The Research-Teaching Nexus in Geography, Earth and Environmental Sciences (GEES)

Abstract

This article is an edited version of a longer essay on the topic available on the LTSN-GEES Web site (www.gees.ac.uk) (Healey et al., 2003). Drawing on an LTSN-GEES project, it argues that students may benefit from developing links between teaching and research in all kinds of higher education institution. However, the nexus between research and teaching in geography, earth and environmental sciences is complex and contested, takes a variety of forms, and varies by subject and type of institution. Moreover, it reflects the changing concepts that staff and students hold about the nature of research and teaching. Most of the previous literature on the linkage comes from geography, which has been extensively reviewed elsewhere (Healey, 1997, 2000; Jenkins 2000; Johnston and Cooke, 2001). To help correct the disciplinary balance for a GEES audience, two appendices are included with this article, which deal specifically with linking teaching and research in environmental sciences and earth sciences respectively. The main article reviews some of the themes in the international debate about the research-teaching nexus.

Introduction

Even before the publication of The Future of Higher Education White Paper (DfES, 2003), higher education institutions (HEIs) and departments in the UK were beginning to position themselves where they perceived that they had the greatest competitive advantage. Many research-intensive universities and departments, such as the Department of Geography at the University of Southampton, claim that teaching and learning in their undergraduate programmes is “research-led” (Table 1). However, it is clear from the project reported here from the Learning and Teaching Support Network’s Subject Centre for Geography, Earth and Environmental Sciences (LTSN-GEES) that linkages between research and teaching may be found in all types of HEI. The study, which draws on international research and practice, shows that the nature of the research-teaching nexus in geography, earth and environmental sciences is complex and contested. It is argued here that students are likely to gain most benefit in terms of depth of learning and understanding when they are actively involved with research of all kinds. The development of such research-based curricula will provide challenges to staff across the sector, not least because they may lead to finding new ways for staff and students to work together.

Table 1 Promoting the Department of Geography’s approach to teaching at the University of Southampton

Research-led Learning & Teaching

At Southampton we pride ourselves on the quality of our geographical research and this is reflected in our approach to teaching. Specifically, we believe strongly in our philosophy of research-led teaching and learning. The degree programmes we offer therefore reflect the research interests of staff within the School, which in turn are carefully structured within three main research themes. These research themes are defined in sympathy with international research priorities so we are able to contribute significantly to high profile debates. At undergraduate level the content of the research themes is reflected in a clear route for the intellectual growth of students undertaking our degrees. We believe that it is our emphasis on research-led teaching, together with the content and structure of the research themes themselves, that makes our school distinctive, dynamic and challenging for students and staff alike.

Source: www.geog.soton.ac.uk/ugadmiss/vision.asp (accessed 28th August 2003)

The Complexity of the Linkage

One reason why the links between teaching and research are not simple is that they may take a variety of forms (Tables 2 and 3) (Healey and Jenkins, 2002). These include students being taught about research findings and methods and being introduced to the culture of the discipline. This can be a fairly passive experience for students if a transmission model of education is followed. More effective can be the use of a variety of ways of engaging students actively in their learning (Biggs, 2003; Prosser and Trigwell, 1999) through getting them to do research themselves through undertaking some or all of the stages involved in carrying out a research project (Elton, 2001). Students commonly experience active learning in GEES subjects through fieldwork, laboratory and practical work, and when they undertake projects and dissertations, but active learning may be integrated into all forms of teaching (Hands-On!, 1998). Underlying all these ways of developing the research-teaching nexus is the need to develop among our students the skills of critical thinking and asking questions (Johnston, 2003).

Table 2 Individuals and course teams may develop the linkage between research and teaching in a wide range of ways

Developing the Linkage between Teaching & Research

Bringing data and findings from staff (faculty) research into the curriculum Developing student appreciation of research in the discipline Development of student research skills (explicitly, in addition to other disciplinary and generic skills) Using assignments which involve elements of research processes (e.g. literature reviews, bidding for grants, drafting bids or project outlines, analysing existing project data, presenting at a ‘conference’) Using teaching and learning processes which simulate research processes (e.g. project-based modules, dissertation modules, problem based learning) Giving students the opportunity to work on research projects alongside staff (e.g. as a research assistant) Giving students firsthand experience of commercial consultancy (e.g. as an ‘intern’, as work-based learning, as a consultant assistant or as a supervised consultant)

