Management, Philosophy and Consciousness in the Shaping of Problem-Based Learning

  • Michael FastEmail author
  • Woodrow W. ClarkII


This chapter builds upon empirical material and our experiences in universities for more than 35 years, mainly in business economics, from Aalborg University and universities in the USA. The content arises from analyses of those experiences and reflections on what education has become, what the problems are and what it should and/or could be. We have been teaching, supervising, building programmes, members of study boards, programme coordinators and administrators of programmes. Our experiences are from the everyday of life in those programmes and from being a part of the political, strategic discussions of teaching and universities programmes. It is all about politics and engagement. Since the mid/late 1980s, there has been, from a political view, a desire to have more control over the universities. This stems from the cost of public universities, to ensure that they become more focused on economic growth, production and innovation. This has had an influence on programmes, content, which programmes, the number of students and assessment. This has created a contradiction between the political management of universities and the idea of what universities should or could be in relation to engagement, quality of education and self-development of the students. These challenges and contradictions are discussed in the chapter. We then make a case for theory and philosophy of science as a mitigating response to such incongruences.


  1. Barge, Scott. 2010. Principles of Problem and Project Based Learning. The Aalborg PBL Model. Aalborg University. Accessed 13 Dec 2019.
  2. Bengtsson, Jan. 1993. Sammanflätningar – Husserls och Merleau-Pontys fenomenologi. Uddevalla: Daidalos.Google Scholar
  3. Blumer, Herbert. 1986. Symbolic Interaction – Perspective and Method. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  4. Bourdieu, Pierre. 1993. The Field of Cultural Production. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  5. Clark, Woodrow W., II, and Michael Fast. 2008. Quality Economics – Towards a Science of Economics. Oxford: Coxmoor Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  6. Clark, Woodrow W., II, and Michael Fast. 2019. Qualitative and Quantitative Economics (Q2E): Making Economics into a Science (Economic Issues, Problems and Perspectives). Switzerland: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Durkheim, Emile. 1965. On Mechanical and Organic Solidarity. In Theories of Society – Foundation of Modern Sociological Theory, ed. Talcot Parsons, Edward Shils, Kasper D. Naegel, and Jesse R. Pitts . New York: The Free Press.2008=2012.Google Scholar
  8. Fast, Michael. 2016. Philosophical Perspective on Entrepreneurship. In The Palgrave Handbook of Multidisciplinary Perspectives on Entrepreneurship, ed. Romeo V. Turcan and Norman M. Fraser, 503–520. Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  9. Fast, Michael, and W. Woodrow Clark II. 2012. Qualitative Economics—A Perspective on Organization and Economic Science. Theoretical Economics Letters 2 (2): 162–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fast, Michael, Frederik Hertel, and W. Woodrow Clark II. 2014. Economics as a Science of the Human Mind and Interaction. Theoretical Economics Letters, Scientific Research Publishing 4 (2014): 477–487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gadamer, Hans-George. 1986. Reason in the Age of Science. Massachusetts: The MIT Press Cambridge.Google Scholar
  12. Mead, George H. 1992. Truth and Method. London: Sheed & Ward.Google Scholar
  13. Heidegger, Martin. 1962. Being and Time. Great Britain: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  14. Husserl, Edmund. 1962. Ideas. New York: Macmillan Press.Google Scholar
  15. Kant, Immanuel. 1781. Critique of Pure Reason, Norman Kemp Smith. New York: St. Martins.Google Scholar
  16. ———. 1927. Critique of Pure Reason. Trans. F. Max Muller. London: Macmillan Press.Google Scholar
  17. Mead, George H. 1962. Mind, Self, & Society – from the Standpoint of a Social Behaviorist. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  18. Morgan, Gareth. 1986. Images of Organization. London: Stage.Google Scholar
  19. Rose, Arnold M. 1962. A Systematic Summary of Symbolic Interaction Theory. In Human Behavior and Social Processes – An Interactionist Approach, ed. Arnold Rose. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  20. Sartre, Jean-Paul. 1992. Being and Nothingness: A Phenomenology Essay on Ontology. New York: Washington Square Press.Google Scholar
  21. Schutz, Alfred. 1970. Reflections on the Problem of Relevance. New Haven and London: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Schutz, A. 1973 “Some leading concepts of phenomenology”. In Collected Papers I: “The problem of social reality”. Matinus Nijhoff, Haag.Google Scholar
  23. Singelmann, Peter. 1972. Exchange as Symbolic Interaction: Convergences between Two Theoretical Perspectives. American Sociological Review 37 (4): 414–424. Accessed 1 Dec 2019.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Turcan, Romeo V., John E. Reilly, and Larisa Bugaian, eds. 2016. (Re)Discovering University Autonomy: The Global Market Paradox of Stakeholder and Educational Values in Higher Education. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  25. Waring, S.P. 1991. Taylorism Transformed. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press.Google Scholar
  26. Weber, Max. 1977. Vetenskap och Politik. Göteborg: Korpen.Google Scholar
  27. Wind, Hans C. 1987. Historie og Forståelse – Filosofisk Hermeneutik. Aarhus: Aarhus Universitetsforlag.Google Scholar
  28. Wittgenstein, Ludwig. 1921. Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus. Haslev: Samlarens Bogklub.Google Scholar
  29. ———. 1993. Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus. Haslev: Samlerens Bogklub.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University College Northern DenmarkAalborgDenmark
  2. 2.Graziadio Business SchoolLos AngelesUSA

Personalised recommendations