Planning Educational Research and the UK Research Assessment Exercise

Abstract

The contemporary relationship between research and teaching in higher education is a complex and contested one. In the UK context, for example, academics and university managers are currently confronting the quality assurance requirements of the forthcoming Research Assessment Exercise (RAE). The 2008 RAE will be the sixth in a series of exercises conducted nationally to assess the quality of UK research, and, inevitably, to inform the selective disbursement of public funds for research by the respective higher education funding bodies. The implicit bias towards subject-specific research, however, raises a number of questions for the educational researcher in the broad field of the built environment. This paper critically reviews the contemporary literature concerning the search for quality, and the teaching-research relationship, and reflects on the perceptions of, and barriers to, a more constructive relationship between teaching and research. The paper contends that contemporary political, practice-related, and academic debates around for example the knowledge society, Information and Communication Technologies, and the skills agenda, highlight the pivotal role of educational research in this changing landscape. It concludes by raising some questions for the UK RAE 2008 exercise.

Keywords:

• Barriers
• Cultures
• Education
• Quality
• RAE
• Research
• Teaching

Introduction

The relationship between research and teaching in higher education is a complex one (Brew, 2003). Indeed, it has been argued that this relationship is ‘getting fuzzier rather than clearer’ (Scott, 2004). This complexity may be explained in a number of ways. For example, the contemporary dominance and interpretation of the idea of the knowledge society and the associated emphasis on the ability of graduates to contribute to the UK knowledge economy is clearly very powerful in constructing the current purpose of higher education (Hepworth and Spencer, 2004). Perceived advances and developments in Information and Communication Technologies are also highly significant in terms of how, when, and where learning takes place (JM Consulting, 2000; Higher Education Council for England, 2000). In structural terms, universities are experiencing the particular effects of a shift to a ‘mass’ education system of delivery which has implications both for the size and constitution of the student body (Stevens, 2004; Wolf, 2002). Moreover, the contemporary context must also be understood in light of individual institutions’ particular search for quality and differentiation in a globally competitive knowledge market (Morley, 2004; Wagner, 1995; Hodgson, 2000; Wolf, 2002). These factors, amongst others, are illustrative of why individual universities and individual departments are seeking to (re-) define their identity, reputation, and approach to research and teaching.

The fluid relationships between teaching and research must also be understood with regard to the specific local institutional context, and the precise experiences of the individual academic (Robertson and Bond, 2001). Indeed, in light of the changing setting and debates about the polarisation of funding between teaching and research, it has been argued that it is increasingly important to understand the ways in which individual academics currently interpret and make sense of the contemporary learning, teaching, and research relationships (Nicholls, 2005). Such an understanding requires a particular sensitivity with respect to how individual academics personally construct meaning and meaningfulness as their confidence, critical capacities, and contexts evolve (Peel, 2005a). Indeed, research evidence would suggest that the maturity and experience of individual academics, and the particular reward systems in place in specific institutions, are but some of the wider influences on individual academics’ perceptions of what is required from them, and from the academic community as a whole, in terms of delivering quality teaching and quality research (Nicholls, 2005). Moreover, how the particular purpose of higher education is articulated and configured in individual locations is also likely to differ depending upon subject discipline, and how this, too, is perceived by society (Stevens, 2004). Perceptions and interpretations of academic purpose and value, then, are thus likely to vary, depending on a range of factors that would appear to criss-cross individual and institutional life-worlds.

The objective of this paper is to stimulate critical debate within the built environment more widely about the teaching and research relationship and interpretations of research quality in the UK in the context of the forthcoming Research Assessment Exercise (RAE2008). The RAE2008 will be the sixth in a series of exercises conducted nationally to assess the quality of UK research, and will inevitably inform the selective disbursement of public funds for research by the four higher education funding bodies. To date, the implicit bias of this exercise towards subject-specific research, however, raises a number of questions for the educational researcher. Indeed, it is, perhaps, opportune to consider how the parallel interest in teaching quality - particularly for new academics - influences contemporary thinking about the position of research. The article begins by locating the discussion within the wider quality debates. It then critically reviews the academic literature and empirical evidence with respect to perceptions about the contemporary relationship between teaching and research. These insights are specifically related to the field of town planning. The paper concludes with some reflections on the role, purpose, and value of educational research for the forthcoming RAE2008, and in the light of the recently published guidelines (Higher Education Funding Council for England, 2006).

