Research in Engineering Education Symposium 2011 - rees2009

Universidad Politécnica de Madrid (UPM) Página 397 de 957
context are relevant for academics responding to and learning how to improve their work.
The study has identified that many leaders find they have „no room to lead‟; little time to
lead or to think and operate strategically. Similarly, such cultural factors can create
conditions where frontline staff finds they have „no room to teach‟ or to learn how to
make desired changes. Its finding aligns well with studies of effective leadership in the
most successful corporations in that effectiveness of leaders depends on the context
around them. Majority of the literature surrounding academic-industry engagement are
within the spheres of collaborative research, technology transfer and models that facilitate
them. One such literature is D‟Este & Patel (2007); they found that individual
characteristics of researchers have a stronger impact than the characteristics of their
departments or universities. They argue that by paying greater attention to the broad
range of policy initiatives, it could contribute to building the researchers‟ skills necessary
to integrate research and application. Though individual characteristics of academics are
strong drivers for industry engagement, the context and environment that encourage
developing and exhibiting such skills are equally critical. One relevant literature is
Andrews et al (2005) studying the participation, motivations, and impediment to public
outreach; they found the strongest motivating factors were a desire to contribute and
enjoying their outreach experiences. Another motivating factor was the chance to improve
their teaching and communication skills. Time constraints due to other, higher priorities,
the lower value placed on outreach by institutions, and a lack of detailed information and
planning of outreach opportunities were significant barriers to participation. They stated
that institutions would have to embrace the third mission of universities: “service” as part
of the systemic cultural and operational shift. One can correlate the same context and
environment with this research.
Methodology & Methods
The theoretical framework in this research is based on the findings of Scott et al (2008).
One critical theoretical concept worth mentioning is the approach, attitude and
interpersonal strategies found to be most effective in helping staff make a desired change
work closely with those used by the most successful educators with their students; within
a specific academic context and their approaches to teaching in a particular subject that
was taught in that context. Hence, academics were immersed in an environment to
develop a leadership-based postgraduate program to develop and exhibit their own
leadership capacity. Another concept is that the engagement with industry involves a
complex learning and unlearning process for all concerned. A supportive environment that
fosters productive engagement in such learning and “room to lead” is desired. Workload
“buy-outs” were offered to the academic participants, and a dedicated collegial team was
recruited and appointed. However, two scenarios were constructed to promote
opportunities within a leadership vacuum; initially “unsupportive” environment without
formal team structure and organisation, and later with a “supportive” environment with
some structure and organisation, but still within a leadership vacuum. The leadership
vacuum facilitated by one of the active researcher is critical to provide opportunities for
the rest of the participants. This research is an action-based participatory research based
on ethnographic and phenomenographic strategies with the one of the researcher actively
Proceedings of Research in Engineering Education Symposium 2011
Madrid, 4 th - 7 th October 2011