View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Teaching/Research Relations in Departments: The Perspectives of Built Environment Academics

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Teaching/Research Relations in Departments: The Perspectives of Built Environment Academics
Language: English
Authors: Durning, Bridget, Jenkins, Alan
Source: Studies in Higher Education. Aug 2005 30(4):407-426.
Availability: Customer Services for Taylor & Francis Group Journals, 325 Chestnut Street, Suite 800, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420 (Toll Free); Fax: 215-625-8914.
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 20
Publication Date: 2005
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Evaluative
Education Level: Higher Education
Descriptors: Teacher Effectiveness, Physical Environment
ISSN: 0307-5079
Abstract: This article presents an analysis of the perceptions of built environment academics in four post-1992 universities in the UK on teaching/research relations. Whilst set in particular departments, institutions and disciplines, it addresses issues that are of central concern worldwide. This study indicates that securing effective teaching/research links is potentially vital for ensuring that students learn of the complexity of knowledge and develop high order academic and "professional" skills. However, it also demonstrates how issues of department organisation and culture - in particular the effective policy separation between teaching and research - result in failures to support staff to achieve potential synergies between these activities. Evidence is also provided that, in built environment disciplines there are distinctive features of teaching/research relations that need to be considered in department policies (and national funding). This study questions the policies of those governments and institutions that in effect seek to separate teaching from research. However, it leaves uncertain the extent to which all staff need to be involved in high-level research, or whether "scholarship" is adequate to effectively underpin student learning in these disciplines.
Abstractor: Author
Number of References: 26
Entry Date: 2005
Access URL: https://taylorandfrancis.metapress.com/link.asp?target=contribution&id=K344184778348525
Accession Number: EJ691454
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwGEuI-MCnnZPJLlLdtWgNTkAAAA4TCB3gYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHQMIHNAgEAMIHHBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDHv5TbDtJqf8_ksYQQIBEICBmTyRMZCHSSTO-hIghOmjTW_uWdM92BciLInVSakwut8ia_45cPxqBR1pe1v6sVnc_0N6atdD1V6qRgfuLtDJrpImeQcV1k6bixenPnZyU9O-2h_7W_nw0IQcRHWlQtgjLWitR20dF2tksLmiljgE5GsK5tEVrfv07swxMQqOjdTI4-oMjWGLpnTaz-2uHtDw8BTN7FXVjM44NQ==
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0017575645;she01aug.05;2019Mar19.12:40;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0017575645-1">Teaching/research relations in departments: the perspectives of built environment academics. </title> <sbt id="AN0017575645-2">Introduction</sbt> <p>This article presents an analysis of the perceptions of built environment academics in four post‐1992 universities in the UK on teaching/research relations. Whilst set in particular departments, institutions and disciplines, it addresses issues that are of central concern worldwide. This study indicates that securing effective teaching/research links is potentially vital for ensuring that students learn of the complexity of knowledge and develop high order academic and 'professional' skills. However, it also demonstrates how issues of department organisation and culture—in particular the effective policy separation between teaching and research—result in failures to support staff to achieve potential synergies between these activities. Evidence is also provided that, in built environment disciplines there are distinctive features of teaching/research relations that need to be considered in department policies (and national funding). This study questions the policies of those governments and institutions that in effect seek to separate teaching from research. However, it leaves uncertain the extent to which all staff need to be involved in high‐level research, or whether 'scholarship' is adequate to effectively underpin student learning in these disciplines.</p> <p>This article presents an analysis of the perceptions of built environment academics in four post‐1992 universities in the UK on teaching/research relations. Whilst set in particular departments, institutions and disciplines, it addresses issues that are of central concern to academics, institutions and national systems worldwide. In particular the article asks:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> • What do academics conceive as the relationships between teaching and research?</item> <p></p> <item> • Is the 'link' between teaching and research to be valued?</item> <p></p> <item> • Do disciplines affect the nature of teaching/research relations?</item> <p></p> <item> • What are the issues staff experience within their departments that support or threaten them in establishing effective links between these 'two' activities?</item> <p></p> <item> • What are the implications of these findings for future research, practice and policy?</item> </ulist> <p>Before answering these questions, we set the study in the perspective of previous research on teaching/research relations, and explain the study context and research methodology.</p> <hd id="AN0017575645-3">Previous research perspectives</hd> <p>For many academic staff their sense of what is 'effective' teaching is one where there are close connections between (staff) research and student learning; what Universities UK ([<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref1">25</reflink>], p. 5) describes as 'the vital interdependence of teaching and research'.</p> <p>However, many of the conclusions from the existing extensive research and scholarly literature on teaching/research relations suggest otherwise: e.g. the 'common belief that teaching and research were inextricably intertwined is an enduring myth. At best teaching and research are very loosely coupled' (Hattie & Marsh, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref2">10</reflink>], p. 529). The research evidence which underpins these conclusions is largely statistical, generally analysing, at the level of the individual, measures of research 'productivity' and teaching 'quality'. However, governments in the UK and elsewhere have selectively used this research to justify separating teaching and research, and to argue that teaching 'quality' is not dependent on research 'quality'. In the UK in 2003 a government White Paper on the future of higher education (Department for Education and Skills [DfES], [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref3">7</reflink>], p. 54), using the conclusion of Hattie and Marsh as support, argued:</p> <p>It is clear that good scholarship, in the sense of remaining aware of the latest research and thinking within a subject, is essential for good teaching, but not that it is necessary to be active in cutting‐edge research to be an excellent teacher.</p> <p>However, there are other interpretations of and perspectives on the research evidence. These include the conclusion from a large Australian study, across a range of institutions and disciplines, that the statistical research, while cautioning us as to the intrinsic existence of the link, 'in no way refutes the proposition that the continuing study of and intellectual curiosity about a subject is necessary for effective teaching. Our results indicate that the simple model of more research, therefore better teaching is suspect' (Ramsden & Moses, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref4">20</reflink>], pp. 292–293). Furthermore, Hattie and Marsh ([<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref5">10</reflink>], p. 533) actually recommended that 'Universities need to set as a mission goal the improvement of the nexus between research and teaching. The aim is to increase the circumstances in which teaching and research have occasion to meet' (this recommendation was omitted from the UK White Paper). Other research, both qualitative and quantitative, has pointed to the limitations of much of the largely statistical research focusing solely on the 'qualities' of individual academics (see Jenkins <emph>et al.</emph> [[<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref6">14</reflink>]] and Jenkins [[<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref7">11</reflink>]] for reviews of this evidence).</p> <p>Other recent research has considered different aspects of the teaching/research relationship. One strand has explored the student experience of (staff) research in order to better aid academics in ensuring that students are 'stakeholders' in that research (Jenkins <emph>et al.