Searching for Quality

In order to locate the contemporary quality debates and to better understand the particularities of the UK context, some background points are useful. The UK government’s concern with enhancing teaching quality was central to the deliberations and outcomes of the ‘Dearing Report’ (National Committee of Inquiry into Higher Education, 1997). This thinking has been reinforced in subsequent publications, including: Higher Education for the 21^st Century (Department for Education and Employment, 1998a); The Learning Age (Department for Education and Employment, 1998b); and The Future of Higher Education (Department for Education and Skills, 2003). The latter set out the Government’s plans for radical reform and investment in universities and higher education colleges. Significantly, this White Paper highlighted the Government’s interest in the relationship between research and teaching. In particular, the White Paper noted that: “In reality, the connection between an institution’s research activities and its teaching is indirect, and there is ample evidence of the highest quality teaching being achieved in circumstances which are not research-intensive” (Department for Education and Skills, 2003, para. 2.7). As a consequence, the Government asserted that “[t]he scale and location of research activity has to be justified and decided on its own merits” (ibid). Significantly, this thinking has focussed attention on better understanding and articulating research and teaching activities, and their implicit and explicit connections for individual institutions.

Importantly, the White Paper highlighted the centrality of teaching and learning to the purpose of higher education, and to a commitment to understanding better:

where and how good teaching and learning take place and to take steps to ensure that standards are high and continually improved, and that best practice is effectively shared. All students are entitled to high quality teaching, and to the best possible information to help them make the right choices about what to study and where. And those who teach well are entitled to have their success rewarded properly (ibid, chapter 4).

The institutional body and mouthpiece, Universities UK, for example, which provides advice for the sector on issues concerning finance and resources, makes the case that there are wide social and economic benefits which arise from universities functioning across research and teaching in all regions and localities (Universities UK, 2003). It argues that, although the balance between these activities varies both between and within institutions, teaching and research activities are inseparable. Thus, for example, research benefits teaching in exposing students to the cutting edge of intellectual enquiry, whilst teaching benefits research through creating the leaders and champions of the future. Moreover, it is held that the recruitment and retention of academic staff may be adversely affected by failing to offer access to research facilities. Indeed, a lack of research activity may also have a negative effect on the recruitment and retention of undergraduates. Further, it is argued that graduates may be less well prepared for postgraduate study. Indeed, ultimately, doctoral programmes may subsequently be confined to a relatively small number of universities (Universities UK, 2003). The interpretation here is that a symbiotic relationship between teaching and research is likely to better nourish and sustain an inclusive learning environment, and support succession strategies. An important question is whether this is as balanced in practice. Clearly, however, there is a concern that particular constitutional, spatial and social justice consequences may arise if (quality) research is (perceived to be) limited to relatively few institutions.

A further set of important questions that can be identified in the increasingly crowded and competitive higher education context turns on the place of, and value ascribed to, educational research. This is evident in the discussions concerning the reform of higher education in the UK (Department for Education and Skills, 2003), and related debates about assessing research quality, and re-thinking the funding settlements (Science and Technology Committee, 2002; Roberts, 2003). It is critical, then, to reflect on how current thinking and debates inform the nature, purpose and potential interdependencies of teaching and research in the built environment. Indeed, different ideas are evident in the specific context of the RAE2008 and town and country planning (see, for example, Campbell, 2005; Goodstadt, 2005; Thomas, 2005).

The RAE2008 is a formal and university-wide process that covers the period 2001–2007. It is intended to evaluate the productivity, quality, and relevance of UK academic research in a range of subject areas. This in itself represents no mean task, and has previously been acknowledged as demanding considerable effort by the planning community as a whole (Punter, 2002). For example, an important requirement of the RAE process is the active engagement of users of academic research. Thus, a critical component of the RAE 2001 exercise was the involvement of professionals from various areas of the built environment and practice context (Punter, 2002). This aspect of the process reflects the importance given to interpreting and understanding research quality within the specific context of each discipline, its business relevance, and its contributions to the associated policy community (Morphet, 2002). Nevertheless, how precisely the perceived value of particular subject areas, such as town planning, can be measured or captured in terms of their particular contribution to the discipline, professional planning practice, the wider community, or general social environment remains open to debate (Lloyd, 2002). Indeed, it is clear, for example, that students represent a particular community of interest in terms of research quality, yet they are not formally part of the process. Given the competitive funding environment - and the assortment of masters that research is intended to serve - it is clear that the concept of quality and what constitutes research in the context of the RAE may be variously constructed, configured, and interpreted. The case of educational research is a case in point.

Educational Research and Parental Recognition

The 2001 definition of research used for RAE purposes was as follows:

’Research’ for the purpose of the RAE is to be understood as original investigation undertaken in order to gain knowledge and understanding. It includes work of direct relevance to the needs of commerce and industry, as well as to the public and voluntary sectors; scholarship; the invention and generation of ideas, images, performances and artefacts including design, where these lead to new or substantially improved insights; and the use of existing knowledge in experimental development to produce new or substantially improved materials, devices, products and processes, including design and construction. It excludes routine testing and analysis of materials, components and processes, e.g. for the maintenance of national standards, as distinct from the development of new analytical techniques. It also excludes the development of teaching materials that do not embody original research (HEFCE, 2001. para. 2.12).

