Category: Leadership and management

By Marcus Munafò

Marcus is Associate Pro Vice-Chancellor of Research Culture at the University of Bristol and incoming Deputy Vice-Chancellor and Provost at the University of Bath. He leads on research culture activity across the university, providing direction and vision, working across the institutional landscape, and identifying key challenges and opportunities. He is also institutional lead for the UK Reproducibility Network. 

According to MyERP, I officially started working at the University of Bristol on the 1st March 2005 – although I remember coming in a day early because 1st March was a Tuesday and what else was a young lecturer going to do with a Monday…? Not exactly the best role modelling by someone who would – many years later – devote much of his working week to improving research culture. 

And now, after almost exactly 20 years I will be leaving the University of Bristol. On the 1st May I’ll start a new adventure as Deputy Vice Chancellor and Provost at the University of Bath. It’s been an incredible two decades – I wrote grants (a few of which were funded!) and papers, built collaborations, made plenty of mistakes (and tried to learn from them), helped build a research group, and completed my fair share of Researchfish submissions… 

Most importantly, I made many friends. There are far too many to name them all, but my co-directors of the Tobacco and Alcohol Research Group (TARG) – Angela Attwood, Olivia Maynard and Ian Penton-Voak – have been the most important, simultaneously keeping my feet on the ground and keeping me sane. When we started to build TARG it was clear that it shouldn’t be critically dependent on one person. When I leave, it will barely miss a beat – the culture and structure we’ve developed will ensure that. 

Which brings me to my role as APVC for Research Culture.

Back in 2019 I set up the informal Research Improvement Group, which brought together academic, technical and professional voices with an interest in reflecting on our research practices and identifying ways to improve these. This was partly in support of Bristol’s membership of the UK Reproducibility Network (which we currently host), but more broadly in response to growing sectoral interest in how academia can ensure the quality of the work it produces, and the health and vibrancy of the environment it creates to support that.

In 2021, our then PVC for Research and Innovation, Phil Taylor, was creating APVC roles to create a similar structure to the one that existed for education and give him more capacity to deliver against key agendas. One of these was research culture – and, given the natural proximity to my research improvement role, I applied. I formally began in the role in early 2022, and almost immediately we learned that we would receive an Enhancing Research Culture allocation from Research England (as did all English institutions that received REF funding).

That funding allowed us to constitute a research culture team, led by Yasmine Rhoseyn, with support from (variously – as people have moved in and out of roles) Sean Gilligan, Pat Humphries, Leah Jones, Gurjeet Kaur, Lumina Kemp and Eirini Triantafyllou. With that team in place, we got to work… Research Improvement Group became Research Culture Committee, eventually a formal sub-committee with delegated authorities in key areas such as open research, and we developed plans to spend our allocation.

Our early strategy had to be developed rapidly given that the funding had to be spent by the end of the University financial year in July. We identified some major areas of focus – such as open research and leadership – but a large proportion of the budget went into an open call to provide seedcorn funding for grassroots projects. We were struck by not just the number but also the quality of applications we received, and – as intended – this gave us a picture of what was already happening across the University.

Over the years we have continued this scheme, adding a separate call for continuation funding, helping to grow projects and support them either to completion or to the point where they can become self-sustaining. This also helped us to build a community that we bring together at an annual Festival of Research Culture. And this community was also central to the next phase of our activity – the development of a research culture vision and strategic plan to take us to 2030.

This vision and strategic plan is now in place, supported by an annual implementation plan that brings a tactical element – outlining what we will do this year that will move us in the right direction (and how we will know). It is the result of extensive development and consultation, and – I think – something we can collectively be proud of. The next step will be to bring this to life on the ground, by engaging the research and research-enabling community.

But why do we do this in the first place? Why does research culture matter? In my view, there are moral, pragmatic and selfish reasons. It is right to create an environment where people feel supported and are able to develop and thrive. But by creating that environment we will also create the conditions where people can do their best work. And in turn that environment will allow us to recruit and retain the best talent in a way that will ensure the long-term health of the University.

Bristol is rightly world-recognised for its teaching and research, but we should always be looking to reflect and improve. By maintaining a positive research culture, and an environment that supports this, we can become known for something else – the ways in which we support people at all career stages, across all career pathways, and from all backgrounds to excel in ways that are meaningful to them. In other words, we can be known not just for what research we do, but how we do it.

By Emilie Poletto-Lawson and Dr Hannah Grist

One of the three pillars underpinning the University of Bristol’s Vision and Strategy (2030) holds that at Bristol, “our education is shaped by the fact that we are a world-class research-intensive university. The link between research and teaching informs our taught courses, and is integral to research supervision.” Our Vision imagines a future where we attract and inspire students “from across the globe, with a distinctive education offering, innovative teaching and research-rich curriculum that enriches their university experience, careers and lives.” Our staff development offer for colleagues who teach and support learning at the University forms the “Cultivating Research-rich Education and Teaching Excellence (CREATE)” programme, further highlighting the connection between research and education at Bristol.

But what does it mean to cultivate a research-rich curriculum? What are some of the benefits and challenges, and how have colleagues at Bristol engaged with research-rich approaches? 

Definitions and benefits of research-rich teaching

The traditional view of research and teaching in higher education – as schematised by Brew in 2003 – demonstrates a clear separation between the two. This could perhaps be seen as the origin of the three learning, teaching and research pathways in our institution.

Two years later, Healey redefined the relationship between teaching and research in his seminal 2005 work, identifying four approaches to the research-teaching nexus. The University of Bristol has since aligned, moving from advocating a research-led approach (teaching the latest advancements in research) to being research-rich, and therefore encompassing all four quadrants.

