703. UNDERGRADUATE RESEARCH AS THE NEXT GREAT FACULTY DIVIDE
March 03, 2006
Read comments[15] Add comment[!]
"There was a time not so long ago when the great faculty divide was between faculty who performed research and faculty who did not. Now, however, with most faculty engaged in research, the new line of demarcation is instead between faculty who engage students in their research and those who do not."
Read the full entry for "703. UNDERGRADUATE RESEARCH AS THE NEXT GREAT FACULTY DIVIDE"
Posted by lagace on March 3, 2006
703. UNDERGRADUATE RESEARCH AS THE NEXT GREAT FACULTY DIVIDE
March 03, 2006
Folks:
The posting below by Mitchell Malachowski, professor of chemistry, University of San Diego, looks at at the role of students in research at primarily undergraduate institutions.It is from Peer Review, Vol. 8, No. 1, Winter 2006 [http://www.aacu.org/peerreview/]. Peer Review is a publication of the Association of American Colleges and Universities [www.aacu.org/peerreview] Copyright © 2006, all rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.
Regards,
Rick Reis
reis@stanford.edu
UP NEXT: A Push for Participation
Tomorrow's Research
---------------------------------- 992 words ----------------------------------
UNDERGRADUATE RESEARCH AS THE NEXT GREAT FACULTY DIVIDE
One of the most dramatic transformations at liberal arts colleges and comprehensive universities during the past twenty-five years has been the increased expectation for faculty to generate original scholarship with publishable results. We have reached the point where many of us have difficulty remembering a time when faculty did not embrace the "teacher-scholar" model. But of course this was not always the case. University priorities clearly have evolved since John Henry Newman wrote in 1852 that a University . . . is a place of teaching universal knowledge. This implies that its object is . . . the diffusion and extension of knowledge rather than the advancement. If its object were scientific and philosophical discovery, I do not see why a University should have students. (Newman 1996)
The trend among faculty to expand their involvement in research is accelerating as faculty at four-year and even two-year colleges have increasingly embraced this approach. To support these efforts, there has been a substantial shift in how faculty spend their time, in the allocation of resources, in facilities, and in teaching loads. In addition, the increased involvement in faculty research has resulted in the formation of grants and sponsored programs, offices of graduate and undergraduate research, and technology transfer agreements.
There was a time not so long ago when the great faculty divide was between faculty who performed research and faculty who did not. Now, however, with most faculty engaged in research, the new line of demarcation is instead between faculty who engage students in their research and those who do not. Faculty scholarship tends to fall into one of two approaches: a results-oriented approach or a collaborative, process-oriented approach, with both methods including an expectation of publishable results. The results-oriented approach is taken in many disciplines where a more individual approach to scholarship is the norm. Although there may be some loose collaborations under this approach, faculty typically work singularly and publish single author papers. Students are rarely part of these efforts. A second and very different model is one in which faculty collaborate with others and the work is performed as a joint effort. This type of collaborative research frequently involves students, and when the work is published, students are coauthors of the papers. As the focus on research continues to increase among faculty, I think it is time for us to step back and ask fundamental questions about the type of research being conducted on our campuses and the impact this new priority is having on undergraduate students and student learning.
My basic premise is that there is a cultural divide springing up around how groups of faculty spend their time. Based upon the goals of their research activities, the fundamental purpose of research is quite different between these two models. In the natural sciences and the experimentally-oriented social sciences, one of the main goals of faculty research is to enhance student learning and student outcomes. For example, many private and federal funding agencies (such as the National Science Foundation) consider the impact on student learning as one of the criteria for funding. Let me be clear that I believe that all research should be of such quality that it can be, and should be, publishable, and that publication should be one of the goals of faculty scholarship, but what distinguishes this scholarship is the involvement of students.
While faculty at PhD-granting institutions have long realized the importance of faculty research on graduate students, for many faculty at predominately undergraduate institutions (PUIs), enhancing student outcomes is not one of the explicit goals of their research work. Some would argue that faculty research is beneficial for students even when that is not the stated goal, since the results of faculty research can be shared with students. This is true. Yet, it is my belief that student learning is negatively affected by faculty who take a research-oriented approach to their professional lives rather than a student-oriented one. This belief is supported by Alexander Astin (1993), who has shown that the faculty's orientation toward research and toward students reflect not only how they spend their time, but also their personal goals and values, and their interest in and accessibility to students. Astin and others have shown that the extent to which faculty are student-oriented has tremendous impact on student satisfaction, learning outcomes, and affective development. In contrast, when faculty are primarily research-oriented, student outcomes are negatively affected. For example, the divide between teaching and research at PhD-granting institutions has led the faculty to substantially distance themselves from undergraduates and undergraduate education, and this has been detrimental to student learning. Could those of us at PUIs be moving too far and too fast in this direction, and could our institutions become the functional equivalents of research universities without graduate students?