Clearly, in terms of outputs, there is a reference to ‘teaching materials’, with an emphasis on originality. Indeed, this remains the case for the RAE2008 definition (Higher Education Funding Council for England, 2006). Significantly, the Roberts’ (2003) Review of Research Assessment noted, with respect to the interface between teaching and research, that almost 25% of the respondents to the Review, which included higher education institutions, subject bodies and stakeholders, supported broadening the parameters of the definition of research to embrace research that develops either the pedagogy or teaching subject matter in any given discipline. Indeed, the recommendation for a more inclusive definition was in direct response to the particular concerns raised by respondents to the ‘Invitation to contribute’ to the review of research assessment that, to date, the RAE has:

• a) [n]eglected, and thus devalued, pedagogical research by “hiving it off” to the Education panel for consideration, rather than assessing it within its parent subject panel.

• b) [e]ncouraged more academics to focus on research at the expense of teaching quality (and the production of textbooks), by operating a rewards-based research assessment process in the absence of a parallel process for teaching. (Roberts Review, 2003, Annex E, para. 21).

Importantly, the Roberts Review noted that “[t]his is perceived to have driven wedges between teaching and research, jeopardising the fulfilment of government policies in both areas” (ibid). In this context, research by Peel and Lynch (2004), for example, identified particular issues with respect to a more productive teaching-research relationship around workloads, tenure, a lack of incentives or reward structures, and a perception that educational research was perceived as ‘2nd rate’ in contrast to what was perceived as constituting ‘pure’ research in terms of the RAE.

Significantly, Roberts (2003) highlighted that the consultation exercise that informed the Review indicated “significant support for a broader definition of research within research assessment, to encompass in particular applied research, research of relevance and utility, training of research students, and research that directly informs teaching” (ibid para. 18). Such thinking appears to offer an important opportunity for those researchers in the built environment who are actively engaged in investigating, for example, creative curricula, skills development, links to professional practice, and innovative learning and teaching methods. Further, it opened the door for the RAE2008 process to bring educational research more firmly into the hive of wider research activity. It is important, then, to consider what educational research might involve in practice, and how the teaching-research relationship might be more effectively articulated.

Scoping Educational Research

In general, the scope of educational research is understood to be relatively broad and can include basic or applied research, or experimental development. It may be concerned with formal or informal processes, and may focus on particular places or people, processes or products. It may be empirical or theoretical, involve field-work or be text-based. Following Mortimore (2000, p. 12), for example, four important tasks present themselves. The first major task is to “conceptualise, observe, and systematically record events and processes to do with learning”. The second task is to “analyse such observations in order to describe accurately their conditions, contexts and implications”. The third task is to “publish accounts of all that is known about the particular topic under consideration, drawing on existing theory from one of the disciplines which contribute to our field, from educational theory itself, or from emerging theory that will itself be aided by our work”. The fourth task is to “further educational improvement”. Clearly, then, this provides a broad remit, reflects the agenda above, and raises important questions about means as well as ends. Such a task list is helpful since it asserts the potentially symbiotic relationships between theory and practice, dissemination and development, and highlights the importance of influences arising from particular contexts and conditions. Further, it provides a clear field for intellectual cultivation, and highlights the potential for a deepening of knowledge and understanding in any one (or more) of a variety of research furrows. Moreover, the objective of improvement emerges as critical.

Contemporary political and academic debates have focused attention on how society and the wider academy variously construct quality in terms of teaching, research, and scholarship. In terms of cultivating scholarship, one of the strategies put forward by Coate et al. (2001) to support educational research turns on understanding ‘teaching scholarship’ as a separate activity from research. Yet, scholarship itself is a contested term (Kreber, 2002; Brew, 2003; Nicholls, 2004), and one that is being debated internationally — which also contributes to a confusion of meaning. Indeed, following Trigwell et al. (2000) academics may be described as engaging in the scholarship of teaching to varying degrees. As Trigwell and Shale (2004), for example, point out, the publication of educational research is only one component of making scholarly activity public. Indeed, the type of research, the methodologies and conceptual frameworks, the questions asked and dissemination channels used in educational research will inevitably vary. Thus, the undergraduate, postgraduate, postdoctoral, or Continuing Professional Development contexts represent but one strand of the diversity in the learning environment. In this context, Healey (2000), for example, argues that educational research needs to be developed within the context of particular disciplinary cultures. It is important, then, to consider how the broad academy of the built environment can best capture the added value of the educational scholar in terms of teaching and research.

