Category: Openness and transparency

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.

Reducing excessive bureaucracy is one of many improvements we can all agree with in principle, but it’s often hard to achieve in practice. We’re on a mission, with the help of many of our colleagues, to make it happen.

We strongly believe that all staff involved in research activity – academics, researchers, technicians and Professional Services colleagues – should feel enabled and supported when writing and submitting research applications, setting up projects, actually doing the research, and generating outputs.

What we did

It was with this focus on enabling and supporting that we commissioned an Internal Review of Research Bureaucracy in 2022. In part, this was in response to the UK Government’s Independent Review of Research Bureaucracy led by Adam Tickell, and reflects our desire to foster a positive research culture at Bristol.

The review was open to colleagues at all career stages and across academic departments and Professional Services, in order to identify procedures and processes that are perceived as unnecessary, inefficient and/or disproportionate. The methodology for our review was to hold discussion sessions, which were conducted between July and September 2022.

There were nine discussion groups, eight of which were face-to-face. Views were gathered from 60 staff in total. The outputs from the discussions were documented and analysed to identify topic areas, issues, themes and key examples.

We’re very grateful for the time that our colleagues put into these discussions, and the feedback we received from the independent facilitator that ran the sessions was that the tone was very positive and constructive.

What we learned

The majority of the discussions could be grouped into six key themes.

• General inefficiencies
• Standardisation, self-service, and a ‘one size fits all’ perception
• An emphasis on system working at the expense of working relationships
• A culture of compliance
• Proportionality (or a lack of it)
• A focus on income over impact

The full report is available on SharePoint (UoB staff access only) and has been shared with and read by the Senior Management Team.

We certainly recognize the themes that emerged, and we appreciate the insight that it has provided into the reality on the ground, despite our ongoing efforts to improve and streamline how we work.

The report provides us with valuable information that will both feed into existing efforts to reduce bureaucracy and identify new challenges that we need to address.

It’s also worth noting that the Tickell review identified seven principles to cut unnecessary bureaucracy. These are principles that we fully endorse, and that we will return to as we continue to improve and streamline how we work. The principles the review outlines are:

• Harmonisation: Reducing administration by using common processes to make core work easier.
• Simplification: Reducing process complexity as much as possible.
• Proportionality: Ensuring that burdens placed on researchers / institutions match the size of the risk or reward.
• Flexibility: Supporting and embracing excellence beyond narrow and traditionally defined parameters.
• Transparency: Communicating the rationale for systems that have a bureaucratic burden.
• Fairness: Supporting fairness in systems and processes.
• Sustainability: Reducing bureaucracy without destabilising, and whilst supporting long-term efficiencies.

What we’re doing

In practical terms, the work we’re doing that is either relevant to our own Internal Bureaucracy Review, or is in response to it, falls into three broad categories.

First, we are implementing practical change. For example, the University is in the middle of an extensive “End to End” review that aims to consolidate the entire research process (harmonisation and simplification from the Tickell review), from grant application to delivery (pre- and post-award). Several workshops have already been conducted as part of this involving researchers and Professional Services staff, and RED has plans in place to understand, for example, where bottlenecks exist in our processes per se and in particular the transition from pre- to post-award, e.g., setting up more complex projects (hiring staff, space, IT, budgeting…). The aim is to clarify why activities are needed and try to simplify them, or sometimes to remove them, and build shared approaches to our work (proportionality). We are also looking at the intent and purpose of our processes, asking questions such as: What is the risk? What’s the worst that can happen? How can we manage these proportionately?

Second, we are working towards longer-term cultural change. This includes work on management and leadership – in particular, to create a culture of leadership at all levels where we all feel empowered to make decisions locally. For example, if a process is acting as a barrier to our work, we should feel able to challenge it and even, if necessary (and with appropriate agreement – for example from a Head of School), temporarily circumvent it to get the job done. We also need to ensure that processes feel personal – one theme was recognising that whilst generic emails are used to provide resilience and continuity of service, we need to find ways to make the interaction responsive and personal. Other options, such as drop-in sessions in Schools so that academic staff can meet colleagues in RED, Finance and HR who support their work, may be one solution to this; it would also enable different services to provide more person-centric support. We need to ensure that we have a one-team ethos.

Third, we intend to continue listening and communicating. We have launched an Internal Review of Teaching Bureaucracy, given the valuable insights our first review gave us. This will be run in a very similar way to the first review, but with a different focus. We are also maintaining the Research Culture Dropbox, where anyone is able to send thoughts, concerns and suggestions, either anonymously or not.

We’ve also launched this Research Culture Blog to help us explain what we’re doing and the nature of and rationale for some of our processes, so that these can be better understood (transparency). Inevitably, we will still have to do some things that may feel bureaucratic, or at least burdensome, but hopefully by explaining the rationale the effort involved will at least feel worthwhile.

We are exploring the wider issue of our broader culture and decision-making at Bristol under the sponsorship of the Vice-Chancellor, including looking at how we can share more information and be more transparent about how we make strategic choices. This has been fed into the consultation on future academic and Professional Services governance and structures.

Next steps

Further workshops are planned to address the frustrations with setting up and running awards, requiring multiple needs to be addressed by several Professional Services teams working in a coordinated way.

We are scoping the possibility of a single virtual Research Office across multiple Professional Services functions, integrated with Schools and Faculties, which would be people-centred and facilitate sharing of best practices where needed – a “one-stop shop” for researchers.

Professor Marcus Munafò
Associate PVC Research Culture

Jon Hunt
Executive Director, Research and Enterprise