</emph>, [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref8">13</reflink>]; Lindsay <emph>et al.</emph>, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref9">16</reflink>]; Zamorski, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref10">26</reflink>]). Central to this study's themes, other researchers have developed understandings of the disciplinary, departmental and institutional contexts in which teaching and research are linked (or not). Colbeck ([<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref11">6</reflink>]) analysed the staff experience in physics and English in two contrasting US departments, one in a high prestige institute and one in a more 'comprehensive' institute, and concluded that the nature of the discipline was central to shaping staff's perceptions of whether teaching and research merged 'into a seamless blend'. In physics, the focus on team‐based research better enabled (undergraduate) student involvement in staff research. In English, the boundaries between research, scholarship and teaching were more blurred, enabling closer connections between staff research and the content of the curriculum. Colbeck also showed how issues of department culture, in particular what 'counted' as research, could enable or block staff in forging productive connections. The importance of the discipline in shaping the nature of the relations is also a feature of Rowland's ([<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref12">22</reflink>]) study of department heads across Sheffield University in the UK, and Robertson and Bond's ([<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref13">21</reflink>]) study of individual staff at the University of Canterbury, New Zealand.</p> <p>Other research has pointed, as did Colbeck, to issues of departmental organisation and culture as profound shapers of teaching/research relations. A study conducted as part of the UK 2000 Fundamental Review of Research concluded that 'We found little evidence to suggest that synergies between teaching and research were managed or promoted at departmental or institutional level ... some strategies may be having the unintended consequence of driving research and teaching apart for some staff' (J.M Consulting, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref14">15</reflink>], p. 36). Relatedly, Coate <emph>et al.</emph> ([<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref15">5</reflink>], p. 162) showed that departmental managers found 'it is more convenient for teaching and research activities to be treated as separate activities. On an academic level, however, managers would rather perceive the two to be synergistic'.</p> <hd id="AN0017575645-4">The research study context</hd> <p>This research originated in a project entitled 'Linking Teaching with Research and Consultancy in Planning, Land and Property Management and Building' (Project LINK). This was a national project funded (2000‐04) through the (UK) Fund for the Development of Teaching and Learning (FDTL) to identify, develop and disseminate good practice in linking teaching with research and consultancy in the related disciplines of town and country planning, land and property management, and building/construction. The widening of the perspective to include the link with consultancy reflected the particular concerns of these practice‐based disciplines, where the nature of the boundary and relationship between 'research' and 'consultancy' are a feature of national Quality Assurance Agency subject reviews and disciplinary discussions. The project was undertaken by a consortium from Oxford Brookes, Sheffield Hallam, West of England and Westminster universities.</p> <p>At the start of the project, as the project partner departments embarked on the task of identifying good practice, we realised we needed a research‐based perspective to shape our activities, as the available research, with its focus on the qualities of individuals, gave us a limited basis for action. We considered we needed to understand how staff understood and experienced 'linking teaching and research and consultancy', and the institutional, departmental and disciplinary contexts in which they worked.</p> <hd id="AN0017575645-5">Research methodology: the use of department 'focus groups'</hd> <p>As Project LINK's immediate focus was on the built environment departments in the consortium partner institutes, we decided to research those departments, although we recognised that, as these are in 'post‐1992' universities, this perhaps limited the 'immediate' transferability of the findings to 'research‐intensive' institutions (in the UK there is a basic 'division' between what might be considered as 'established' or 'research‐intensive' universities and the largely ex‐polytechnics which were designated universities in 1992 and which have a more limited research base). As our aim was to understand both individual and collective views, a discussion‐based methodology was considered most appropriate. By involving staff in the departments in the project the research was likely to act as a change process. We therefore decided to use open department meetings as, in effect, large 'focus groups'.</p> <p>The meetings were held in November and December 2000 and each chaired by a different member of the project consortium. To provide consistency a 'briefing note' was devised (Project LINK [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref16">18</reflink>]) which provided common questions and guidelines. The questions were derived from the project team's then collective understanding of the issues identified from the then existing research in this area. The key questions posed were:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> • What do you understand are the key questions or issues about linking teaching with research and consultancy?</item> <p></p> <item> • Do you consider it important to link teaching with research and teaching with consultancy?</item> <p></p> <item> • What do you as course teams (and individuals) do to link teaching with research? And teaching with consultancy?</item> <p></p> <item> • What do you see are the factors that help you to link teaching with research? And teaching with consultancy?</item> <p></p> <item> • What do you see are the factors that hinder or prevent you to link teaching with research? And teaching with consultancy?</item> <p></p> <item> • In what ways could the department help to foster better links between teaching and research and consultancy?</item> </ulist> <p>Clearly, the questions posed largely determine the data obtained. It is important to note that we purposefully did not define terms such as research, consultancy and scholarship, but took them as terms over which staff had broad common understanding and which also could be 'unpacked' through the discussions.</p> <p>Five focus groups were held in total, with two being run at Oxford Brookes University. At the time (2000), the School of Planning at Oxford Brookes was separate from the School of Architecture (which incorporated estate [land and property] management and building/construction), and for ease of administration a focus group was held in each School.</p> <p>Each focus group lasted some 90 minutes and participants were guaranteed anonymity. The focus groups captured the opinions of a total of 53 teaching and/or research staff and students. A breakdown of the composition of each of the focus groups by gender, employment and discipline is given in Table 1.</p> <p>Table 1. Composition of focus groups.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><td /><td>School of Architecture<xref ref-type="fn" rid="fn1" />, Oxford Brookes University</td><td>School of Planning<xref ref-type="fn" rid="fn1" />, Oxford Brookes University</td><td>School of Environment, Design and Development, Sheffield Hallam University</td><td>Faculty of the Built Environment, University of the West of England</td><td>School of the Built Environment, University of Westminster</td><td>Total</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>No. of members in focus group</td><td>10</td><td>20</td><td>9</td><td>8</td><td>6</td><td>53</td></tr><tr><td>No. of males</td><td>8</td><td>14</td><td>4</td><td>7</td><td>3</td><td>36</td></tr><tr><td>No. of females</td><td>2</td><td>6</td><td>5</td><td>1</td><td>3</td><td>17</td></tr><tr><td>No. of senior staff (Professors and Heads)</td><td>1</td><td>3</td><td>2</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>7</td></tr><tr><td>No. of teaching staff</td><td>10</td><td>11</td><td>8</td><td>7</td><td>6</td><td>42</td></tr><tr><td>No. of research staff/students</td><td>0</td><td>9</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>11</td></tr><tr><td>Planning staff</td><td>0</td><td>20</td><td>2</td><td>3</td><td>4</td><td>29</td></tr><tr><td>REM staff</td><td>6</td><td>0</td><td>2</td><td>2</td><td>1</td><td>11</td></tr><tr><td>CM staff</td><td>4</td><td>0</td><td>5</td><td>2</td><td>1</td><td>12</td></tr><tr><td>Other disciplines:</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>RAE scores</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Built Environment (UoA33)</td><td>4</td><td /><td>3a</td><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Town and Country Planning (U0A 34)</td><td /><td>4</td><td>4</td><td>3a</td><td>3a</td><td /></tr><tr><td /></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>The meetings were taped and transcribed and read separately by the two authors and Glynis Cousin of Warwick University, the project evaluator, to identify key themes and issues. Data handling at this stage was considerably eased by the use of qualitative data analysis software. The data was coded (i.e. assigned to a 'theme'), and reports containing data for each theme produced. We then separately read the reports to arrive at the collective understanding presented here. This was then read by a senior researcher in this area—Angela Brew of Sydney University—to further verify our analysis.