Table 3 Cases illustrating ways in which teaching and research may be linked in the GEES curriculum

At Glasgow Caledonian University human geography students submit reviews for publication made available to the local community in the fieldwork location

Practising Geography, the second year undergraduate Human Geography module at Glasgow Caledonian University offers individual students the option of submitting coursework in the form of a briefing paper based on a small-scale, fieldwork-based research project that they themselves have designed and executed. On completion of the module, students can then elect to have their paper refereed by an independent expert (generally a local resident from the field locality or a member of one of the Royal Scottish Geographical Society’s Regional Centres) as part of the StuP project (STUdent Publishing of fieldwork geography). The StuP project is based on the module. Publication on the StuP project website is conditional on an acceptable referee’s report.

Source: McKendrick et al. (2003)

Students across all three years of an environmental studies degree course work together on local sustainability projects

This project outlines and evaluates the aims and practice of a local sustainability project, which brings levels 1, 2 and 3 students on an Environmental Studies degree at the University of Sunderland in small research groups to work in collaboration with Sunderland City Council’s Local Agenda 21 personnel, and other local environment and development agencies.

Source. Hughes et al. (2001)

Students at University College London interview staff about their research

This example describes a project used in the first-year curriculum that requires students to interview a member of staff about their research as a possible model to link research and teaching in the university. Through a critical evaluation, which draws upon responses canvassed from students and staff, the value of the project is assessed and its scope for application within other institutions suggested.

Source. Dwyer (2001)

The research methods in geography course at University of Canterbury, New Zealand uses a problem-based learning approach

This geography research methods course focuses on research methods and the problem-based learning approach in which the students learn about research by being fully engaged in the research process. The items of assessment all involve research skills and the use of peer assessment mimics the professional research world. The use of research problems devised by an external agency adds extra motivation for the students. Students, who work on the research problem in groups, are enthusiastic and stimulated by the approach.

Source. Spronken-Smith (2003)

Students in Australia work with staff on a geological mapping project

Staff and students at Canberra College of Advanced Education have jointly been working on a regional geological mapping project in southeastern Australia since 1985. Integration of teaching and research has resulted in educational and financial benefits and has also produced a new atmosphere of cooperation and achievement for the department as a whole.

Source. McQueen, et al. (1990)

Based in part on Healey (2003)

The geography, earth and environmental sciences (GEES) group of subjects provide an intriguing test ground in which to examine the linkages between teaching and research because of the position they hold at the intersection between the natural and physical sciences, the social sciences and the arts. They cover aspects of all four discipline types (soft, hard, pure and applied) recognised by Biglan (1973). Few of the other LTSN Subject Centres provide this degree of inter-disciplinarity. However, this means that the situation is more complex than that faced by most other Subject Centres, in that there is a greater variety of ways of developing the link between teaching and research in the GEES disciplines. The intra-GEES variability, ranging from cultural geography to geochemistry, and environmental management to philosophy of geography, suggests that there is no single agreed approach to linking teaching and research in these disciplines.

The Nature of the Teaching-Research Nexus in GEES

In the original essay (Healey et al., 2003) a variety of different types of research and teaching and approaches to carrying them out are explored. In particular, attention is drawn to Boyer’s (1990) distinction between four types of scholarship - discovery, application, integration and teaching. He argued that recognition of these four types of overlapping scholarship would help overcome the futility of the research versus teaching debate and give equal recognition and reward to all the forms of scholarship undertaken by academic staff.

Griffiths (in press) takes the argument a stage further by providing a useful distinction between research-led, research-oriented, research-based, and research-informed teaching (Table 4). However, a perusal of institutional teaching and learning strategies suggests that the terms are used loosely and interchangeably. Moreover individual academics often follow a combination of these approaches in different contexts.

Table 4 Models of the teaching-research nexus

Models of the Teaching-Research Nexus

Teaching can be research-led in the sense that the curriculum is structured around subject content, and the content selected is directly based on the specialist research interests of teaching staff; teaching is based on a traditional “information transmission” model; the emphasis is on understanding research findings rather than research processes; little attempt is made to capture the two-way benefits of the research teaching relationship. Teaching can be research-oriented in the sense that the curriculum places emphasis as much on understanding the processes by which knowledge is produced in the field as on learning the codified knowledge that has been achieved; careful attention is given to the teaching of inquiry skills and on acquiring a “research ethos”; the research experiences of teaching staff are brought to bear in a more diffuse way. Teaching can be research-based in the sense that the curriculum is largely designed around inquiry-based activities, rather than on the acquisition of subject content; the experiences of staff in processes of inquiry are highly integrated into the student learning activities; the division of roles between teacher and student is minimised; the scope for two-way interactions between research and teaching is deliberately exploited. Teaching can be research-informed in the sense that it draws consciously on systematic inquiry into the teaching and learning process itself.