Unravelling Teaching and Research Relationships

Intuitively, and drawing on a tradition of reflective practice (Schön, 1991), the majority of teaching academics would no doubt assert that “it is impossible to teach well without reflection, analysis, [and] discussion” (Scott, 2004). Nonetheless, the critical literature demonstrates that the link between research and teaching is a contested arena, with the relationships being more or less formal and/or direct (Freestone, 2004; Robertson and Bond, 2001). Indeed, it has been argued that “those who spend more time on teaching do not necessarily have higher teacher effectiveness” and that “[g]ood researchers are only a little more likely to be better prepared as teachers and have better competencies than nonresearchers” (Hattie and Marsh, 2004). Elsewhere, it has been asserted that whilst “[t]here is a strong presumption throughout much of higher education that ‘(good) research is necessary for (good) teaching’, no one synergistic blend is present” (JM Consulting, 2000, p.1). In short, the claim that research and teaching are inextricably intertwined and deliver quality remains hotly disputed (Hounsell, 2002; Feldman, 1987). What is clear from this, however, is that it is important to be sensitive to the diverse nature of this relationship.

The available critical literature with respect to the links and interplay between teaching and research highlights the extent to which a number of common assumptions about a clear - or indeed mutually beneficial - relationship between the two activities requires closer inspection (Robertson and Bond, 2001). Indeed, the teaching-research relationship can be understood in a number of ways, and at a variety of scales. It has been asserted, for example, that opportunities for developing writing skills through research may be useful in terms of improving teaching competencies (Murray, 2001). Thus, in addition to supporting professional skills development and contributing to the RAE, Murray (2001) for example, reports that lecturers may take their writing for publication practice into their teaching in positive ways, and that this experience can then enhance student learning. Yet, elsewhere in the literature, a number of contradictory concerns about a necessarily symbiotic and productive teaching-research relationship have been raised. On the one hand, these include debates about the pressures to compartmentalise teaching and research through accountability and funding mechanisms (Coaldrake and Stedman, 1999); the management strategies for academic staff time that treat teaching and research separately; and the negative effects that stem from competing for scarce resources (Coate et al., 2001). On the other, the claims that pressures to deliver quality research have adversely affected teaching quality are themselves contested (Hattie and Marsh, 2004; JM Consulting, 2000). What such arguments highlight, however, is the need to work towards a better understanding of what might constitute a more productive relationship for the individuals, departments, and institutions concerned.

Following Coate et al. (2001), for example, six possible relationships between teaching and research may be identified (Figure 1).

Figure 1 Potential Relationships Between Teaching and Research

Source: Coate et al., 2001 p. 165

The implications of this model are that a range of relationships between research and teaching exist which may adversely or beneficially affect the activities and standings of individual academics, and, then, by inference, the departments and institutions within which they work. Moreover, these relationships may be shaped by individual values, as well as institutional capacities. Indeed, following Thomas (2005), the prevailing culture, and how this relationship is interpreted, may result in relatively more individualistic or collegiate behaviours. Such cultural, institutional and individual perspectives are clearly important. Indeed, Coate et al. (2001) for example, argue that new ways of managing the teaching and research relationship need to be considered, and that the development of learning and teaching strategies within institutions could become an important incentive and a vehicle for better articulating and integrating teaching and research. Individual institutional mission statements and contexts thus emerge as critical for understanding the contemporary differentiated UK higher educational landscape. Importantly, however, whilst this discussion highlights the various back-cloths against which quality may be coloured, it does not necessarily shed light on individual interpretations and behaviours.

Moreover, it is relevant here to note that there is surprisingly relatively little research evidence on the conditions necessary to maximise any beneficial impacts of research on teaching (Zubrik, et al., 2001). This observation would suggest that a potentially valuable research area would be one that sought to better articulate particular institutional and departmental cultures and contexts since these are more likely to differentiate teaching, training, and research activities. Significantly, the nature of the discipline itself is an important contextualising aspect. Indeed, it has been argued that discussions about the relationship between research and teaching in higher education have, to date, tended to take place at a generic level, with comparatively little attention being paid, for example, to the importance of subject-based variations (Griffiths, 2004). It is to be welcomed then, that there is a growing body of critical literature and research evidence which is in the process of being assembled that is sensitive to the differential institutional and disciplinary contexts (see, for example, the Higher Education Academy, and the Link: Good Practice Resource Database). Such distinctions will clearly have to be receptive and responsive to constitutional, spatial, and demographic differences.

