CHAIR OF HISTORY

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXIII, Issue 22539, 2 October 1936, Page 15

CHAIR OF HISTORY

Rir. —The discussion in your columns relating to the proposed Chair of History contains references by both sides to research: its value seems to be taken for granted. An article on "A Modern Idea, of a University" in a recent issue of The Nineteenth Century by Dr. Rushton Coulborn, has a good deal to say about research work, mainly uncomplimentary. It would help those interested in the proposed chair of history if one of the protagonists would define "research"' for us. Dr. Coulborn says, "to-day teaching has become definitely subsidiary to research." The first influence, be says, of the "flow of the research tide" upon the ancient universities was paralytic; they entered upon a decline which lasted for a very long time. "Creative thought is difficult, research is easy. TS'o genius is required to perceive merely where there lies something unknown." "Tt almost appears that research has made the academic world safer for democracy. The researcher comes to know steadily more and more about less and less. The vast majority of university teachers are to-day primarily researchers, and the havoc they, have wrought in undergraduate studies is widespread." Dr. Coulborn is writing, of course, about English universities, and is arguing for an extension of, and also better payment for. teaching. "It is the function of the teacher," he says, "to interest and to inspire, but the numbing influence of research upon character is the very thing to destroy the teacher's ability to discharge that function." Will someone say a good word for research? L. Etherington.