</p> <hd id="AN0017575645-6">The overall results</hd> <p>The use of data analysis software to aid the data handling allowed statistical data to be recorded on the proportion of text assigned to each theme. This quantitative analysis shows some slight variation between institutions in the relative amount of discussion allocated to each theme (Table 2). But overall there is a strong commonality in themes across the four institutions. The specific themes identified were:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> • <emph>What it means to link teaching and research and consultancy</emph>—includes: concepts of what it means to link teaching and research; what is research; examples of how it is done.</item> <p></p> <item> • <emph>Academic identity/labour</emph>—is the link an essential part of being a teacher in higher education?</item> <p></p> <item> • <emph>Student</emph>—do students perceive benefits and examples of how they are involved in research and consultancy?</item> <p></p> <item> • <emph>Consultancy vs. research</emph>—comments and discussions on the relative importance of the two.</item> <p></p> <item> • <emph>Level</emph>—it is harder at undergraduate, easier at postgraduate level, etc.</item> <p></p> <item> • <emph>Discipline issues</emph>—the difference between the three disciplines and how it might be different in other disciplines.</item> <p></p> <item> • <emph>RAE and funding</emph>—the effect that (national) funding can have on teaching/research relationships.</item> <p></p> <item> • <emph>Professional influence</emph>—the effects of professional bodies.</item> <p></p> <item> • <emph>Old–new university</emph>—are there differences between pre‐ and post‐1992 universities?</item> <p></p> <item> • <emph>Communication</emph>—is there effective communication of research being carried out in the Schools?</item> <p></p> <item> • <emph>Curriculum</emph>—where the link influences or is influenced by the curriculum.</item> <p></p> <item> • <emph>Scholarly activity</emph>—it is part of scholarly activity to link.</item> <p></p> <item> • <emph>Time</emph>—a factor in effecting the link.</item> <p></p> <item> • <emph>Cutting edge</emph>—comments on impacts of (some) staff being involved in 'high‐level' research.</item> <p></p> <item> • <emph>Staff as learners</emph>—comments expressed on whether staff experienced research as a learning process for themselves.</item> <p></p> <item> • <emph>Conflict</emph>—where the focus group members disagree.</item> <p></p> <item> • <emph>Use of metaphors</emph>—where staff used metaphors in their discussions.</item> </ulist> <p>Table 2. Quantitative data for main themes in text</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><td /><td>School of Architecture, Oxford Brookes University</td><td /><td>School of Planning, Oxford Brookes University</td><td /><td>School of Environment, Design and Development, Sheffield Hallam University</td><td /><td>Faculty of the Built Environment, University of the West of England</td><td /><td>School of the Built Environment, University of Westminster</td><td /><td>Total</td><td /></tr><tr><td>Theme</td><td>Text units<xref ref-type="fn" rid="fn2" /></td><td>% text</td><td>Text units</td><td>% text</td><td>Text units</td><td>% text</td><td>Text units</td><td>% text</td><td>Text units</td><td>% text</td><td>Total number of text units</td><td>% total text</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>What it means to link teaching and research<xref ref-type="fn" rid="fn2" /></td><td>219</td><td>33</td><td>154</td><td>28</td><td>128</td><td>24</td><td>104</td><td>21</td><td>204</td><td>48</td><td>809</td><td>30.8</td></tr><tr><td>Academic identity—labour</td><td>57</td><td>8.5</td><td>70</td><td>13</td><td>111</td><td>21</td><td>119</td><td>24</td><td>34</td><td>8.1</td><td>391</td><td>15</td></tr><tr><td>Student</td><td>127</td><td>19</td><td>66</td><td>12</td><td>20</td><td>3.8</td><td>47</td><td>9.5</td><td>135</td><td>32</td><td>395</td><td>15</td></tr><tr><td>Consultancy vs. research</td><td>70</td><td>10</td><td>43</td><td>7.9</td><td>26</td><td>4.9</td><td>78</td><td>16</td><td>23</td><td>5.5</td><td>240</td><td>9</td></tr><tr><td>Level</td><td>23</td><td>3.4</td><td>31</td><td>5.7</td><td>48</td><td>9.1</td><td>47</td><td>9.5</td><td>66</td><td>16</td><td>215</td><td>8.1</td></tr><tr><td>Discipline issues</td><td>63</td><td>9.4</td><td>19</td><td>3.5</td><td>3</td><td>0.57</td><td>35</td><td>7</td><td>24</td><td>5.7</td><td>144</td><td>5.4</td></tr><tr><td>RAE and funding</td><td>33</td><td>4.7</td><td>25</td><td>4.6</td><td>14</td><td>2.7</td><td>26</td><td>5.2</td><td>10</td><td>2.4</td><td>108</td><td>4.1</td></tr><tr><td>Use of metaphors</td><td>51</td><td>7.6</td><td>18</td><td>3.3</td><td>13</td><td>2.5</td><td>14</td><td>2.8</td><td>10</td><td>2.4</td><td>106</td><td>4</td></tr><tr><td>Professional influence</td><td>12</td><td>1.8</td><td>15</td><td>2.8</td><td>23</td><td>4.4</td><td>24</td><td>4.8</td><td>11</td><td>2.6</td><td>85</td><td>3.2</td></tr><tr><td>Old–new university</td><td>17</td><td>2.5</td><td>11</td><td>2</td><td>8</td><td>1.5</td><td>29</td><td>5.8</td><td>13</td><td>3.1</td><td>78</td><td>2.9</td></tr><tr><td>Communication</td><td>3</td><td>0.45</td><td>18</td><td>3.3</td><td>36</td><td>6.8</td><td>3</td><td>0.6</td><td>12</td><td>2.8</td><td>72</td><td>2.7</td></tr><tr><td>Curriculum</td><td>10</td><td>1.5</td><td>0</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>0.57</td><td>49</td><td>9.9</td><td>1</td><td>0.24</td><td>63</td><td>2.4</td></tr><tr><td>Scholarly activity</td><td>2</td><td>0.3</td><td>4</td><td>0.74</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>50</td><td>10</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>56</td><td>2.2</td></tr><tr><td>Time</td><td>8</td><td>1.2</td><td>8</td><td>1.5</td><td>2</td><td>0.38</td><td>15</td><td>3</td><td>4</td><td>0.95</td><td>37</td><td>1.4</td></tr><tr><td>Cutting edge</td><td>3</td><td>0.45</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>20</td><td>4</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>23</td><td>0.87</td></tr><tr><td>Conflict</td><td>6</td><td>0.9</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>14</td><td>2.8</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>20</td><td>0.75</td></tr><tr><td>Staff as learners</td><td>1</td><td>0.15</td><td>5</td><td>0.92</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>8</td><td>1.6</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>14</td><td>0.53</td></tr><tr><td /></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Based on the (statistical) analysis, we then considered how our analysis/reading of this focus group data resonated with issues that have been identified in previous research and policy literature. From the above detailed themes four 'meta' issues were identified:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> arabic What do staff see as the relationships ('links') between teaching and research?</item> <p></p> <item> arabic Is the link to be valued?</item> <p></p> <item> arabic Does the discipline shape the relationships?</item> <p></p> <item> arabic How do issues of departmental (and institutional) organisation and culture affect teaching/research relations?</item> </ulist> <p>Taking each of these meta‐issues in turn, we present the perceptions of the built environment academics. To ensure anonymity each of the five focus groups has been allocated a code.</p> <hd id="AN0017575645-7">1 What do staff see as the relationships between teaching and research?