the management role of said institution.
Also, the lower right vertex will be the cultural context or the social system as you prefer to call it. And finally, the lower left vertex will be represented by the scientific field.
In the first order, knowledge eludes in the first instance the perception of every object; every image passes through our senses, they transform and become ideas, the beginning of all knowledge for idealism, for example; rationalists transform it into judgments and empiricists verify it. However, it must be clear that all knowledge involves two important elements: the capacity for coding and the capacity for absorption or learning. The first is that which is related to the idea of interpreting knowledge from different languages (therefore, not all of us perceive and express the same thing); and the second is related to the internalization of knowledge and its transfer to reality.
Source: self made.
Referring to the previous paragraph, Wittgenstein (1968) stated that there is no language without a way of life, which contains social activities, understanding of the world, and linguistic uses (language is the image of the world); This means that language is not the representation of reality, but a concrete activity in connection with behavior.
In this sense, another fundamental aspect arises for the author in the model: Culture; This is nothing more than a representation and metamorphosis of man, a transformation of her internal and external world. That is, starting from anthropological statements that conceive of man as a maladaptive "animal", and given this particular characteristic, man needs to seek her adaptation; Thus, the medium has been modified through its conduct –or behavior (development of fire and agriculture), allowing the formation of societies (city-states, empires, kingdoms), being able to develop ideas and calculations, opening the way to mathematics and science.
Indeed, prehistoric man from its beginnings as described by anthropology and archeology, was a maladjusted being, the conditions and context created needs and for these reasons he sought adaptation, from there the first weapons for subsistence (food) were created. and defense), sought to counteract environmental ills by creating their shelter and housing, among other things. After an extensive evolutionary process, communicative and linguistic signs (oral and written) were created. But the most important thing was the creation of their own "symbolism", a fact that goes back to the Egyptians and the first indications of writing (Phoenician alphabet) by means of linguistic codes (cuneiform writing) from pictographic writing (Sumerians in Mesopotamia),This fact connects us for the explanation of the model that gives rise to human culture.
In this sense, the symbol becomes the means of communication of men par excellence. Now, the symbol from this conception is nothing other than the codification of our perception, that is, it is the rational translation of our way of conceiving the world, expressed through a "code" that began to develop and is now established, and as Aristotle said referring to writing: it was a symbol of spoken words. Since perception is linguistic and mental, there is an intervention of the human mind which distorts and corrupts the truth, that is why there is no "absolute truth", since everything human is symbolic, there is an interpretation.
In this order of ideas, it is further argued that symbols have a polysemic character, and this difference produces ambiguity in many human manifestations. In more comprehensive terms, it is said that man modifies the environment, in order to adapt, this implies (in this context of ideas) building a symbolism, that is, man as he has been postulated, is a "symbolic animal"; Thus, he reaches the perception of things through symbols, transforming what his senses capture. Everything that man does is linguistic-symbolic, here is the communicative character of man, which for him is more real than the physical world. Finally, this symbolism makes it a "cultural species". All this confirms the investigative and creative condition of the human race.
From the above, the following premise follows, the world of symbols, is the world of Culture. This feature is the second element of the model; therefore, culture is the product of the modification of the medium, expressed in physical, linguistic and symbolic terms, given that every human act implies a certain symbolism, of course, delimited within each pre-established society. Popper (1978), affirms that we are not a “tabula rasa” but on the contrary we are a “tabula plená”, a board full with the signs that tradition or cultural evolution leave on the surface.
Finally, it can be expressed that the reciprocal relationship between knowledge and culture is then given by the conscious act of human perception and the need for the manifestation of that reality, carried and expressed through a symbolism, which is translated into patterns or basic assumptions of each society, culture.
Now, we start with the following and last idea: Science, "is the result of language." And so begins the exposition of the variable in the lower left corner of the triangle.
Source: self made.
For the author, science is the systematization of knowledge, with a rigorous delineation of methods, with basic and defined characteristics that preconfigure it as science, among other aspects. However, it does not escape being the product of man's experience, internalized by her senses through perception, and manifested symbolically.
Thus, science can be conceived as a body of symbolic-linguistic codification of reality (perception) with methods established by man and science, as a means of responding to human needs, which is weaving a network of knowledge resulting from experience, reasoning and ideas, and which, in turn, represents the cultural pattern of a system, establishing its principles, assumptions, theories, by which it guides its behavior and its way of life - as Kuhn's paradigms -, science being a dynamic and inexhaustible body.
That is why the symbolic character of science led Betrand Russell and Ludwing Wittgenstein to construct theories on scientific semantics, since language is logical-mathematical reasoning. According to Russel, logic has an influence on the knowledge of things, there is always something logical behind it, which will allow us to finish understanding or make sense of things. Thus, knowledge is based on experience, but it must also be logically thought.
Furthermore, in language, the relations between propositions and the objective world are imperfect, the role of science comes into play here. Thus, the Culture-Science interaction is implicit in these arguments, which in turn interrelates Science-Knowledge since in its continuous search for depth and rigor, new previously established knowledge is being shaped, which in turn provokes a transcendental impact on the Knowledge-Culture relationship, since it is here that advanced methods and philosophical ways of seeing, interpreting and transferring this chain to reality or systems are modified and acquired.
Now, extrapolating the meaning of the model to the educational management field, it is worth synthesizing the following idea: the generation and production of new knowledge by the university and educational and academic institutions will be determined by the management level of education, to that extent it will be plan and develop projects according to the social context to establish patterns that guide the educational process towards the generation of knowledge. In turn, the new knowledge produced by the institutions will be a factor in the development of society, since these will be based on culture and will create benefits relevant to the cultural and social context in question, that is,All knowledge will have a simultaneous impact on societies, which in turn will pay these results to the generation of new knowledge. This reciprocal relationship between knowledge and culture is what underlies the scientific activity of a society, since all knowledge transferred to culture represents the scientific and investigative activity of the population, and it is the same scientific condition of research that feeds and energizes the model presented through a triangle.and it is the same scientific condition of research that feeds back and energizes the model presented through a triangle.and it is the same scientific condition of research that feeds back and energizes the model presented through a triangle.
In sum, economic development is closely linked to the progress of science and technology that is generally the product of higher-level research. These become indispensable factors in general progress. Sustaining this development requires the training of new types of scientists and technicians who previously did not seem to perform a useful task for society. It is therefore, from the educational institutions that it is possible to dynamize the cycle of the model presented, and it is the responsibility of the educational management to face it from the beginning of the academic training of the person,particularly of the student body that participates in the social reconstruction in the universities and that will be the replacement of the teaching machinery that currently leads the laborious and beautiful task of research to transform society.
Bibliographic references
- Capra, Fritjof (1998). "The plot of life". Barcelona: Anagrama.Barrera, Marcos Fidel (1995). "Hologogy: science of education". Caracas: Sypal. Michelena Reyes, Esther (2001). Research and educational management. Caracas, Venezuela: International Media. No. 12, April Sakaiya, Taichi (1995). "History of the Future: Knowledge Society". Chile: Andrés Bello.Wittgenstein, Ludwing (1999) "Tractatus logico-philosophicus". Madrid: Alliance.