Significantly, the range of debates across the international academic community concerning the existence of ‘a nexus’ between research and teaching illustrates how very differently the potential connections and relationships between the activities of research and teaching are perceived to be. In the USA, for example, the Boyer Commission (1998) advocated a major rethink about the role of ‘research universities’ in undergraduate education. Recent Australian research (Zubrik et al., 2001) investigated how different universities have sought to ‘strengthen’ the nexus between research and teaching, and identified the particular importance of a differential approach by individual staff, management, and universities. Importantly, they suggest that if the intended goal is to better integrate research and teaching then there needs to be a clearer alignment between policies, practices, and reward structures in order to achieve this. Such a line of reasoning highlights the potential for a rich and differentiated higher educational landscape.

In the UK context, Griffiths (2004), for example, observed that the research-teaching debate has gained greater significance due to the relatively more competitive funding arrangements, and the “prospect of a sharper divide between an elite grouping of research-intensive universities and the rest” (p. 710). In part, these particular debates reflect the changing producer-consumer relationships, student expectations, and a managerialist interest in performance indicators (Morley, 2004).

Notably, however, the Dearing Report (National Committee of Inquiry into Higher Education, 1997), for example, emphasised the: “important role of research and scholarship in informing and enhancing teaching”, and discussed a “rejection of the idea that some institutions of higher education should be teaching-only institutions”. Yet, the debate continues (Stevens, 2004), and it is, therefore, important to be alert to the significance and implications of particular approaches to resourcing and rewarding. Indeed, it is clear that the differential nature of the perceived relationships between research and teaching have to be clearly articulated in order to receive the necessary strategic support, secure the appropriate resourcing, and, importantly, to be valued in any quality assessment of research excellence. In the critical literature, for example, the perspectives on teaching and research relationships differ depending on whether one takes, for example, an individual view (Jenkins, 2000); a departmental view (Zetter, 2002); or an institutional perspective (Gibbs, 2002). Indeed, this differentiating context and layering emerges as highly critical in terms of elaborating particular teaching-research relationships. Indeed, as Scott (2004), for example, highlights, teaching and research have always been broad churches, it is simply that these churches appear to be becoming ever broader. Further, differences in teaching are evident in a variety of ways, including scale, level, style, location, situation, technology, and culture (Scott, 2004). Importantly, then, given the differential educational framework in the UK, teaching and research relationships will play out differently at the constitutional, institutional, departmental, and individual levels.

Moreover, as Nicholls (2005) discusses, experience and maturity colour personal constructs of learning, teaching and research, and will inevitably be context dependent. This means that how individual academics make sense of their personal and collective teaching and research identities (Thomas, 2005) will not only be dependent upon the prevailing political priorities, and institutional cultures, but also individual life-worlds, ambitions, and personal trajectories. Importantly, then, and notwithstanding the strident discourse of the processes, outcomes, and implications of globalisation and competition in higher education, it is the individual and local dimension that emerges as a critical arena for understanding the intricacies of the teaching-research relationship. Taken together with the argument that individual disciplines shape the relationships between teaching and research differentially (Jenkins, 2000), this makes for a multi-layered environment. It is important, then, to consider how these debates are being identified, promoted, and shaped in the context of the built environment, and within specific disciplines.

Teaching and Researching Relationships in Land Use Planning

Research into the connections between teaching and research in the specific context of the built environment has already begun (see, for example, the LINK project). Here, for example, four particular models have been unravelled and explored in some detail (Griffiths, 2004). These draw important distinctions between:

• research-led teaching, where research staff specialisms inform the taught curriculum;

• research-oriented teaching, where students are encouraged to develop a research ethos and to engage actively in understanding the processes of knowledge production;

• research-based learning, where the teaching context supports inquiry-based activities; and

• research-informed teaching, where a critically reflective teaching and learning process supports teaching.

Such a framework provides some useful insights into how the activities of teaching and research can be more sensitively defined and implemented.

Further, this elaboration of the potential teaching-research relationship within the specific context of the built environment offers a useful diagnostic tool for articulating and strengthening clearer links between these different knowledge-generating and learning activities. It also provides a framework for better aligning the various dimensions of learning that can serve to support Wenger’s (1998) articulation of ‘communities of practice’. Such learning is clearly differentiated over time and space. Importantly, then, such thinking is highly relevant in this context since it highlights an important responsibility within the built environment professions to respond to the needs of a community that is not homogenous (Guzzetta and Bollens, 2003). The importance of Continuing Professional Development, for example, is but one manifestation of an enhanced sensitivity to learning in the wider context of the lifelong learning project (Peel, 2005b). Moreover, a more refined understanding of the potential teaching-research relationships re-focuses our attention on the student learning dimension, an aspect which risks being eclipsed by the highly charged debates around research quality. Arguably, this represents a very particular construction of academic endeavour, and must be understood as part of the wider knowledge society discourse, and interest in performance.