</hd> <p>In the statistical analysis, across the focus groups some 30% of time was spent on staff exploring their perceptions of teaching/research relations. Perhaps, as this was the first area explored in all groups, this in part explains the time 'recorded'. But even when those chairing wanted to move staff on, the participants resisted and also returned to this theme at many stages throughout the focus group discussions. This was an issue they wanted to explore; partly because in these departments this was an issue implicitly known rather than formally or informally discussed. Also, exploration was needed because the 'focus group' format clearly revealed that individual staff held very different conceptions both of what was meant by linking teaching and research, and of what is meant by 'teaching' and by 'research' (this issue has also been considered elsewhere by others [Brew, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref17">1</reflink>]]). As we analysed the transcripts, key concepts relating to this meta‐issue emerged. The concepts below have been identified as those most dominant in the discussions (and of course individuals could hold more than one of these conceptions). Identifying these concepts helped us to move beyond the understanding of teaching/research relations presented by the summary statistical measures of research and teaching 'quality'.</p> <p>It should be stated that staff saw the issue of the relationship between teaching and research as complex. The process itself of departmental discussions, which involve listening to others' perceptions as well as stating one's own, encouraged this perception of complexity. But staff also benefited from understanding and recognising that the issue is complex. Two participants effectively summarised this aspect of the discussions:</p> <p>There are lots of different things that we may call research and it may be that they relate to the teaching and learning process in different ways. (Focus Group D)</p> <p>You can't just say teaching and learning; you have to say about teaching and learning at different levels. (Focus Group D).</p> <p>Relating to this meta‐issue, the discussions revolved around three dominant areas which represented what these staff understood as the relationship or ways of linking teaching with research.</p> <hd id="AN0017575645-8">Bringing the content/areas of research into the curriculum</hd> <p>The link between teaching and research was in part seen as being about researchers bringing their research and research areas directly into the curriculum:</p> <p>I have about three lectures that I give in various contexts that are based substantially around research that I have done ... the lectures comprise of me saying who commissioned it, how it was done, what my findings were, what the implications were and so on. (Focus Group B)</p> <p>This concept of the link was often implicitly or explicitly recognised as being stronger in upper‐level undergraduate courses, and even stronger in postgraduate courses:</p> <p>At first year level, the opportunity for feeding in research is almost an illusion. It sounds nice ... But if we strip the window dressing away ... (Focus Group A)</p> <hd id="AN0017575645-9">Developing student understanding of 'the' research process</hd> <p>While the content of research was important, a more dominant concept was developing student understanding of the research process and research methodologies:</p> <p>we have talked generally about the subject matter and the content of research going into teaching, but I think that the idea of ... understanding the process of enquiry is really important. (Focus Group D)</p> <p>The understanding of how this should be achieved revolved around either having dedicated modules on research methods, or through teaching revolving around the understanding of the skills and methods derived through the research (and consultancy activities) undertaken by lecturers:</p> <p>Sometimes it is presented to you as something that was done and just appeared, not really about the process of how that research was done, which I think is crucial to understanding the skills needed to be a researcher ... having the person that has done the research ... actually telling you the process of the research. (Focus Group B)</p> <p>Examples included students developing a research bid based on the brief of work actually undertaken:</p> <p>X comes into the class and says 'this is the research brief that we had from [a government department] how would you have done this research?' and they produce their own bid ... They share their ideas about how the research should have gone and then what we did with the people from X [department]. (Focus Group C)</p> <hd id="AN0017575645-10">Developing students' abilities to do research</hd> <p>Clearly, staff saw developing students' abilities to carry out research as a central concept to this meta‐issue. Most of these discussions relating to this concept focused around specialist courses on research methods and on courses which, although focused around particular content areas (e.g. housing policy), were largely taught through research projects. Other examples of aspects of students' abilities to 'do' research included when staff emphasised those aspects of courses that featured: 'discussions about epistemology' (Focus Group B); and/or where courses were 'building up those statistical skills and also trying to demystify the myth of research, that you know it is a messy process' (Focus Group B).</p> <p>Integral to this theme of students' abilities was the view that at times this could not be realised:</p> <p>to do research at the sort of level we are talking about is a real high order skill and most of the students who get a 2:2 or worse don't fully develop this. (Focus Group B)</p> <hd id="AN0017575645-11">2 Is the link to be valued?</hd> <p>The statistical studies carried out by others on the published literature have questioned the view that staff need to be involved in research to benefit teaching. However, it was the overwhelming judgement of the staff in this research that the link was vital for quality teaching and part of their 'academic identity', although whether all or even many staff needed to be involved in high‐level research was seen as very doubtful. With the caveat that, throughout these general conclusions, the picture is of nuanced judgements, the following concepts on the value of the link were clear.</p> <hd id="AN0017575645-12">Important for curriculum vitality and relevance</hd> <p>I think it is a very good thing to do and definitely helps the academic health of an institution to have people involved in research and have them teaching ... but sometimes the research is so specialised. Having said that, I think it is definitely good for the students to know that you are [research] active, they tend to like that. (Focus Group C)</p> <hd id="AN0017575645-13">Central to staff capability</hd> <p>Staff abilities and knowledge of research was seen as central to their effectiveness as teachers:</p> <p>It is about, if you are trying to develop skills in students, you can't do that unless you have got the skills and competence. It may not be in that specific area, but you have to have it in an area that is related. (Focus Group A)</p> <p>I wasn't saying that one takes whatever one is doing into the classroom, but it is part of the process of personal development, personal engagement with our subject areas, and with scholarship generally, which is the thing that essentially provides the catalyst between the way that we teach and the way that our engagement influences our teaching. (Focus Group D)</p> <p>While:</p> <p>there is an important contribution that research makes to teaching ... sometimes you can look at quite glib or elegant theories coming out ... of textbooks and saying 'actually, in the messy world of research [it] is not as clear as that, it is a lot more muddled up. (Focus Group D)</p> <hd id="AN0017575645-14">Central to student capability/employability</hd> <p>Staff considered that understanding how knowledge is created in their discipline, and the development of research skills, were important in enhancing students' capabilities as learners, and also in improving their employability. Representative views included:</p> <p>if they [i.e. students] did have an understanding of the weaknesses of research then perhaps they could get away from this 'it's printed therefore it's gospel' sort of truth. (Focus Group E)</p> <p>We run ... several practitioner groups, all of which I think testify to the value of ... the transferable skills element of research methodology acquisition ... Where to seek information ... how to assemble it in a form which you can evaluate and analyse. These are the sorts of things that we are teaching students on the undergraduate programme, especially as they come up to their dissertation, and those are certainly skills that are seen by employers as being of value. (Focus Group E)</p> <p>However, staff perceived that students did not always recognise that research is an important skill (this issue is apparent in the linked research on student perceptions previously mentioned, e.g. Jenkins <emph>et al.</emph>, [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref18">13</reflink>]):</p> <p>Surely that is to do with the fact that they don't perceive research as a skill that they are going to need ... I think that may be to do with ... we are not perhaps presenting it as something that is of value to them. (Focus Group E)</p> <hd id="AN0017575645-15">Do all staff need to be 'active researchers'?