Research in progress: Mapping the terrain of two applied ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Implications for institutional strategy and academic identity The evolving HE landscape has implications for both institutional identity and individual progress and academic identity. While administration, teaching and research are all expected functions, staff research confers a higher status and enhances possibilities of professional rewards such as promotion (Goddard, Cranston & Billot, 2006, Greenbank, 2006). As every university (and increasingly other tertiary educational organisations such as Polytechnics, Institutes of Technology and Te Whare W nanga) has criteria that determine how staff are evaluated and provided with rewards (Meyer & Evans, 2003), the research culture in which the academic is positioned is crucial to their research development and career. While national economic and social policies directly and indirectly affect the tertiary sector, the response by individual institutions may or may not be similar. Various types of tertiary providers will have differing capacities for change and their ability to reframe their structural responses to policies, indicate inequality across the sector. This inequality is particularly noticeable in New Zealand, between older established universities and newer polytechnics and institutes of technology. Whilst the policy demands will be similar for all providers, the different ways in which staff are supported to undertake research in the individual institutions, affect the sustainability of staff contributions to fulfilling their employing organisation’s responsibilities. For HEIs the major imperative is raising the research output of staff which is particularly challenging in institutions that ‘have their origins within applied and vocational disciplines where there is a stronger focus on teaching than on research’ (Pratt, et al., 1999, p. 43). At the ‘national level, authorities are increasingly defining research priorities for the country as a whole’ resulting in a need for institutions to ‘reposition themselves within a fast evolving landscape’ (Connell, 2004, p. 25). So the ‘effective management of research has become a key contemporary issue for HEIs’ (ibid, p. 15). Summary Notionally, HE research cultures provide environments that support, nurture and enhance the research activities of academics. An effective culture needs alignment at all levels, to ensure relevant and appropriate facilitation of initiatives that link teaching and research. If both are not carefully coordinated, then academic staff may experience role conflict, which in turn undermines staff satisfaction, student success and institutional health. In addition, academic staff assert the need for allocated research time so that it is not given a lower priority This in‐progress research has reported on a number of inter‐related issues in the domain of building research cultures in applied institutions, drawing upon data from the research‐teaching nexus and the associated shifting academic roles and responsibilities (Churchman, 2006). We advocate for a greater understanding of what academic staff need to ensure stability of both institution and individual identity. Future research aims to explore with staff, the ways in which their research profiles and career trajectories may be enhanced. References Ashcroft, C. (2005). Performance based research funding: A mechanism to allocate funds or a tool for academic promotion New Zealand Journal of Educational Studies, 40(1), 113‐129. Ashcroft, C. (2006). Academics’ experiences of Performance‐Based Research Funding (PBRF): Governmentality and subjection. Unpublished PhD thesis. Dunedin: University of Otago. Ashcroft, C., & Nairn, K. (2004). Critiquing the tertiary education Commission’s role in New Zealand’s teriary education sector: Policy, practice and panopticism. ACCESS, 23(2), 43‐54. Blackmore, J., & Wright, J. (2006). The quality agenda and some issues for educational research and researchers: an introductory essay. In J. Blackmore, J. Wright & V. Harwood (Eds). Counterpoints on the
quality and impact of educational research. Review of Australian Research in Education, 6, The Australian Educational Researcher Special Issue, 1‐18. Churchman, D. (2006). Institutional commitments, individual compromises: Identity‐related responses to compromise in an Australian university. Journal of Higher Education, 28(1), 3‐15. Codd, J. (2005). The PBRF as ideology: lessons from the British RAE. In R. Smith & J. Jesson (Eds.). Punishing the disciplines‐ the PBRF regime: Evaluating the position of education –where to from here (pp. 58‐65). Auckland: AUT University and the University of Auckland. ; Codd, J. (2006a). Assessing research quality: the origins and outcomes of New Zealand’s Performance‐Based Research Fund. In J. Blackmore, J. Wright & V. Harwood (Eds.), Counterpoints on the quality and impact of educational research. Review of Australian Research in Education, 6, The Australian Educational Researcher Special Issue, 43‐56. Codd, J. (2006b). The Performance‐Based Research Fund and the production and commodification of knowledge. In L. Bakker, J. Boston, L. Campbell & R. Smyth (Eds). Evaluating the Performance‐Based research Fund: Framing the debate (pp. 215‐230). Wellington: Institute of Policy Studies, Victoria University of Wellington. Codling, A., & Meek, L. (2003). The impact of the state on institutional differentiation in New Zealand. Higher Education Management and Policy, 15(2), 83‐98. Connell, H. (2004). (Ed.). University research management: Meeting the institutional challenge. Paris, France: OECD Publications. Dick, B. (1990). Convergent interviewing. Chapel Hill, Australia: Interchange. Elliott, G. (1996). Why is research invisible in further education British Educational Research Journal, 22(1), 101‐112. Furlong, J., & Oancea, A. (2006). Assessing quality in applied and practice‐based research in education: a framework for discussion. In J. Blackmore, J. Wright & V. Harwood (Eds). Counterpoints on the quality and impact of educational research. Review of Australian Research in Education, 6, The Australian Educational Researcher Special Issue, 89‐104. Goddard, J. T., Cranston, N., & Billot, J. (2006). Making it work: Identifying the challenges of collaborative international research. The International Electronic Journal of Leadership in Learning (IEJLL), 10(11), www.ucalgary.ca/~iejll/. Goedegebuure, L., & Meek, V. L. (1997). On change and diversity: the role of government influences. Higher Education in Europe, 22(3), 309‐319. Grant, K., & Edgar, D. (2003). Using the theory of policy networks and communities to explore who determines the Scottish higher education research policy: Issue for educational managers. The International Journal of Educational Management, 17(7), 318‐329. Greenbank, P. (2006). The academic’s role: the need for a re‐evaluation. Teaching in Higher Education, 11(1), 107‐112. Hall, C., Morris Matthews, K., & Sawicka, T. (2004). Performance‐Based Research Fund (PBRF): Policy and practice. In I. Livingstone (Ed.). New Zealand Annual Review of Education: 13, (pp. 79‐104). Wellington: School of Education, Victoria University. Hall, C., & Morris Matthews, K. (2006). Impact of the Performance‐Based Research Fund on teaching and the research‐teaching balance: Survey of a New Zealand university. In L. Bakker, J. Boston, L. Campbell & R.
Page 1 and 2: Research in progress: Mapping the t
Page 3: It appears that any move to enhance
Page 7: Yates, L. (2006). Is impact a measu

Research in progress: Mapping the terrain of two applied ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?