Academic development in support of mentored undergraduate research and inquiry

Integrating research and inquiry into the undergraduate student experience has become a central theme of higher education agendas in many countries (Brew, 2013; Dekker & Wolff, 2016; Fung, 2017; Harland, 2016; Kuh, 2008; Walkington, 2015). Scholars around the globe have demonstrated that undergraduate research and inquiry (URI) significantly improves student learning (Healey & Jenkins, 2009; Healey, Jenkins, & Lea, 2014; Huggins, Jenkins, & Scurry, 2007; Osborn & Karukstis, 2009; Turner, Wuetherick, & Healey, 2008). URI also brings together the teaching and research missions of higher education, so that ‘through it, students can contribute to the academic project of the university’ (Brew, 2013, p. 604).

Like any research in academic disciplines, URI may embody diverse practices and be named differently across both disciplinary and international contexts (Healey et al., 2014). For instance, it often takes the form of supervised undergraduate theses embedded in degree programs, inquiry projects within individual courses, or stand-alone mentored research experiences. Whatever its particular form, evidence from rigorous studies in the US demonstrates that high-quality URI contributes to student learning, retention, and engagement (Kuh, 2008), and ethnic minority, first-generation, and low-income students are significantly more likely to graduate if they participate in mentored URI (Brownell & Swaner, 2010; Gregerman, 1999; Locks & Gregerman, 2008). URI also fosters deep learning of critical thinking, effective communication, and complex problem-solving, which are among the most valuable skills undergraduates develop during university studies (Hart Research Associates, 2015). Yet in many university contexts URI disproportionately serves students from advantaged backgrounds, those with high grades, and those with the confidence to pursue selective opportunities (Osborn & Karukstis, 2009).

Kuh and O’Donnell (2013) contend that the deepest engagement in URI occurs when undergraduates participate in all aspects of the research process in close working relationships with academic staff. Scholars also have examined academic staff mentors’ roles in supporting student learning in course-embedded URI models (e.g. Healey et al., 2014) and undergraduate theses (e.g. Rowley & Slack, 2004), faculty perceptions about supervising undergraduate theses (e.g. Todd, Smith, & Bannister, 2006), and gendered relationships in undergraduate thesis supervision (Hammick & Acker, 1998). Despite the merits of close student-staff collaboration throughout the inquiry process, higher education’s traditions and practices often distance students from full involvement in university research (Brew, 2006). Perhaps because of this distance, few investigations have focused on the academic staff mentor’s or supervisor’s role in supporting student learning within or across URI models, what constitutes a productive student-mentor dynamic in URI, or how institutions and academic developers can most effectively cultivate mentored URI. In order to deepen student engagement and expand access to mentored URI, whether as course-embedded inquiry or as a co-curricular activity, the staff mentor/supervisor role must be better understood – and mentoring capacities must be supported and developed in staff across disciplines, institution types, and national and international contexts.

In this special issue, we focus on mentored URI, and by extension, the role of academics in mentoring or supervising undergraduate experiences – and the role of academic developers in fostering those mentored relationships. Although mentoring within academic development is a common topic in IJAD (Fowler, 2017; Kamvounias, McGrath-Champ, & Yip, 2008), this issue centers on the ways our field can support academic staff as mentors to undergraduates. In that context, Johnson, a prolific scholar on mentoring in higher education, reminds us that:

Mentoring is a personal and reciprocal relationship in which a more experienced, (usually older) faculty member acts as a guide, role model, teacher, and sponsor of a less experienced (usually younger) student or faculty member. A mentor provides the mentee with knowledge, advice, counsel, challenge, and support in the mentee’s pursuit of becoming a full member of a particular profession. (Johnson, 2016, p. 23)

This special issue explores both the research on mentoring in URI and how academic developers can support staff to prepare for and engage in these mentoring or supervising roles – for undergraduate theses, course-embedded inquiry, and other forms of URI. Other scholars have established a foundation for this special issue. For instance, Spronken-Smith, Walker, Batchelor, O’Steen, and Angelo (2011) have identified a number of factors that promote and constrain inquiry-based learning, thereby revealing the importance of academic development in any sustainable URI initiative. Shanahan, Ackley-Holbrook, Hall, Stewart, and Walkington (2015) have synthesized the literature to articulate the most salient practices of undergraduate research mentors. And Brew and Jewell (2012) have reflected on how their own personal experiences as a staff member and an undergraduate suggest the importance of academic developers becoming ‘a point of support for both academics and students in successfully balancing the complexity of relationships and how they change as undergraduates engage in research and inquiry’ (p. 50).

Building on this groundwork, this issue’s scholars, representing six countries, present research-informed strategies for academic development in support of academic staff who mentor URI.

To map some of the complex terrain of URI, the issue opens with ‘An international conversation about mentored URI and academic development,’ featuring Susan Larson (US), Lee Partridge (Australia), Helen Walkington (UK), Brad Wuetherick (Canada), and Jessie L. Moore (US). This exchange offers insight into how academic developers in different geographic regions conceptualize and support mentored URI.

