SCASS CONFERENCE 1994

WORKSHOPS

Research and Teaching

Report by Drs Ronald Barnett and Peter Kitson

1. There was uncertainty occasioned by the changing priorities between teaching and research. Participants talked of their experience of being asked to give priority to teaching and then research or vice versa. Concern over the pressures imposed by the forthcoming REA was also voiced and the ways in which elements were to be assessed. Some comment was made about the legacy of the CNAA in some of the new universities, where course preparation and validation remains a very thorough and time-consuming process. A number of colleagues spoke of their experience of work in their own individual institutions and the pressures place upon them by management to produce various kinds of research and teach in certain ways.

2. The changing character of the labour force in the profession was observed, including the growing use of part-time staff and postgraduate assistants, especially for first year courses. It was felt that this might lead to the marginalisation of first year teaching. The majority opinion was of the view that this casualisation of the profession reduced standards of teaching, although several participants wished to distinguish between part-time and postgraduate assistants. It was felt that the latter can provide excellent teaching as well as appearing more approachable to undergraduates. It was also felt that the provision of this teaching for postgraduates was an important way of providing experience for those wishing to embark on an academic career. One participant reported very favourably his institution's experience of the Graduate Teaching Assistantship scheme, which provided good quality, enthusiastic teaching. Generally, however, the growing reliance on part-time teaching staff was felt to be a matter for concern, given the low level of support for students which part-time staff would be able to provide.

3. Tensions between research and teaching were also debated. Although the closeness of the relationship between research and teaching was perhaps over-estimated, it was felt that the gap between the two elements of professional life was widening. Increasingly, research was being driven by funding requirements and in some cases determined mechanically by this process, in terms of topics, approaches and conceptual frameworks. There was a sense that research in the humanities was being influence by models adapted from science. It was felt that this was unfortunate for the humanities where significant research took on a particular character. Some colleagues reported the general policy preference for applied research in the humanities. As fewer and fewer undergraduates and postgraduates entered the academic profession and as the curriculum broadened to embrace wider objectives, the research/teaching gap would widen. It was pointed out that, within modular schemes, it was possible to run special undergraduate courses or modules close to research interests. Some, however, felt that modular systems worked mechanically and inflexibly, and were depriving members of staff of the freedom to develop their own teaching and research interests.

4. On the teaching side, it was generally felt that the expansion of higher education had resulted in wide-ranging changes to the undergraduate population, producing a body of undergraduates with less contextual knowledge and few learning skills than had been the case. This was also reflected in increased numbers of mature students and European students, for whom a common platform of knowledge could not be assumed. The feeling was expressed that the quality of the learning experience offered to students was changing. In some sectors there was more reliance on the 50 minute lecture to cope with numbers at the same time that evidence was accruing that this strategy was pedagogically unsound. In response to increased pressures, staff were perhaps becoming less accessible and less 'customer-friendly'. The benefits of teaching mature students were noted: their levels of motivation and positive outlook could be a resource for improving the general quality of the student experience. Generally, however, it was felt that the student experience was declining and would be further degraded over time.

5. Areas mentioned but not substantially debated due to the exigencies of time included:
   • the notion of the student as client or customer;
   • the impact of new technologies on teaching and research (using modern technology as a teaching device);
   • quality assessment and its value;
   • the use of numerical performance indicators drawn from a science-based agenda;
   • the issue of the research community's interrelationship with the wider community.

6. In conclusion, while the relationship between research and teaching may be generally held to be much closer than it is, nonetheless the combination of current policy shifts by national bodies and evolving managerial practices within institutions is likely to drive teaching and research further apart. Especially in the Humanities and the Social Sciences, such a separation is likely to have a negative impact on teaching and research alike.