I have written elsewhere of the importance of student-centered approaches to scholarship (Malachowski 2003). Is this approach time-consuming? You bet. Is it frequently frustrating? Yes. Does it slow down results? Possibly. Is it worth doing? Without a doubt. By its very nature, undergraduate research involves both teaching and research and it plays nicely into the needs of our students for contact with faculty and the interests of the faculty to engage in scholarship.
So it is time to ask ourselves, "Do we really believe that faculty can dedicate more and more time and effort to research work that does not include students and does not explicitly seek to improve student learning and yet somehow avoid the negative outcomes enumerated by Astin and others?" I believe it is time to own up to the risks involved in our teacher-scholar models and conduct an open discussion of this issue. My call, then, is for us to reflect not only on the impact our research is having on our disciplines, departments, institutions, and careers, but also to consider the impact our research is having on our students and on student learning. We owe this to them.
References
Astin, A. 1993. What matters in college? Four critical years revisited. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Malachowski, M. 2003. A research-across-curriculum movement. In Valuing and supporting undergraduate research, ed. J. Kinkead. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 55-68.
Newman, J. H. 1996. The idea of a university. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Guidelines for posting comments:
Comments about this article: [15]
Its true. Nowadays, You barely find professors who do not research. In fact its a necessary part of faculty job, to be great in research, therefor new divide line is faculty who have great skill in teaching and the one who do not. Of course a part of teaching skill is engaging students in active researches.
Posted by: Mohammad Rastgaar on February 27, 2006 05:46 PM
As an undergraduate student at a large research university, I found my experiences working on a professor's research project probably the most direct way of getting to know them. When most of your classes are 100+ students all the way through senior year, it is very easy to graduate and not have a single professor know your name, or your work. When it comes time to apply to graduate school and other jobs, the recommendations I received were from the professor's I worked for as research assistants. I would almost say that research professor's should be REQUIRED to invlove some undergraduates in their research (of course the university should be there to back them up financially for it).
Posted by: Chipp Jansen on February 27, 2006 06:05 PM
This trend has the potential to cause discrimination between those whose research is accessible at the rudimentary level, and those of us whose research has a steep learning curve at the entry level. It takes much of a year for a graduate student to feel competent in the field that I study, where this represents his/her thesis. Most undergraduates will not have the two years of undegrduate reserach needed to attain the same status. Does this now mean that my research is not as worthy as that of others whose research includes more basic components?
Posted by: Carl Stock/Univ. of Alabama on February 27, 2006 06:11 PM
While I think this is generally true it plays out differently at universities where teaching is the primary emphasis. At our university for instance, I worry that involving students in research becomes an excuse to do 'research-lite' instead of publishable quality work. One of my colleagues was lamenting the other day about how he hasn't had a publication in the last year because of all the time he spends doing research with the students. He showed me over 20 conference papers for the same time period written with students, while complaining that he hadn't had the time to turn any of these papers into journal articles. Unfortunately (in my opinion), we are so enamoured of 'student-centeredness' that this work with students is valued over more high-level research work by the administration. I am the only person in my department not currently doing research with students. And while my colleagues would never say anything, I can feel a little pressure to involve students in my work. However, I resist involving students because my research does not easily lend itself to involving them in a meaningful way.
Posted by: Kevin Volkan/California State University Channel Islands on February 27, 2006 06:27 PM
As an 'academic development' staff member and a researcher in the sociology of pharmacy education, I found both Kevin Volkan and Carl Stock's comments rang bells. In the Education Faculty we are under huge pressure to publish more (compared to the sciences the social science and humanities faculties have much lower publication rates ) and I sense that it this that leads to 'light research' just as much as the task of involving u/g students in projects. That said, in our Pharmacy Faculty u/g students have been involved in research projects for some time, and they know that it is highly unlikely that they will be involved 'from start to finish, but they do get the opportunity to joining in some research, experiencing the slog and the insight & excitement of discovery / understanding. The fact that they are involved in small portions does not mean that they get their names on publications, unless they make a substantive contribution (defined in each project beforehand), but it does serve as an excellent learning opportunity. One other (brief) point - we need to interrogate "student centredness" far more carefully, I think, than is often the case. What determines 'student centredness'? Surely more than lots of student time-on-project?
