Let’s face it; research and teaching are in conflict in the university. Despite all the talk about connecting research and teaching there are few models for how to do it systematically. For most of us it is a matter of time. Time to teach is time away from research. It’s that simple.
So what are the models for connecting the two?
- Scholarship of teaching is the model where faculty do research about teaching. (See my entry on the Boyer Report). This model has the advantage that it can legitimize those interested in teaching and learning as researchers. If systematically deployed it also would mean that there are teaching scholars accessible to those who are interested, but not devoted. The down side is that it doesn’t make sense, except in small undergrad institutions, for all to be teacher scholars.
- Undergraduate Involvement in Research is a second model where undergraduates are involved in research. See Mitchell Malachowski’s opinion piece “Undergraduate Research as the Next Great Faculty Divide”, in Peer Review, Vol. 8, No. 1, Winter 2006. This is done informally by many of us where there are opportunities. McMaster has an Applied Humanities course which is an inverted form of an independent studies course. The researcher proposes the topic and tasks and then recruits students to join them. Unfortunately, as Malachowski points out, in many disciplines where solitary research dominates, there are few opportunities to involve students in anything more than glorified photocopying. (See quote in the Extended Entry.) To involve students systematically, by which I mean across the curriculum, we need to adapt our research. I can imagine a discovery-centred university that values the learning through research of both students and faculty (and staff) where the structures encourage learning and research to adapt to each other.
- Undergraduate Led Research is a related model where undergraduates are given credit or funding for imagining and conducting their own research. Senior undergraduates interested in continuing to graduate school are often ready to run with projects on their own and they can be given opportunities structured like a research culture with poster sessions, mini student conferences, and so on. This is not for all students, however.
- Researchers make better Teachers is the standard answer we give, but I don’t think it stands up. Top researchers rarely see undergraduates, they get endowed chairs with little teaching or release to run projects. If we believed this the last people we would give teaching relief to would be the top researchers. Instead teaching release is treated as an incentive, especially today when teaching means large classes that need to be entertained rather than the conversations where research experience could make a difference. No, if we want student-centred programs it is best to not hire too many superstars.
Are there other models then?
A quote from Malachowski,
Faculty scholarship tends to fall into one of two approaches: a results-oriented approach or a collaborative, process-oriented approach, with both methods including an expectation of publishable results. The results-oriented approach is taken in many disciplines where a more individual approach to scholarship is the norm. Although there may be some loose collaborations under this approach, faculty typically work singularly and publish single author papers. Students are rarely part of these efforts. A second and very different model is one in which faculty collaborate with others and the work is performed as a joint effort. This type of collaborative research frequently involves students, and when the work is published, students are coauthors of the papers. As the focus on research continues to increase among faculty, I think it is time for us to step back and ask fundamental questions about the type of research being conducted on our campuses and the impact this new priority is having on undergraduate students and student learning.