The document presents a study evaluating the teaching-research nexus at Ulster University through interviews with academic staff. The study aims to understand perceptions of how research influences curriculum design and benefits students. Interviews will be conducted with 12 staff from accounting, marketing, and built environment disciplines. The findings will provide insights into strengthening links between teaching and research in different subject areas.

1. An Evaluation of the
Teaching/Research Nexus at Ulster:
A Cross-Faculty Study
Presenting:
Dr Sharon Ponsonby-McCabe
and Dr Gillian Armstrong

2. Teaching vs. Research...

3. Rationale
• Institutional Audit Team “found evidence that the
University values and is exploring facets of the
connection between teaching and research or
scholarship”. But...
“saw little systematic demonstration of the
connection…and would encourage the University
to make this a more explicit facet of its course
design monitoring, evaluation and review
processes” (QAA, 2010, p. 21)

4. Assumption
• Teaching and Research links have a positive impact
on:
– Module content
– Course content
– Student learning experience

5. The HE Context
• The ideology of a positive link (nexus) underpins the
need for HE strategies to cultivate and maintain strong
integration between these activities.
• Suggested Benefits (HEFCE, 2000):
– Direct knowledge-led benefits to student learning (accrue
when curricula are informed by cutting-edge knowledge),
– Direct culture-led benefits to student learning (accrue
where students are exposed to research culture
comprising scholarly rigour); and,
– Indirect resource-based benefits (potential to attract high-
calibre research staff to teach).

6. Ulster’s Alignment with Ideology
Mission…
• Teaching and Learning Strategy- “to provide courses
and programmes which are scholarship-informed,
and, where appropriate, research-informed, and
taught and supervised by those engaged in research
and/or scholarship”.
• Guiding Principles: “that value is attached, and
encouragement given, to scholarship in teaching, and
the scholarship of teaching with staff integrating their
own research and professional practice into all
aspects of curriculum delivery, leading to research-
informed teaching and evidence-based effective
pedagogic practice”.

7. Study Aim
• To get a sense of the nature of the
teaching/research nexus at Ulster by
undertaking a cross-faculty scoping study
(Ulster Business School; Art, Design and the
Built Environment).

8. Research Objectives
• To understand perceptions of the:
• influences on curriculum design;
• links between ‘teaching’ and ‘research’;
• links between teaching and research in practice;
• benefits of the nexus to students;
• factors which cultivate and enhance the nexus.

9. Methodology
• 3-stage process:
1. In-depth literature review examining nature of
teaching/research nexus and how it is studied;
2. Develop and pilot research instrument; and,
3. Conduct empirical study/scoping exercise.

10. Issues and Considerations
Along the Way...
• Sheer breadth of material on topic not anticipated:
– Theoretical insights have helped ‘frame’ discussions on how to
approach next stage- primary data collection
• Research ethics issues to be addressed:
– Respondent selection
– Reporting findings (internally/externally)
• Results to inform strategic thinking:
• Expansion to larger study- funding/practical implications
• Researcher reflexivity:
– Commenced project with positive assumptions about the nexus

11. Stage 1: Literature Review
• Key terminology
• Existing models
• Empirical approaches used in international studies

12. Key Findings - Stage 1
• Positive relationships supported (Newby,
1999; Zaman, 2004); and, contested (Ramsden
& Moses, 1992; Hattie & Marsh, 1996).
• Most projects study how research can impact
teaching, rather than how teaching can
impact research (Halliwell, 2008).