Here, the vocational and training debates in the UK, for example, are of particular relevance (see, for example, Wolf, 2002). Indeed, how the specific nature, role, purpose, and value of particular disciplines are constructed by society clearly have powerful implications for the respective research agendas and sources and allocation of funding. Specifically, then, educational research may take a number of forms, including identifying the specific requirements of the labour force, course design, and curriculum content (see, for example, the work of the Planning Network: Bailey and Walker, 2001). This represents one layer of the teaching-research agenda.

Yet, the nature and volume of educational research has varied over time. Indeed, particular social activities, such as town and regional planning, for example, have clearly evolved in response to the changing political economy (see, for example, Hall, 1973). In this context, historical insights into educational practices are important since they illustrate how different subjects have sought to provide very different social purposes and functions at given points in time. Taking town planning as an example, it is evident that there was relatively greater dissemination of planning educational research during the 1970s and 1980s in contrast to today. The earlier collections and commentaries about planning education are helpful in mapping the trajectory of planning education, and in tracing developments in the curriculum. For example, Cockburn (1970) provided a comprehensive bibliography and summary of planning education comprising over 220 articles, papers and books relating to the education of town planners, mainly dating from the 1960s, although the earliest is from 1943. Subsequently, Thomas and Thomas’ (1981) work examined planning education in the 1970s, whilst Davies and Healey (1983) considered planning education agendas in the 1970s and 1980s. Such material offers a rich glimpse into the archaeology of land use planning’s curriculum as it sought to respond to the changing context.

More recently, Frank (2002) collated and classified a comprehensive bibliography on planning education since 1960, which teased out constituent themes and ideas. Her analysis identified issues which are specific to land use planning and to particular subject areas within planning, but also highlighted general pedagogical and methodological issues which question the universality or context specificity of planning education internationally. Her statistical presentation of the material showed a rise in the number of publications during the early 1980s, a peak of interest between 1985–1989, and a subsequent decline during the 1990s. Significantly, the recent period appears to have witnessed a rise in publications dealing with teaching methods and processes. Importantly, the evidence appears to suggest that there was a relatively greater interest amongst the planning academy as a whole to engage actively with issues concerning planning education prior to the 1990s. Does this suggest a reconfiguration of the teaching-research relationship?

Drawing on semi-structured interviews, research by Peel and Lynch (2004) provided some useful insights into the active engagement by planning academics during earlier periods. Hence, in terms of the interest in planning education in the 1960s and 1970s, Cockburn, for example, is reported to have highlighted the particular context of the New Left and Marxist revisionism during a period which was characterised as stemming from a “feeling of huge optimism that we could change things”’ (ibid). Indeed, the interest in planning education at the time appears to have been bound up with the changes associated with local government reorganisation, the interest in systems thinking, and ideas of business management. It also formed part of the wider interest in the social sciences. As a consequence, Cockburn observed that it became important to reinvent planning to make it “less shabby” in contrast to the “new” ideas (ibid). At that time, then, educational research was not something located at the margins, but an activity that formed an integral dimension to a professional career which straddled both planning-related and educational research. Indeed, the roll-call of contributors to educational debates in earlier periods is testimony to the extent to which educational issues received as much attention as researching the subject of planning itself. Importantly, in reflecting on the changing interest in planning education, Healey, for example, noted important differences which exist today in terms of workloads, accountability, and the demands of the RAE (ibid). Significantly, the RAE was introduced in 1986 during a period that was variously characterised in some quarters as representing an attack on higher education (Tooley, 2001). Certainly, Frank’s (2002) research indicated a tailing off of educational research publications during the 1990s. Contemporary thinking, then, clearly has implications for the perceived relationships between teaching and research, and the focus of that research.

As ever, context is all important. Thus, Faludi (1978), for example, suggested that the emphasis on project work in the initial education of architects and town planners reflected the apprenticeship tradition in such professional practice, and the perceived value of selfguidance and learning by doing — ideas which have particular relevance for contemporary educational debates in the built environment. The Egan Review (Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, 2004) on the skills for sustainable communities is a case in point. Yet, earlier debates suggested that it was the particular practice-based perspective of planning education which, in part, served to obscure the absence of an established research tradition in planning (McLoughlin, 1973, p. 85). This particular construction of the link with practice remains sensitive, but it is an important insight into understanding the academic’s responsibilities as teacher and researcher, and how this fits with the wider higher education discourse. Indeed, it is evident that the focus of research attention, and the nature of the academic relationships with the policy and practice community, remain a matter of concern for the wider planning community (Goodstadt, 2005). This is not new. As Batey (1985), for example, commented, the contribution and opportunities for research may be compromised by whether individuals work in academic establishments or in professional practice. Such distinctions raise important questions for the contemporary concern with a particular quality agenda. Moreover, it is clear that the RAE process requires sensitive interpretation in order to reflect particular subject areas, and how individual academics interpret, for example, societal, technological, and professional change.