</hd> <p>In national systems, including the UK, where governments are seeking to concentrate (high‐level) research in selected institutions and departments, a key policy (and therefore research) issue is whether teachers need to be active researchers, i.e. currently involved in (high‐level) research. In the UK in April 2003, the then Minister for Higher Education stated, 'A good teacher needs good scholarship but I cannot see an inextricable link with being engaged in cutting edge research and being good at teaching' (MacLeod, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref19">17</reflink>]).</p> <p>The perceptions of the academics in this research on the issues and concepts reveal the complexity of the debate, which is not so apparent in ministerial pronouncements on the research evidence. There was recognition in the focus groups that 'research' formed part of their 'academic identity'. However, they also noted that:</p> <p>There are some remarkably low‐level things ... we still do in the first year of the degree course ... Some people spend most of their time doing that and I think that they can do that well, in the same way that you can have excellent school teachers who aren't active researchers. (Focus Group D)</p> <p>Yet, the overwhelming perception was of potentially <emph>productive</emph> relationships between teaching, research and consultancy, including with high‐level 'cutting edge' research that would be entered into the national Research Assessment Exercise (RAE):</p> <p>It is not about simple linkages between a module and the research that the person is doing. It is about being engaged in scholarly activity or research, or consultancy ... Now if we don't do that, and we don't necessarily have to do it at a particularly self‐conscious, RAE type level; but if we don't engage in scholarly activity, I don't think that we are doing our job properly. (Focus Group D)</p> <p>Even if you are only marginally research active, like myself, there are benefits in being part of a research active community. Because ... the things I pick up about ongoing research or papers and outputs at conferences and things like that, I use a lot in my teaching. (Focus Group B)</p> <p>It is conceivable that in many of the subject areas we are talking about it is much more important that others do the research because they are very good at it than that we do the research. What is important is that we engage with their research and bring an understanding of the current level of understanding of the subjects that we teach into the classroom. (Focus Group D)</p> <hd id="AN0017575645-16">Research brings resources to teaching</hd> <p>One way that research did or could explicitly feed into teaching was through the resources research brought into the department:</p> <p>I think one of the areas is things like equipment, the ability to go to conference, things like the ability to obtain publications. These have to come through the research funding, if it had been left to the teaching funding, none of these sorts of things would have happened. (Focus Group A)</p> <hd id="AN0017575645-17">Tensions and conflicts exist</hd> <p>While these staff did see clear potential linkages between teaching and research, they also identified clear tensions ('blocks') over staff time and organisational contexts, where the two activities were not 'managed' to effectively complement each other:</p> <p>teaching is terribly time consuming ... the research takes up a lot of time and therefore it can have an impact on what you can do with your teaching. (Focus Group D)</p> <p>Research and teaching can hinder each other ... where you are working with different patterns and kinds of work ... doing research and teaching alongside each other where there is no subject relation whatsoever, you have got the worst of both worlds, trying to work two different ways and furthermore, intellectually, one doesn't feed the other. (Focus Group B)</p> <hd id="AN0017575645-18">3 Does the discipline shape the relationships?</hd> <p>One of the emerging research areas on teaching/research relations is the extent to which the nature of the discipline shapes the relationships. To the Project LINK team this was also an important policy issue which needed to be resolved, in order to shape how we would work to strengthen the potential connections in these disciplines. In addition, for both the built environment community and for general understanding, this research needed to explore the connections and differences between teaching and 'research' and teaching and 'consultancy' relations. Our research methodology examined this by asking built environment academics to reflect on their own experience ('discipline issues'). However, many of the academics in the research came to the built environment disciplines from other disciplines, and brought concepts or understandings from those disciplines. One participant observed:</p> <p>I am a social scientist ... one of the things that strikes me as different to social science is that [in built environment disciplines] there seems to be two completely different cultures in teaching and research; with teaching ... leaning much more towards humanities and wide reading ... on the research side ... the money doesn't come in for that sort of stuff; it comes in for policy relevant, practice relevant, narrow topics ... So you are kind of driving in a rather different direction. (Focus Group D)</p> <p>Many participants pointed to the applied vocational nature of these disciplines and the role of professional bodies in accrediting courses as affecting the 'knowledge' that students were required to demonstrate, and certainly shaping teaching/research relations. This was seen to lead to a broad‐based curriculum with perhaps less opportunities for staff to directly link specialist research interests into the curriculum:</p> <p>You don't have the opportunity of having say, a history degree, where you can say fundamentally we are trying to teach you the historic method and therefore, if we don't have a specialist on say Early English History we don't run a module on [that] ... but we will do one on ... because that will use the same skills. (Focus Group A)</p> <p>There are these bodies that say, or appear to say ... 'where is this component of the course?' Where I suspect that the humanities are in a position to say 'we are the people, these are our skills, these are our interests, this is what we teach'. (Focus Group B)</p> <p>Whilst the limiting effect of the professional bodies was a strong theme across the four institutions, there were some who pointed to those bodies' requirements for 'knowledge currency' in the curriculum and a professional ethos as supporting teaching/research links. Others saw the potential of more supportive dialogue with professional bodies as a way to, in effect, support teaching/research links, by making more explicit to these bodies the employability/professional skills which could be developed through research methods courses, etc.</p> <p>The discussions also demonstrated the importance and nature of consultancy in these disciplines shaping teaching/research relations. Some pointed to how the applied consultancy nature of much research in these disciplines could both help students to see the importance of research to their future employability, and to make more theoretical research concerns 'come to life'. However, staff also saw that certain aspects of consultancy activities made it more difficult to organisationally link those centrally involved in consultancy into department teaching (or research)—for consultancy demands tight deadlines, focused activity and at times the results are confidential.</p> <hd id="AN0017575645-19">4 How do issues of departmental (and institutional) organisation and culture affect teaching/...</hd> <p>Recent policy‐oriented research (in particular that by J.M. Consulting, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref20">15</reflink>] and Coate <emph>et al.</emph>, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref21">5</reflink>]) has strongly suggested the importance of departmental organisation and culture as affecting teaching/research relations. While the questions asked in the research did push staff to discuss such matters, the strength of response showed that issues of department organisation were clearly central to their concerns.</p> <p>There were three central ways these staff perceived department organisation affecting teaching/research relations: that the links if they existed were largely unstructured or unplanned; that there were factors that blocked the links; and that there were factors that supported and potentially could 'benefit' teaching/research links.