13. Empirical Approaches
• Most projects are Qualitative, Interpretive,
Attitudinal Studies
- examining perceptions, attitudes, conceptions,
preferences, values, outlooks of different actors
including academics (Smeby, 1998), senior academic
administrators (Neumann, 1992) and students
(Zamorski, 2002; Healey et al., 2010).
• Use case studies, interviews, focus groups, reviews of
institutional policies

14. Two Kinds of Positive Views of
T/R Relationship (Ramsden and Moses, 1992)
• Strong integrationist view – good University
teacher must be active in research
• Integrationist view - positive interconnections
at level of department or institution but not
necessarily at level of individual

15. Key Contextual Variables
• Cultural, ideological, epistemological factors
influence actual and perceived interaction
between research and teaching (Brew and
Boud, 1995; Hoddinot and Wuetherick, 2005,
2006).
• Government policy influences decision-
making in Universities (Halliwell, 2008).

16. Links?
• Contested nature of the links between
teaching and research reflect differences in:
– how terms are conceptualised;
– environmental/discipline-based cultures in which
teaching/research occur;
– views of academic tribes (Becher & Trowler, 2001)
or communities of practice (Wenger, 1998).
(Healey, 2005)

17. Links?
• “The twentieth century saw the University
change from a site in which teaching and
research stood in a reasonably comfortable
relationship with each other to one in which
they became mutually antagonistic”
(Barnett, 2003, p. 157).

18. Links?
• “The relationship between research and teaching has
been the focus of much scholarly debate. Recently, the
very existence of such a relationship has been
questioned. In addition, government policies are
undermining this defining feature of the modern
university, creating an ontological crisis for those
working in the academy. In order to understand better
how academics conceptualise the research/teaching
relation and how this in turn shapes their pedagogies,
we need a research approach that addresses individual
academic experience as a coherent whole, as well as
taking account of variation in experience across a
cohort” (Robertson, 2007, p. 541).

19. Model (Healey)
• STUDENT-FOCUSED (Students as Participants)
• TEACHER-FOCUSED (Students as Audience)
• EMPHASIS ON RESEARCH CONTENT
• EMPHASIS ON RESEARCH PROCESSES AND
PROBLEMS

20. Key Conclusions - Stage 1
• HE stakeholders continue to subscribe to notion that
teaching and research are/should be positively
related;
• Research undertaken in this area must reveal what the
researchers and participants understand by the key
concepts (e.g. research, teaching, knowledge); and,
• Meaningful interpretation of attitudinal findings
requires an ideological contextualisation of staff
perceptions in terms of departmental and institutional
variables.

21. Interviews with Academic Staff
• “In order to understand better how academics
conceptualise the research/teaching relation and how
this in turn shapes their pedagogies, we need a
research approach that addresses individual academic
experience as a coherent whole, as well as taking
account of variation in experience across a cohort”
(Robertson, 2007, p. 541).
• Academic staff from Accounting, Marketing and the
Built Environment using a semi-structured
questionnaire.

22. The interviews seek to establish:
• Key influences on curriculum design within the
disciplines;
• Staff members’ interpretation of the term ‘research’;
• Key influence of research on curriculum design;
• How research informs teaching and vice versa;
• How the integration of research and teaching benefits
students;
• Factors which might be influential in strengthening the
links between research and teaching; and,
• How the teaching/research relationship might be
positioned on Healey’s nexus model.

23. Participants
• Volunteers will be sought from each of the
following categories across the three
disciplines:
Lecturers (2 from each of the 3 disciplines) = 6
Senior Lecturer (1 from each discipline) =3
Reader/Professor (1 from each discipline) = 3
_______________________________________
TOTAL 12

24. Stage 2: Instrument Development
and Pilot
• Semi-structured interview questionnaire
designed (adapted from Krause et al. 2008; Lucas et
al. 2008)
• Two in-depth interviews conducted as pilot in
early May 2011
• Interview questionnaire refined
• Ethical approval gained

25. Stage 3: Empirical Research
• Conduct scoping interviews in late May and
during June 2011
• ‘Content analyse’ data
• Produce findings and highlight implications for
subject areas by end August 2011.

26. Concluding Discussion
• On review of the Healey model, where would
you position your teaching (plot by module)?
• What factors might strengthen the links?
• What are the constraints on the enhancement
of the links:
– in your discipline?
– for you personally?