Posted by: Kevin Williams, Rhodes University, South Africa on February 28, 2006 02:11 AM
To Kevin Williams,
Yes, I heard those "ringing bells" from the earlier posts also. Perhaps the problem exists inherently in a system composed of administrators and professors that value research and publishing over teaching and quality mentorship. This is particularly the case at Research I universities. The primary focus of the hard sciences in academia has shifted to be one more similar to that of private industry, again almost solely on the research/end-product. I think that this emerging system fuels professors to be more self-promoting, career-centric entrepreneurs, rather than student-centric, mentors of scholarship.
Posted by: Elena / University of Colorado Boulder on March 2, 2006 09:00 PM
I never understood the need for faculty at second or third tier schools to clutter the refered journals with junk. Who trult reads most of what is published from the promotion and tenure process?
Having a brilliant idea published is praiseworthy but most of us don't have that many good ideas.
Also if we are to take seriously using undergraduates in our research, especially at PUI's (GREAT!!! ANOTHER BUZZ WORD!), how do we pick them from the few students who have the ability and interest?
I'm not going to argue against research for faculty who are good at it but given the importance of teaching our undergraduates we must not short change them. Besides, given the talent pool and preparedness of our current undergraduates using them as a valuable research tool is very chancy. How much effort does your school expend on remediation???
Better to stimulate research WITHIN our classes by assigments and stop worrying about publishing.
Posted by: Vincent Marchionni (semi-retired) on March 3, 2006 04:32 PM
I concur with Vincent’s tangential comment about “brilliant ideas.� I must say that so much of what I’ve read recently in my field has suggested a glut of synonyms for the same constructs. Researchers come up with the same findings or results as previous studies, yet feel the need to label ideas/constructs with new jargon to be able to claim they’ve added to the literature (and therefore be published). Confusion over similar or same constructs increases exponentially as we consider researchers in other fields who may also explore the same theories or constructs as situated in their field of expertise.
Posted by: Lori/UGA on March 3, 2006 11:35 PM
I concur with Vincent’s tangential comment about “brilliant ideas.� I must say that so much of what I’ve read recently in my field has suggested a glut of synonyms for the same constructs. Researchers come up with the same findings or results as previous studies, yet feel the need to label ideas/constructs with new jargon to be able to claim they’ve added to the literature (and therefore be published). Confusion over similar or same constructs increases exponentially as we consider researchers in other fields who may also explore the same theories or constructs as situated in their field of expertise.
Posted by: Lori/UGA on March 3, 2006 11:36 PM
I am a born researcher. I find few things more satisfying in life.
As an undergraduate student, the professors I remember most (heck, those I remember at all) were the ones who supported me doing research in and out of classes and who talked to me about my research, made contributions to my research methodology, and really cared about me and my research.
The good faculty are those who engage the research of ALL their students, not just the doctoral candidates.
Posted by: Russell D. James on March 3, 2006 11:38 PM
I concur with Vincent’s tangential comment about “brilliant ideas.� I must say that so much of what I’ve read recently in my field has suggested a glut of synonyms for the same constructs. Researchers come up with the same findings or results as previous studies, yet feel the need to label ideas/constructs with new jargon to be able to claim they’ve added to the literature (and therefore be published). Confusion over similar or same constructs increases exponentially as we consider researchers in other fields who may also explore the same theories or constructs as situated in their field of expertise.
Posted by: Lori/UGA on March 3, 2006 11:40 PM
I like the idea of including your students in your research efforts as a professor. It is an art to conduct meaningful research and teach well. It takes good organizational skills, commitment to your profession, and a curiousity about the unknown. One of the most positive outcomes of involving students in research efforts is the power of role modeling. Perhaps those students will go on to embrace higher education and create a ripple effect. What qualities make an effective teacher? And/or outstanding researcher? I am curious to know from your perspective.
Posted by: Margaret Maag on March 5, 2006 03:41 PM
As the author of the article under discussion, I wanted to respond to a few of the comments. Kevin Williams brings up the question of what it means to be "student centered." If you want to probe what this means, I recommend you read the work on student learning by Alexander Astin and/or Terenzini and Pascarella. In a nutshell though, I use this term to the way Astin does which is a rough measure of how faculty spend their time and their attitudes and beliefs about students. It is as much a state of mind as anything else. As to how this plays out in research, if you are not engaging your students in your work, and your research takes you away from your students, and you become less student centered, the research is having a negative effect on your students and student learning. The educational literature is very clear on this issue.
Carl Stock asks if his research, which has a very high learning curve and therefore is not amenable to undergraduates, is not as worthy as research that can engage undergraduates. I am afraid that I would have to answer that at a predominately undergraduate institution, it is not as worthy. Again, it will have negative consequences on students so I argue that all faculty at undergraduate institutions who are research active should involve students in their work. I am arguing that the way that faculty can remain research active and at the same time take care of their students is to engage them in their research.