Source: Griffiths (in press, 11–12)

Furthermore, there is evidence that the conceptions that staff hold of research influences their approach to the research-teaching nexus.

So, for example, an academic who has a conception of research focused on the external environment (Brew, 2001) may view research-led teaching as involving students in a range of social activities mirroring research conferences, journal publications, presenting posters, engaging in teamwork and networking. Someone who has a conception of research focused internally on the analysis of data to develop an understanding, may see research-led teaching more as a process of engaging students in courses on methodology, interpretation of data etc. (University of Sydney, 2003).

Although there is little evidence of a direct correlation between research productivity and teaching excellence (Hattie and Marsh, 1996; Marsh and Hattie, 2002), the view that there is a relationship persists.

Politically, the stakes are loaded against evidence showing there is not a link between teaching and research. Neither staff, who wish to be allowed to continue to engage in both teaching and research, nor institutional managers, who want to maintain university funding based upon research and teaching, have any desire to see the link severed or weakened (Brew and Boud, 1995a, p37).

Some of this debate has been specifically about geography (Healey, 1997, 2000; Jenkins, 2000; Johnston and Cooke, 2001). On the one hand, it is contended that the best teaching and learning in geography is led by the best researchers (Cooke, 1998) and that there is a strong correlation between where the best geography research is done and where the best teaching is available (Johnston, 1996). On the other hand, it has been suggested that in the UK the competition induced by the research assessment exercise (RAE) has had deleterious effects on the quality of undergraduate teaching in geography (Jenkins, 1995).

Several writers argue that a correlation between research and teaching will only occur where the relationship is mediated through another variable or variables. Elton (1986,1992,2001) suggests that an input of scholarship, in the sense of a deep understanding of what is already known in the subject taught or researched, is the key intervening variable. A slightly different interpretation is given by Brew and Boud (1995a), who argue that any linkage between teaching and research operates through the element they have in common, the act of learning. For them research is a process of learning or discovery, while teaching is concerned with facilitating learning. This may help to explain Cooke’s (1998) contention that the best researchers make the best teachers, because “as researchers, teachers are often engaged in the same activity as their students, namely learning” (Brew and Boud, 1995b, 270) and “Both learning and research are about making meaning” (Brew, 2003, 15).

This argument is taken a stage further by Scott (2002), who argues that with the shift to a Mode 2 knowledge intensive society, all students need to be researchers and all researchers need to be teachers. Hence, for him, much of the current debate about possibly breaking the link between teaching and research is about “separating the inseparable” (p.27).

This raises the issue of the student experience of research. Most of the studies of the teaching-research nexus have focused on the experience of academic staff and whether they need to be excellent researchers to be excellent teachers. Relatively few studies have examined the perception of students of the relevance of research to their learning (Healey, Jordan et al., 2003; Jenkins et al., 1998; Neumann, 1994; Zamorski, 2002). Key findings from this research include that:

• Students perceived clear benefits from staff research, including staff enthusiasm, the credibility of staff, and the reflected glory of being taught by nationally and internationally known researchers.

• They also perceived disadvantages from staff involvement in research, particularly staff availability to students. Moreover, students had little sense of ownership / involvement in these activities, why it was taking place, and which members of staff were doing what. They did not feel staff research should take priority over their needs.

• Despite students believing themselves to be primarily recipients of research, rather than actors in its production, they recognised that their awareness of the nature of research and the development of research skills increased most when they were actively involved in undertaking research projects. The students also perceived benefits for future employment from their participation in research activities.

• Many students expressed a desire to learn more about the research and consultancy undertaken by their teachers and to find ways in which they could become more involved.

Some of these points are illustrated by the following quotes from GEES students at the University of Gloucestershire (Pell, 2003):

“I think it (staff research) does act as a catalyst for a student as well. If you know your lecturer is going to be doing research or your advisor is doing research, then obviously you want to know as much information about this particular research subject just so as you don’t look stupid in exams or in a test!”