</p> <hd id="AN0017575645-20">Unstructured/unplanned links</hd> <p>A central concept was that, if the links existed, they were there by chance, and had not been purposefully structured into the way these departments worked.</p> <p>Central to this lack of structuring the links was the sense that, across these departments, research and consultancy was planned, and teaching was planned, but their explicit links were not sought:</p> <p>We do ... support teaching and support research and support sabbaticals, but we don't necessarily strategically link the two ... We have an ad hoc approach to that important link. (Focus Group A)</p> <p>Others echoed similar views:</p> <p>It would be fair to say that, as a School, we don't really have a strategy, a systematic strategy for making these links, and that really as someone said, it happens by default. (Focus Group B)</p> <p>Many of these comments focused on the way staff activities were planned. Other critical comments were the lack of overall structuring of research methods and student knowledge of research in the curriculum.</p> <p>Nobody is putting that together to find out where the students get told about ... different research projects and different research specialisms within and outside the School. (Focus Group E)</p> <p>The overall sense was of departments not acting purposefully to structure the links. However, there were some who explicitly questioned such structured actions from both staff and student perspectives. One commented:</p> <p>I don't think we have got a formal system of doing it, but a lot of things we have been talking about tend to happen anyway ... Those people who are heavily engaged in scholarly activity or research ... tend to migrate to those parts of the courses and ... that is most appropriate for them. And the same thing happens with students. (Focus Group D)</p> <p>Another in effect elaborated on this:</p> <p>[Students] tend through the dissertation tutors and so on, [to] get directed to members of staff who have a particular interest or expertise ... I don't think that it is formalised and perhaps it is the sort of thing that you shouldn't formalise, maybe it's more organic. (Focus Group D)</p> <hd id="AN0017575645-21">Factors blocking the links</hd> <p>Much of the discussion centred on factors perceived as blocking the potential links. For some participants this was seen as a lack of time for research and a sense that if they worked in pre‐1992 universities they would have that time or opportunity:</p> <p>people are going to be much more enthusiastic teaching their own research than other people's research. I think it is also common practice in the older universities ... where the balance between what people teach tends to be much more in favour of their own research or their local group's research. (Focus Group B)</p> <p>Time was also an issue in that some staff were clearly seeing that the way to 'handle' time was to limit time on teaching to ensure some time for research, which:</p> <p>encourages a rather packaged approach to teaching that means even if there were some potential for [teaching and research] to link up, you are less likely to do it. (Focus Group B)</p> <p>Time was also seen as a factor in that time for scholarship was also limited:</p> <p>From talking to colleagues ....and certainly it would apply to me ... if someone came and caught me reading a book in my office, I would kind of have to hide it in a drawer and start marking ... or something like that, and feel extremely guilty for engaging in some scholarly activity in work hours. (Focus Group D)</p> <p>The broad nature of the discipline and professional requirements were seen as further limiting those courses strongly related to staff research. While demonstrating to students that the employability elements of research might be effective, staff also perceived that many students in these disciplines:</p> <p>don't perceive research as a skill that they are going to need. Specifically the undergraduate students tend to be more mechanistic in what they will attend. (Focus Group E)</p> <p>In all four institutions teaching is now designed in modular style courses, and clearly many implicitly agreed with this statement:</p> <p>It is the actual modular delivery that is a problem, which assumes that you can undertake things in very tightly constrained boxes of time over very short periods and that doesn't allow the students to develop good skills. (Focus Group A)</p> <p>Others questioned the perceived negative impacts of modularity and working in post‐1992 universities:</p> <p>The fact that we have a modularised system shouldn't negate the need for us as academics to take into the classroom a knowledge of our subject, which is influenced by our engagement in our discipline and in many cases our research. It is not about simple linkages between a module and the research that the person is doing. (Focus Group D)</p> <p>Throughout the discussions there was a pervading view that opportunities for potential synergies were not being seized, as teaching and research were organised separately:</p> <p>The allocation of modules, for example, throughout the programme has been incredibly arbitrary and looking at what I have been asked to do, there is little resemblance or link to my research and consultancy work ... if we haven't got the right people in the right modules with the right curriculum then we are struggling right from the beginning aren't we? (Focus Group D)</p> <p>Others returned to the question of the separate thinking about and organisation of teaching and research, and the separation (prompted by the RAE) of some staff into:</p> <p>effectively full time researchers with very little teaching role. That obviously leaves people who are more involved in teaching, but perhaps not able to do as much research as they might like. (Focus Group C)</p> <p>While chillingly prescient was this <emph>one</emph> comment:</p> <p>It is quite ironic that it is a series of 'new universities' combining together to do this project [i.e. Project LINK], but we are under threat if the government suddenly starts to define us as purely teaching institutions. (Focus Group C)</p> <hd id="AN0017575645-22">Factors supporting the links</hd> <p>There were countervailing forces impacting to support teaching/research links, although this tended to be from the teaching 'side' of the potential links rather than explicitly or even implicitly structured into research policy. This reinforces the critiques of Gibbs ([<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref22">8</reflink>]) and Jenkins <emph>et al.</emph> ([<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref23">14</reflink>]) of institutional and department research policies for failing to explicitly support the links.</p> <p>The factors at a departmental level that structurally supported teaching/research links were overwhelmingly about course design. Some pointed to course teams and indeed whole departments ensuring that staff research interests were represented in the curriculum—particularly at postgraduate level. As one stated:</p> <p>what has happened ...is that along the way, with the development of the Master's course ... we developed courses which have aligned with our individual and collective interests ... and that has been a vehicle through which we could deliver the research and consultancy outputs. (Focus Group A)</p> <p>Such structural interventions had also been developed in the undergraduate curriculum:</p> <p>we have taken a step to relate the elective provision at levels two, three and expressly in the dissertation, and also into level four, we have chosen to relate those to research strengths that we have got in the school. (Focus Group E)</p> <hd id="AN0017575645-23">Ways to strengthen the links</hd> <p>During the discussions, ideas were floated for strengthening the links. Some suggested ideas of a more thorough audit and mapping across the current curriculum of research methods and perspectives. Some suggested specific interventions into the curriculum—one suggested adopting the physical science model:</p> <p>you could identify ... quite distinct areas that could be investigated ... so instead of students ... [wondering] what shall I investigate ... and get lost for half a year ... you say 'there are these topics that we want investigated'. (Focus Group D)</p> <p>There were calls for interventions in the organisation and funding of research to better assure it aligned to and supported the curriculum. As one put it:</p> <p>I think it is too restrictive ... to say 'it is conditional upon you feeding this into your research' ... But when you get synergies you should encourage those synergies and it seems to me that funding is one way to do that. (Focus Group A)</p> <hd id="AN0017575645-24">In conclusion: theoretical and policy perspectives</hd> <p>In a seminal article criticising the then dominant correlation studies, Brew and Boud called for 'more fine grained studies' (Brew and Boud, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref24">2</reflink>], p. 272) focused on how academics experience teaching and research. This study provides one such 'fine grained' analysis, focused around issues of departmental organisation in built environment disciplines in four similar UK institutions. While care must be taken in generalising beyond these particular contexts, this study does significantly add to our research understanding of these issues and points to clear policy and practice implications.