Healey considers the various roles students and teachers can occupy. On one hand, the nexus aligns with a traditional approach focused on the role of the teacher. Students are less active and more of an audience – they can still engage with research content, but the emphasis is more on transmission of knowledge (research-led) or teaching processes of knowledge construction (research-oriented). On the other hand, the nexus is student-focused, and involves them either in engaging actively with research content (research-tutored approach) or carrying out their own research (research-based).

Benefits for students: A research-rich approach moves away from the traditional teacher-focused approach, which sees students as recipients of knowledge, to a student-centred approach that develops students’ true potential as researchers in training and as partners. As demonstrated by Healey and Roberts in 2004 and Healey in 2005, the students’ learning experience is greatly enriched and enhanced through not only access to cutting-edge research but also active and innovative teaching methods such as inquiry-based learning. This contributes to increased intrinsic motivation and the development of key skills (critical thinking, research skills) that also enhance students’ employability as shown by Griffiths in 2004. The students, in this approach, become an integral part of the university community of practice and can contribute to society throughout their studies.

Benefits for staff: These approaches are an opportunity to bring together two key aspects of colleagues’ professional lives – teaching and research – which might in turn lessen competing demands on time. Colleagues might share the research they are still developing with their students (whether through presenting the information or making students part of the exploration), with students acting as a sounding board. This can also provide an opportunity for staff to express their research to a general audience, receiving early feedback and an intake of fresh ideas. Looking at the experience of colleagues within the institution, other benefits mentioned are an opportunity to improve one’s teaching and job satisfaction, as cited by participants on the CREATE programmes. Finally, it is likely that among the students mentored through this research-rich experience is a future colleague and collaborator, who will have been inspired and empowered to pursue research and teaching.

Challenges of research-rich teaching

Time: Whilst colleagues might already include activities which sit across the different quadrants of Healey’s research-teaching nexus, in an environment in which demands on time and resource are ever-increasing and competing, it can be challenging to find the time and capacity needed to embed research-rich approaches in our teaching. In the first instance, it takes time and space to develop our own research interests and methodologies, and then to engage in (primary or secondary) research that might later be drawn upon in teaching. Subsequently, energy and expertise are required to review and develop our curricula and assessments to embed newly developed research-rich approaches. The resulting competition for time and resources often concludes with colleagues adopting a pragmatic response, in which curriculum enhancements are small and incremental, putting off more substantial development for a later date.

Conflict: The idea of competition between research and teaching extends into wider questions about the nature and purpose of universities, and the value placed upon our core activities. As Bage argued in 2018, “Universities typically value academics’ research over teaching, as indicators through which to judge career advancement and institutional prestige” (p.151). Whilst teaching and research are linked in our Vision and Strategy, how far might the organisation of academic staff at Bristol across three pathways, which separates and delineates research and/or teaching responsibilities, reinforce the distinctive nature of these activities?

Assessment: Assessment on programmes that adopt research-rich approaches might also be challenging (yet beneficial!), as these approaches often aim to develop multiple skillsets in our students including problem-solving skills, research skills, and subject specific knowledge. This can make it difficult (but not impossible) to design assessments that capture the full range of deep learning that results from research-rich approaches. To capture this range of learning, assessment of research-rich learning might involve portfolios, presentations, research projects and reports, or peer review, which can be more time-consuming for staff new to these approaches to mark and provide feedback on. This challenge might equally be seen as a benefit, however, as qualitative assessment is already a feature of many of our programmes, and we know that both staff and students gain much from assessments that promote deeper learning and engagement.

Research-rich teaching at the University of Bristol

Disciplinary approaches: Research-rich teaching at Bristol takes many forms. Beyond the institution’s historical research-led approach, we can also find many examples of innovative approaches covering Healey’s quadrants. One fantastic case study can be found in the Faculty of Health Sciences, bringing together first-year undergraduate dental and medical students to be part of a conference designed to assess their knowledge in only their 10th week at the University. This project demonstrates how students can experience being a researcher very early on. Students develop self-management, transferable skills and creativity through group work and inspiring tasks: an oral PechaKucha, a poster and a creative piece. If you are interested in reading more examples (or sharing your own), please visit the BILT blog page dedicated to research-rich teaching.

Research-rich Learning Communities: Research is not limited to being discipline-specific, and the University counts a great number of Scholarship of Learning and Teaching communities which bring together passionate colleagues, often Pathway 3, but not exclusively. The Engineering Education Research Group is an excellent example of colleagues from various pathways coming together to “lead and define a direction for engineering education and to encourage evidence-based pedagogical innovation both inside and outside the University of Bristol.”  You can find their key research themes, publications and blog on their webpage linked to above.

Staff and students as partners: The Bristol Institute for Learning and Teaching (BILT) also champions research-rich teaching through investing in staff and students as partners. Colleagues can work on an existing BILT project or benefit from funding to work on their own project as it aligns with at least one BILT theme. The Student Research Journal and the Student Research Festival are student-led through the BILT student fellows who can count on the support and expertise of BILT colleagues. The former is an opportunity for students to get their outstanding work published in an online, peer-reviewed journal. The latter promotes and recognises the excellent research conducted by both undergraduate and postgraduate students, grouped around key themes.

Conclusion

Research-rich approaches to learning and teaching at Bristol thus have proven benefits for both our students and staff which can enrich the wider University and positively impact the world around us. But bringing together research and teaching remains challenging, and there is still a way to go to meet the aims set out in our University Vision. Whilst structural limitations might still impede our bringing together of research and teaching in our practice in the short term, as highlighted by Hordósy & McLean in 2022, in the longer term we must strive to develop a more equitable, inclusive, flexible and collaborative environment in which research and teaching are mutually encouraged and nurtured.