“The [name of research unit] was quite important for me … if it’s got so much prestige then obviously if you want to work in that field, and they can link you with this department, then it’s going to be very beneficial to us.”

“Maybe they (academic staff) just need to talk about it (their research and consultancy) more, and bring the students actually into their work.”

The ease of involving students in research varies by discipline (Colbeck, 1998). This is because in terms of ease of understanding the latest research, the linear nature of knowledge in the sciences can make it more difficult to integrate the latest research findings into undergraduate classes than it is in the humanities and social sciences. In contrast the practice of using research teams in the sciences means that it is easier for an undergraduate to be given experience as a research assistant than it is in the humanities and social sciences, where the model of the lone researcher is more common. This suggests that students in human geography may find it easier to understand the latest research, but may have fewer opportunities to work alongside staff than is the case for physical geographers and earth and environmental scientists.

As with any form of teaching and learning, adopting research-based learning does not of itself lead to improved student learning. The way in which the curriculum is designed and assessed, and how it relates to the rest of the programme are critical. There are many examples of effective research-based learning in GEES (Table 2 and 3), but poorly designed exercises, which are inappropriately assessed and not linked with the rest of the course, provide little benefit to students. Consideration also should be made for students with different learning styles (Healey et al., in submission). Furthermore, allowance needs to be taken of the danger of exploiting students where they work on staff research projects and do repetitive research which goes beyond what they need to understand the subject or research techniques (University of Sydney, 2003). Strategies for benefiting student learning at individual, department and institutional levels are discussed in Jenkins et al. (2003).

Conclusion

The nature of the linkage between teaching and research in GEES is complex and contested. This is in part a function of the range of ways in which these linkages may operate, but more fundamentally reflects the fact that the nature of research, teaching and learning is changing and conceptions of them differ, both among staff and among students. The widerange of discipline types included within the GEES subjects further complicates the matter.

Following the work of Boyer (1990) and his colleagues, adopting a broader definition of research than is currently common is a way forward, which should benefit the learning of GEES students in institutions with a range of different missions. Indeed, there are signs that his call that the different forms of scholarship found in the academic enterprise (discovery, application, integration and teaching) are given fuller recognition, is beginning to receive attention in higher education policy circles in the UK (e.g. Gordon et al., 2003); and in part underlies initiatives, such as knowledge transfer funding, Centres for Excellence in Teaching and Learning, and the Higher Education Academy. Gibbs (2002) has gone further and called for the type of research undertaken to be re-oriented towards those which are likely to benefit undergraduates the most (i.e. application, integration and teaching).

Assuming the recommendations in the recent UK Higher Education White Paper (DfES, 2003) are implemented and discovery research funding becomes more concentrated in a few universities in the UK, then it is likely that other forms of scholarship will receive greater attention, particularly among the less discovery research-intensive institutions. Meanwhile, the importance of developing synergies between teaching and discovery research is likely to receive greater emphasis in research-intensive universities, particularly in the light of evidence cited by Colbeck (1998) that as much as 45 per cent of academic staff’s work-time in the United States was taken up achieving multiple goals, associated with both teaching and research.

There is an increasing amount of evidence that students may benefit from research activity, as indicated in the GEES case studies in Tables 2 and 3. It is important now that, as Brew (2003, 15) argues, “Attention should be given in curriculum design to how staff research can benefit student learning.” Involving students in research need not be restricted to the final year dissertation in the UK or the capstone course in North America, but could be integrated throughout degree programmes.

If such an active learning strategy is to become commonplace in GEES and higher education generally then the nature of higher education itself will need to be reconceptualised so that staff and students work together in what Brew (2003, 12) calls “academic communities of practice”. This she argues:

“means sharing power and it means being open to challenge. So the final question is this: are we ready to really take up the challenges of bringing research and teaching together?”

(Brew, 2003, 16)

Acknowledgement

This research was funded by the LTSN ‘Linking teaching and research through the disciplines’ project (see: www.brookes.ac.uk/genericlink/). Further outputs from the LTSN-GEES part of the projectjncluding the extended essay on this topic, discussion stimulated by the essay, 20 case studies, and an annotated bibliography, are available at: www.gees.ac.uk/linktr/linktr.htm.