Here, critical insights into the development and traditions of particular subjects, their associated models for education, and the responsiveness to specific professional identities over time are apposite (Guzzetta and Bollens, 2003; Seltzer and Ozawa, 2002). In the context of the built environment, for example, such differentiation may stem from the perception of fluid vocational and professional boundaries, and the active search to draw down on ‘real world’ case studies, and to embed experiential learning into the curriculum (Webster, 2002). Indeed, contemporary planning educational research encompasses a range of areas including skills development; innovative assessment; comparative planning studies; creativity, as well as an interest in place and performance; town planning as an art; and the poetics of planning (Peel and Lynch, 2004). The breadth of issues being researched and the spread of on-line outlets, however, risks presenting a relatively fragmented picture of planning educational research in which there are ‘islands of interest’ or ‘lone enthusiasts’ (Peel and Lynch, 2004). Moreover, the different professional cultures that exist are also likely to foster diverse educational practices, and hence research interests. Dissemination strategies within the built environment may vary according to the perceived or stipulated needs of the ‘end-user’. The production of briefing notes or tool-kits are but some of the mechanisms deployed in order to disseminate research findings. Different ways, then, have to be considered for how best to identify and capture this form of material since it is clearly indicative of academic productivity, relevance and potential quality. Critically, one of the implications of this variegated context is the difficulty of building up a visible (and measurable?) head of steam, and establishing a core of educational research. This journal and Transactions, together with the on-line resources managed by the Centre for Education in the Built Environment, for example, must be viewed as important mechanisms in overcoming the potential fragmentation of research publications and materials.

Nonetheless, there is a risk that published educational research deserts also exist. Indeed, it would appear that informal, rather than formal, awareness of projects and interests appears to be an important channel for keeping abreast of those who are actively involved in educational research, and in what field (Peel and Lynch, 2004). Particular concerns here must turn on being in the loop, the variability, specificity of, and access to project funding (Peel and Lynch, 2004). Here, there is evidence to suggest that educational research may simply be down to individuals instigating activity, or may be prompted by in-post educational training programmes (ibid). How might this relatively more individualistic approach impact on the academy’s wider agenda for teaching quality?

Implications for the 2008 RAE

It is clear that the contemporary academic environment is complex and contested, and that individual institutions, managers, departments, and academics seek variously to align their teaching and research missions, ambitions, and resources. Importantly, it follows that there is no homogenous picture, and that, as a consequence, quality assessment strategies will need to be sensitive to variation in research and teaching scenarios and priorities. This is particularly the case, given the specificity of local contexts, and the wider and volatile international higher education environment. In sum, the relationships between teaching and research can only be understood in the light of specific local circumstances and expectations, and how particular institutions and individuals respond to these. Further, as Nicholls (2005) suggests, how these reciprocal interpretations are developed will depend on the very particular perceptions of the individual academics concerned.

The motivation for writing this paper stemmed from the particular standing of the author as a ‘post-Dearing academic’, and for whom the RAE2008 represents the first such formal exercise as a ‘new academic’. The consequence of the Dearing Report (National Committee of Inquiry into Higher Education, 1997) was that training and a formal teaching qualification have become an accepted pre-requisite in the search for instilling a culture of teaching quality. Indeed, in part as a consequence of the training for new academics, the tensions of teaching quality and research quality can often appear magnified. Here, research evidence suggests that it is important to better understand the personal constructs of contemporary ‘new academics’ as they seek to manage the quality agendas with respect to teaching and research activities (Nicholls, 2005). This ‘new academic’ perspective is not, however, intended to underestimate or to exclude the potential ‘anxiety’ experienced by more mature academics as they seek to manage contemporary pressures (Thomas, 2005). Rather, it is intended to highlight how very differently the identity of the contemporary academic, and the overall purpose of higher education, may be constructed and challenged over time, and, significantly, in the light of experience and critical learning. More importantly, this paper has sought to provoke debate about the contemporary role of the educational researcher in the very specific context of the knowledge society. How these distinctions can best be accommodated in career terms is critical if we are to provide a rounded and robust understanding of the academy as a community, and to plan for succession.

Taking ‘education’ as a search term to interrogate the RAE 2001 database of staff and outputs suggests that of the 28 universities submitting research under Town and County Planning only 11 institutions (Aberdeen, Leeds Metropolitan, Liverpool, Liverpool John Moore, Newcastle, Oxford Brookes, Queen’s University Belfast, Sheffield, South Bank, Strathclyde and Westminster) submitted educational research. Moreover, the nature of the material varied in terms of nominated and cited publications, including chapters in books, research reports, and scholarly articles. It was also widely dispersed in terms of outlets. More importantly, the relationship to teaching and learning was only very tenuous in a number of instances (Peel and Lynch, 2004). How, then, will educational research feature in the RAE2008?

