Emanation And Generation: The Difference Between Caring For

Emanation And Generationthe Difference Between Caring For And Caring A

“OUR STUDENTS are very content here; they’re very happy,†a student support educator at a prominent private institution once said to me in a matter-of-fact tone. He continued, “But because of our hands-on approach, our students leave here without the competencies they need to be successful in life and work. We take good care of them, but I’m not sure that’s the same as caring about them. If we did, we’d have a completely different set of expectations.†Underlying these comments was an assumption that higher education is—or should be—a caring, helping profession but that education practitioners and decision makers sometimes confuse caring about students with caring for students.

Colleges and universities often take good care of students but consequently do not require or allow students to become competent, productive contributors to their communities, workplaces, and families. The research of Todd Davis and Patricia Murrell in the 1990s indicated that student responsibility is the key to all learning; learning is only possible when students become accountable for their own learning and behavior. In effect, educators do students a disservice when caring for students precludes students from taking responsibility. Caring about students without becoming their caretakers centers on the difference between generation and emanation. In the medieval fantasy Baudolino, Italian novelist Umberto Eco’s characters distinguish between emana- tion and generation: “You see that bird? Sooner or later it will generate another bird through an egg. . . . But once generated, [the bird] lives on its own, survives even if its mother dies. Now think, on the contrary, of fire. Fire does not generate heat; it emanates it. Heat is the same thing as fire; if you were to put out the fire, the heat would also cease” (p. 428). Generation is production: bringing something new into existence. To generate is to create. A parent generates a child, but the child at some point will continue without the parent. An acorn that falls from an oak tree generates a new tree that is independent from its source and lives on long after the original tree has fallen and the acorn has disintegrated. A teacher generates learning through instruction, but the student at some point must apply the learning independent of the teacher.

Generation is an act of influence. Emanation, on the other hand, is sending forth from a source: flowing out. To emanate is to radiate. A fire emanates heat, but the heat disappears when the fire goes out. A river emanates from a spring or a glacier, but the river dries up if the source is extinguished. A charismatic leader exudes charm and magnetism but fails to develop the leadership capacity of his or her followers. Emanation is an act of effluence. One way to distinguish between generation and emanation in higher education is to compare the characteristics of each, as shown in the following table.

It becomes apparent that the focus of generation is on the recipient of the programs and services (students), while the focus of emanation is on the provider of the programs and services (practitioner). Generation involves developing leadership, asking questions, and creating networks that add value and foster capacity in others. Emanation, conversely, is about providing leadership, giving answers, building reputations, and embodying charismatic qualities. This contrast raises the question: should higher education focus on generation or emanation—or both?

Are the outcomes that matter in higher education—such as learning, student development, citizenship, and character—created or radiated? Are students most influenced by our impact or our effluence? There are times when emanation may be necessary. An incapacitated student may require someone better equipped to make decisions in a crisis. Prior to developing leadership, students or groups may seek help from educators, information, or insights. However, reliance solely on emanation, which involves exerting influence, can impede the development of independence and interdependence among students. Although emanation has its place, the ultimate goal of higher education should be generation—fostering independence and self-reliance.

Transitioning from a student-centered organization to a learning-centered organization is essential. A student-centered approach tends to focus on taking care of students, encouraging reliance rather than self-reliance. Conversely, a learning-centered organization engages all constituents in generating programs and services designed to promote learning and personal development—where everyone learns. Here, the student remains the object of intervention, but the primary objective is learning. Educated, enlightened citizens are products of generation—outcomes that persist beyond institutional boundaries, continuing to thrive throughout individual lives.

James Groccia emphasizes that viewing students as customers is misguided because learning cannot be consumed; it must be produced. Education demands investment: time and effort from students. Faculty and staff can facilitate the process, but students must advance their learning independently to reach their goals. To employ true generation, faculty and staff should design programs based on desired outcomes, focusing on student learning and development rather than mere departmental activities. Outcomes should lead to higher levels of learning—encouraging students to utilize knowledge to effect change and contribute to their communities—and fostering responsibility and capacity for innovation.

Innovation in higher education involves experimentation and risk, essential for creating meaningful change. Encouraging students to take chances, experience failure, and learn from it reinforces the importance of risk-taking. To generate a resilient, innovative student body capable of overcoming challenges, institutions must model and support risk management while fostering a culture of continuous experimentation. The programs and outcomes we generate should ultimately be sustainable, requiring minimal ongoing intervention—meaning our focus should be on generation rather than emanation. Such efforts will cultivate lifelong learners equipped to adapt and thrive long after their formal education has concluded.

References

• Creamer, D. G. (1994). Campus activities and student learning. Presented at the Association of College Unions-International Region 5 Conference, Blacksburg, VA.
• Davis, T. M., & Murrell, P. H. (1993). Turning teaching into learning: The role of student responsibility in the collegiate experience. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report, No. 8. Washington, D.C.: The George Washington University, School of Education and Human Development.
• Eco, U. (2004). Baudolino. HarperCollins.
• Groccia, J. (n.d.). The student as customer versus the student as learner. Higher Education Journal.
• Mitchell, R. L. (2004). Flying through clouds. Madison, WI: Atwood.
• Don Creamer. (1994). Campus activities and student learning. Presentation at the Association of College Unions-International Conference.
• Davis, T. M. & Murrell, P. H. (1993). Turning teaching into learning. ASHE-ERIC report.
• Eco, U. (2004). Baudolino. HarperCollins.
• Groccia, J. (n.d.). The student as customer versus the student as learner. Higher Education Journal.
• Mitchell, R. L. (2004). Flying through clouds. Madison, WI: Atwood.