</p> <p>This study helps academic (research) communities to move beyond the statistical studies at the level of the individual, and in policy terms points to the clear potential of productive and valuable teaching/research relationships. At the same time these 'results' move us to recognise that statements such as that by Universities UK ([<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref25">25</reflink>], p. 5) as to 'the vital interdependence of teaching and research' fail to recognise the complex realities of practice, or to move us to shape effective policies to ensure such potential links.</p> <p>These results indicate that securing effective teaching/research links is potentially vital for ensuring students learn of the complexity of knowledge, and develop high order academic and 'professional' skills. They show how staff involvement in research and scholarship is vital to their sense of what is effective teaching 'practice', of curricula vitality and to their own identity and motivations for pedagogic improvement. Amongst what is left unclear is the extent to which staff as individuals need to be involved in high‐level 'cutting‐edge' research. There were many of these staff who questioned the value of RAE‐style research to their own and department practice, and to student learning. Yet there were also indications that having some staff in a department involved in such high‐level research can be vital for ensuring courses—particularly at postgraduate level—are current. Whether 'scholarship' is adequate to support 'mainstream' staff as effective teachers is left unresolved. Perhaps most of all this study strongly reinforces the perspective stated in other research that productive teaching/research relations are strongly dependent on how staff are 'organised' and supported. If we value the link then it needs 'creating' and 'designing' by a whole range of 'actors', levers and levels in the higher education system (as proposed by Jenkins <emph>et al.</emph>, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref26">14</reflink>], p. 29). Academic departments, where staff are immediately organised and reside, are a vital level of action (Clark, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref27">4</reflink>]). There is also support for the view that teaching/research relations are shaped by disciplinary concern and that in built environment disciplines, the links with professional bodies and the importance of consultancy significantly shape the relationships for students and for staff. We have further explored these disciplinary perspectives in related research in Project LINK (Turrell, [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref28">24</reflink>]; Temple, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref29">23</reflink>]; Griffiths, [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref30">9</reflink>]). This staff‐orientated research also provides a 'mirror image' of that research previously done at Oxford Brookes (Jenkins <emph>et al.</emph>, [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref31">13</reflink>], Lindsay <emph>et al.</emph>, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref32">16</reflink>]) and at the University of East Anglia (Zamorski, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref33">26</reflink>]) on student perceptions.</p> <p>The research reported here, while having such theoretical concerns, was also designed to guide practice and policy. In Project LINK it has considerably shaped our practice as 'change agents', moving us from relatively unproblematic gathering and disseminating of good curriculum practice to centrally focus on issues of department, and to a lesser extent institutional, organisation (Jenkins & Zetter, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref34">12</reflink>], and Project LINK Change Strategies/Processes Website, no date). This research basis has in our view considerably supported the impact of this FDTL curriculum change project, and the use of research evidence to shape curriculum change may be relevant to other nationally or institutionally funded 'change' projects.</p> <p>We think there are clear suggestions from this research for other departments and institutions who wish to ensure more productive links between teaching and research. Holding 'focus group' style meetings can aid staff in exploring their perceptions of teaching/research relations and their own department contexts. It is then helpful to support staff in developing a more sophisticated research‐based understanding of the issues, with understanding followed by actions at departmental (and institutional) level to strengthen the potential connections.</p> <p>Finally these results question the simplistic judgements of governments and funding bodies worldwide that effective teaching at university level can be organisationally separated from a research 'base'. However, this study leaves unclear the extent to which departments and individuals need to be funded for research and scholarship. But we hope that we have gone some way to meeting the call in the British Educational Research Association's ([<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref35">3</reflink>]) response to the UK White Paper (DfES, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref36">7</reflink>]) with its proposal for teaching 'only' universities:</p> <p>While the evidence that teaching and research are mutually enhancing is sparse, the evidence that teaching in higher education can achieve excellence in non‐researching institutions is even sparser. Urgent enquiries should be commissioned before irrevocable decisions are made. (British Educational Research Association [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref37">3</reflink>], p. 8)</p> <p>We think this enquiry immediately gives us a basis to question these proposals and similar government and institutional proposals worldwide.</p> <hd id="AN0017575645-25">Acknowledgement</hd> <p>The authors would like to acknowledge the help of Glynis Cousin (Higher Education Academy) and Angela Brew (University of Sydney) in the production of this article and the comments from two anonymous references on an earlier draft of the article. The authors would also like to acknowledge the contribution of the other members of the project LINK team (Roger Zetter and Marion Temple of Oxford Brookes University, Pat Turrell of Sheffield Hallam University, Ron Griffiths of the University of the West of England and Nick Bailey of the University of Westminster) to the work.</p> <ref id="AN0017575645-26"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref17" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Brew, A.2001. The nature of research: inquiry in academic contexts, London: RoutledgeFalmer.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref24" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Brew, A. and Boud, D.1995. Teaching and research: establishing the vital link with learning. Higher Education, 29: 261–273.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref35" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> British Educational Research Association. 2003. Response by the British Educational Research Association to the White Paper, 'The future of higher education'. Research Intelligence, 83(May)</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref27" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Clark, B. R.1997. The modern integration of research activities with learning and teaching. Journal of Higher Education, 68(3): 242–255.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref15" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Coate, K., Barnett, R. and Williams, G.2001. Relationships between teaching and research in higher education in England. Higher Education Quarterly, 55(2): 158–174.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref11" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Colbeck, C. C.1998. Merging in a seamless blend. Journal of Higher Education, 69(6): 647–671.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref3" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Department for Education and Skills (DfES). 2003. The future of higher education, London: DfES.