In ‘Mentor perspectives on the place of undergraduate research mentoring in academic identity and career development: An analysis of award winning mentors,’ Eric E. Hall, Helen Walkington, Jenny Olin Shanahan, Elizabeth Ackley, and Kearsley A. Stewart explore how mentoring URI fits into the career profile of award-winning URI mentors in Australia, Canada, the US, and the UK. The authors identify six themes that inspire academic staff’s decisions to mentor URI, and they suggest how the findings might inform academic development.

Complementing this analysis, Lynne D. Roberts and Kristen Seaman interviewed undergraduate dissertation supervisors and coordinators in Australia. In ‘Good undergraduate dissertation supervision: Perspectives of supervisors and dissertation coordinators,’ Roberts and Seaman explore both what constitutes effective supervision and constraints that impact the experience. They also preview research-informed resources that academic developers can use to support new supervisors of URI.

Patric Wallin and Tom Adawi’s study ‘Entry points when undergraduate research mentors reflect on their role: A qualitative case,’ which was conducted at a Swedish university, encourages academic developers to help mentors consider their goals for URI, their students’ expectations, and their application of their own expert knowledge in the mentored URI partnership.

Mick Healey and Alan Jenkins, two leading UK scholars on URI, provide a comprehensive consideration of academic development in support of embedding URI in the curriculum. In ‘The role of academic developers in embedding high-impact URI in mainstream higher education: Twenty years’ reflection,’ Healey and Jenkins also argue that supporting mentored URI requires reimagining who is an academic developer, and what it means to do academic development.

Finally, in a resource review, ‘Insights for academic developers from three international undergraduate research program resources,’ Meredith Allison and Paul Miller examine significant materials from Australia, the US, and the UK, considering how these might support academic development of mentored URI in contexts across the globe.

This special issue demonstrates the centrality of academic development in any effort to integrate mentored research and inquiry into the undergraduate experience. Yet in today’s dynamic and turbulent higher education environment globally, should we embrace this work more fully? Roxå and Mårtensson (2017) recently warned that within neoliberal institutions, academic developers need to be critically aware that we not become ‘part of a machinery suppressing’ our colleagues and students. In some settings, URI has been enacted in ways that disproportionately benefit certain students, reinforcing social inequalities that exist outside of higher education (Osborn & Karukstis, 2009). To ensure that does not happen within our institutions, we need to ‘hold on to the values and principles’ of our field (Brew & Cahir, 2014, p. 350) as we work to support mentored URI. When done well, URI does just that because:

[It] starts with recognizing the interests and capabilities of students. It starts with listening to the questions that they bring. It starts with recognising and, indeed, honoring the important work that they will have to do in addressing the challenges of humanity in the twenty-first century and beyond. (Brew, 2013, p. 617)

In this way, high-quality mentored URI resonates with high-quality academic development.

Collectively, the papers in this issue suggest a number of ways academic developers can heed Roxå and Mårtensson’s (2017) caution, while also expanding access to and deepening the practice of mentored URI at their institutions. First and foremost, academic developers should align their activities with local models for URI, cultivating a shared understanding of both disciplinary research and local research expectations among all who are (or could be) involved in URI. Healey and Jenkins (this issue) suggest, ‘when inviting staff to consider how to integrate student research into their courses it is generally more effective to start by discussing the forms of research in their disciplines’ (emphasis added). By grounding discussions of mentored URI in academic staff’s own expectations for research, we can emphasize the benefits of URI to their research activities. As Hall and colleagues (this issue) highlight, ‘many of the award-winning mentors [in their study] … felt their mentoring of UR both enhanced their productivity through co-authoring with students and expanded their research opportunities based on ideas from students.’ In some contexts, academic developers may have the opportunity to help implement new mentored URI programs, in which case understanding local expectations for research, as well as the benefits of URI to research productivity, can guide explorations of whether embedded course-based undergraduate research experiences, summer undergraduate research experiences, or co-curricular URI best fit institutional goals, faculty/staff commitments, and available resources.

The authors in this issue further demonstrate that academic development for mentored URI should involve not only experienced faculty but also graduate students, post-docs, and new academic staff. Roberts and Seaman (this issue) remind us that ‘good supervision is essential in ensuring successful outcomes for undergraduate research students, yet to date few new supervisors have received training and support for this role, highlighting the importance of academic development in this area.’ Given our cross-disciplinary networks, academic developers are well positioned to foster communities of practice around mentoring URI, enabling novice and experienced mentors to learn from each other. As Wallin and Adawi (this issue) note, ‘the reflections of novice UR mentors … [can be] restricted to their own past experiences’ so ‘academic developers should provide the possibility for mentors to reflect together with other mentors’ to ‘help novice mentors to better define their role and engage in meaningful partnerships with students.’ Additionally, academic developers should collaborate with academics and senior institutional leaders to ensure that high-quality mentoring is recognized and rewarded within promotion and other personnel structures.

The research and resources featured in this issue offer a variety of processes and strategies that could be adapted to specific institutional contexts and needs in order to scale up access to this transformational educational practice. As Lee Partridge notes in this issue’s ‘An international conversation,’ ‘while there are differences between our jurisdictions, the benefits of URI [to students and to academic staff] are universal.’ We are grateful to the authors in this special issue for showing us how and why to support mentored URI in our academic development practice.

Jessie L. Moore and Peter Felten
Center for Engaged Learning, Elon University, Elon, NC, USA
[email protected]