Kevin Volkan calls some of this work "research lite." That certainly can happen but I find it not to be that much of an issue as schools increase their tenure expectations to include publications. As this happens, research-lite is not going to get you anywhere fast so faculty will learn to engage students in meaningful work that is capable of being published in peer-reviewed publications. There are hundreds and hundreds of examples of faculty who do this every year in every discipline.
Posted by: Mitch Malachowski/University of San Diego on March 6, 2006 12:49 PM
Comments on 703:
Should there be research at places with undergraduate teaching begs many questions. The question is based on the stated and unstated aspects of the models we have for teaching as well as research. Even in institutes of higher learning, we find this question echoing wherein research is primarily viewed as a ‘self-centered’ activity while teaching itself is promoted as a ‘selfless’ activity. In a ‘selfish’ model of research, the teacher is preoccupied with himself, in his research problems, in getting grants, in getting peer acceptance, in attending and arranging the relevant professional meeting/conferences and so on. Whatever time is left is left for teaching in which he receives little professional honour, has restricted mobility career-wise and less bargaining powers with the powers that be in the institute where he serves. His preoccupation could be considerably aided by assumed or observed superciliousness, disinterest in communicating with his peers who do not share similar interests, which could spread even to the students. On the other hand we have the amiable ‘all-the-time’ teacher, who concentrates only on students, his activities revolving around and faithful to those who are responsible for the bread he eats and who serves a very social purpose of catering to the young.
Given the dichotomy in the psyche of the teacher and the researcher, auxiliary questions surface such as the place of authorship for undergraduate students. Do such undergraduates also dissociate themselves from the rest of the lower classes of students or do they enhance the teaching programme by their activities? Also the attitudes differ in professional courses as opposed to sciences and humanities where certain minimal skill acquisition is a critical part of the common training.
What needs to be examined is the role of a teacher. If it is to impart training and propagation of knowledge, not its creation, we are denying one aspect of education, the need for thought. What we do not like in modern day research is that a lot of research is professional and does not have a context other than ‘dog eat dog’ style of functioning. It is time we ask whether the time spent in grant preparation is commensurate with actual work of a researcher/teacher? The same goes for publications. While it may be true that every research paper finds some journals fit to print it, it is also true that the information explosion claimed today finds a lot being actively distilled away since a lot of information is ephemeral. A great deal of publications are unnecessary and a great deal of efforts in publication are even more unnecessary. The sociology of science has not begun even to examine seriously how we have created deliberate dichotomies to keep people out of participation and this ‘police state’ approach to the academia has led to excessive wastage of time, inability to allow participation of the younger and a self-centered style of functioning. Remove the cause…you find the debate evaporating. It is not easy.
To paraphrase Whitehead, there are basically active, fertile ideas as opposed to inert ideas. A lot that we learn at the lower levels of schooling and college are these inert ideas since these make the rules of the game while the game itself is active and invigorating. Very little research deals with fertile and active ideas since much of professional, paradigmatic research is also inert or normative. The question is not so much as what makes the basis of tenure or whether undergraduate student research is to be published with them as coauthors or whether teaching as a primary occupation is a major purpose of an undergraduate teacher. If the institutes of higher learning kill access to students and learning, it is indicative of deep schisms within the social fabric of the academia where a value system has been allowed to develop that requires this isolationism and by making demands on their time for activities that do not bear fruit either for themselves or for their students.
Once we allow the younger to participate in research, very interesting dilemmas begin to appear. Basically we know how to handle a good student who is productive and knows his stuff. He produces good work nobody sees anything wrong with it. Then there is the miserable fellow who is good neither in his studies nor in his research and we know what to do also. We do not reward him and nobody raises an eyebrow. Then there is this active group into which a low level student gravitates largely by fluke and does something which is very good (under guidance, of course, of the selfish teacher) of which he has not the faintest idea. What do we do? Reward him or not?
My interest here is not to answer this and many similar questions we face as teachers as well as researchers. But these happenstances create conflicts in ethics of research, participation and publication and offer a rich background for an examination of our own souls. That is really the purpose of a teaching institution, where ‘higher’ learning has connotations beyond the order of the equation being solved. There are also dangers. The last one who indulged in such debates was asked to drink hemlock
Posted by: v. sitaramam, university of pune, pune, india on March 7, 2006 05:25 AM
I like this idea of undergraduate research. This will creat many working minds. As the result science will take over all religions and communities. It will creat a new line of demarcation as well as tai up between future and present.
Posted by: Swapnil Topre on May 2, 2007 03:10 AM