In the current political context and performance-based climate, there are important questions to be addressed in terms of the validity of educational research as a quality output for the RAE. In its generic statement for the Panel criteria and working methods for the RAE2008, provision is clearly made for the inclusion of pedagogic research in higher education within the respective disciplinary groupings (Higher Education Funding Council for England, 2006). Further, a more descriptive account of what this comprises is set out in the guidance. In this context, then, pedagogic research must be firmly situated in its relevant literature and serve to enhance our theoretical and/or conceptual understanding of:

• teaching and learning processes in HE

• teacher and learner experiences in HE

• the environment or contexts in which teaching and learning in HE take place

• teaching and learning outcomes in HE

• the relationships between these processes, outcomes and contexts (Higher Education Funding Council for England, 2006, para. 60).

This type of research is contrasted with ‘[r]eports of studies providing descriptive and anecdotal accounts of teaching developments and evaluations’ and which are not considered to constitute pedagogic research (ibid). To be considered high quality, pedagogic research must make a substantial contribution to the relevant literature. This clearly constructs a very particular frame for assessing quality. It appears to define the type of work the educational researcher must engage in if they wish to submit their ‘research’ in this arena. Two points are immediately apparent. First, too narrow a reading of this definition may serve to exclude a wealth of material that seeks to disseminate evolving experience in innovative teaching and quality learning. This may include reports and papers which seek to transfer ‘best practice’. Second, were such a narrow view of educational research to become the perceived norm, then this could reduce the opportunities for building up our shared understanding of emerging practices in a rapidly changing world, and one where the cultural relations between the planning academy and professional practice are also evolving.

It is important, then, that we continue to have a debate about what constitutes quality educational research in the built environment. Here, it is critical to formulate a clearer understanding of the private (practice-oriented?) and public (published?) continuum of educational research. Moreover, the particular relationship between teaching and research has to be fine-tuned for the specific purposes of the built environment and what this means for academic and professional education in the context of the lifelong learning agenda. Here, the emphasis on policy and practice within the subject disciplines has to be translated more sensitively into the specific RAE quality standards. This requires articulating how the teaching and research relationship in the built environment is both ‘significant’ and ‘original’. Echoing the insights of Eversley (1973, p. 339), for example, “the planner cannot turn his back on public affairs and carry on exercising his profession as if he were doing so in a vacuum”. This thinking will therefore need to be sensitive, for example, to the inclusion agenda, as articulated for example by the Royal Town Planning Institute (RTPI Education Commission, 2003). This highlights the extent to which the educational researcher can play a critical role in shaping the wider research agenda.

Here, a number of important gaps in our understanding remain to be addressed. These turn on whether there is indeed evidence of a positive relationship between teaching and research, and how educational research or teaching scholarship may be better supported and resourced. This requires a better understanding of the values society ascribes to academic research, and how society (particularly the student body and funding institutions) values educational research in higher education more widely. Rigorous research would certainly inform funding bodies, better equip departments and institutions to calibrate learning, teaching and research strategies, and inform the wider objectives and parameters of the RAE. Indeed, as a kite-marking exercise, the RAE itself could serve to set the future agendas for educational research.

It is clear that the contemporary idea of research quality is coloured by debates about the role, value, and purpose of higher education (Morley, 2004). This plays out acutely at the level of the subject discipline (Stevens, 2004). Yet, the context of the RAE has evolved since 1986. The important point today is that the government is committed to the quality of both teaching and research. As a consequence, understanding the relationships between teaching quality and research quality have become critical to balancing the demands of academic life, and contributing to the success or otherwise of individual careers, departments and/or institutions. We are left with then, perhaps, the most important question: ‘Does educational research matter?’ Here, Mortimore (2000), for example, suggests that even though educational research might be dismissed by some, independent questioning and impartial evaluations of policy and practice are essential, and are part and parcel of professional and critical reflective practice. Arguably, without educational research and dissemination, our teaching practice, and our ability to support a learning society and knowledge economy, will be relatively poorer. Moreover, important comparative insights can be drawn across the devolved UK in terms of how different educational agendas are being interpreted and put into effect. Indeed, in terms of dual professionalism the researcher as educator has much to give in terms of managing the policy-practice conundrum. The practical wisdom and reflective practice of the educator, student, and practitioner likewise have much to offer the theoretical questions of research quality. As a planning academy and community, then, we have much to learn from each other.

Acknowledgements

An earlier version of this paper was presented at the UK Planning Research Conference held at the University of Manchester (2005). The author wishes to acknowledge the peer feedback which informed the critical reflection and re-working of this paper.