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref22" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Gibbs, G.2002. "Institutional strategies for linking teaching and research". In ExchangeEdited by: Healey, M. and Jenkins, A.Vol. 3, Linking teaching and research, Autumn. Available online at: <ulink href="http://www.exchange.ac.uk/issue3.asp">http://www.exchange.ac.uk/issue3.asp</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref30" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Griffiths, R.2004. Knowledge production and the research–teaching nexus: the case of the built environment disciplines. Studies in Higher Education, 26(6): 709–726.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hattie, J. and Marsh, H. W.1996. The relationship between research and teaching: a meta‐analysis. Review of Educational Research, 66(4): 507–542.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jenkins, A. 2004. A guide to the research evidence on teaching/research relations, York: LTSN Generic Centre.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jenkins, A. and Zetter, R.2003. Linking teaching and research in departments, York: LTSN Generic Centre.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jenkins, A., Blackman, T., Lindsay, R. and Paton‐Saltzberg, R.1998. Teaching and research: student perceptions and policy implications. Studies in Higher Education, 23(2): 127–141.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jenkins, A., Breen, R., Lindsay, R. and Brew, A.2003. Reshaping teaching in higher education: linking teaching and research, London: Kogan Page.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> J.M. Consulting. 2000. Interactions between research, teaching, and other academic activities, Bristol: Higher Education Consulting Group. Report for Higher Education Funding Council for England</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lindsay, R., Breen, R. and Jenkins, A.2002. Academic research and teaching quality: the views of undergraduate and postgraduate students. Studies in Higher Education, 27(3): 309–327.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Macleod, D.2003, 13 April. Education GuardianAvailable online at: <ulink href="http://education.guardian.co.uk/higher/news/story/0,9830,946780,00.html">http://education.guardian.co.uk/higher/news/story/0,9830,946780,00.html</ulink> (accessed 21 May).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Project Link (2000) Briefing note for Link focus groups. Available online at:<ulink href="http://www.brookes.ac.uk/schools/planning/Ltrc/documents/reports/Fgbrieftemp.htm">http://www.brookes.ac.uk/schools/planning/Ltrc/documents/reports/Fgbrieftemp.htm</ulink> (<ulink href="http://www.brookes.ac.uk/schools/planning/Ltrc/documents/reports/Fgbrieftemp.htm">http://www.brookes.ac.uk/schools/planning/Ltrc/documents/reports/Fgbrieftemp.htm</ulink>)(accessed 10 December 2002).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Project Link Change Strategies/Processes Website.<ulink href="http://www.brookes.ac.uk/schools/planning/Ltrc/change/change‐strategies.htm">http://www.brookes.ac.uk/schools/planning/Ltrc/change/change‐strategies.htm</ulink> (<ulink href="http://www.brookes.ac.uk/schools/planning/Ltrc/change/change‐strategies.htm">http://www.brookes.ac.uk/schools/planning/Ltrc/change/change‐strategies.htm</ulink>)</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ramsden, P. and Moses, I.1992. Associations between research and teaching in Australian higher education. Higher Education, 23(3): 273–295.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Robertson, J. and Bond, C.2001. Experiences of the relation between teaching and research: what do academics value?. Higher Education Research and Development, 20(1): 5–19.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rowland, S.1996. Relationships between teaching and research. Teaching in Higher Education, 1(1): 7–20.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Temple, M.2002. "Education, research and practice". In New aspects of quantity surveying practice, Edited by: Cartlidge, D.London: Butterworth Heinemann.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Turrell, P. M.Making the link between teaching and research and consultancy. paper presented at Association of Researchers in Construction Management conference. Glasgow Caledonian University.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Universities UK. 2002. Response to DfES discussion paper on higher education, London: Universities UK.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zamorski, B.2002. Research‐led teaching and learning in higher education; a case. Teaching in Higher Education, 7(4): 411–427.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <ref id="AN0017575645-27"> <title> Footnotes </title> <blist> <bibtext> * In September 2002 these schools merged to become the School of the Built Environment.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> * Sentences were used as the text units.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Bridget Durning and Alan Jenkins</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref34"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ691454
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Teaching/Research Relations in Departments: The Perspectives of Built Environment Academics
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Durning%2C+Bridget%22">Durning, Bridget</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Jenkins%2C+Alan%22">Jenkins, Alan</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Studies+in+Higher+Education%22"><i>Studies in Higher Education</i></searchLink>. Aug 2005 30(4):407-426.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Customer Services for Taylor & Francis Group Journals, 325 Chestnut Street, Suite 800, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420 (Toll Free); Fax: 215-625-8914.
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 20
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2005
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Evaluative
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Higher+Education%22">Higher Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teacher+Effectiveness%22">Teacher Effectiveness</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Physical+Environment%22">Physical Environment</searchLink>
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0307-5079
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: This article presents an analysis of the perceptions of built environment academics in four post-1992 universities in the UK on teaching/research relations. Whilst set in particular departments, institutions and disciplines, it addresses issues that are of central concern worldwide. This study indicates that securing effective teaching/research links is potentially vital for ensuring that students learn of the complexity of knowledge and develop high order academic and "professional" skills. However, it also demonstrates how issues of department organisation and culture - in particular the effective policy separation between teaching and research - result in failures to support staff to achieve potential synergies between these activities. Evidence is also provided that, in built environment disciplines there are distinctive features of teaching/research relations that need to be considered in department policies (and national funding). This study questions the policies of those governments and institutions that in effect seek to separate teaching from research. However, it leaves uncertain the extent to which all staff need to be involved in high-level research, or whether "scholarship" is adequate to effectively underpin student learning in these disciplines.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: Author
– Name: Ref
  Label: Number of References
  Group: RefInfo
  Data: 26
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2005
– Name: URL
  Label: Access URL
  Group: URL
  Data: <link linkTarget="URL" linkTerm="https://taylorandfrancis.metapress.com/link.asp?target=contribution&id=K344184778348525" linkWindow="_blank">http://taylorandfrancis.metapress.com/link.asp?target=contribution&id=K344184778348525</link>
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ691454
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ691454
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 20
        StartPage: 407
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Teacher Effectiveness
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Physical Environment
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Teaching/Research Relations in Departments: The Perspectives of Built Environment Academics
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Durning, Bridget
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Jenkins, Alan
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 08
              Type: published
              Y: 2005
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0307-5079
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 30
            – Type: issue
              Value: 4
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Studies in Higher Education
              Type: main
ResultId 1