The modern-day university is a thoroughly complex affair that comprises of numerous
interlocking research activities that inform the delivery of an equally complex portfolio
of learning programs (Kerr, 1963; Krücken et al., 2007). This contemporary model of
a university is a far cry from university education envisioned by the noted educational
philosopher Cardinal John Henry Newman
1
. In his seminal paper on the nature and purposes of a University, Newman was clear
that a university should be a place where students would acquire a liberal education
that would enable them to graduate and to “… see things as they are, to go right to
the point, to disentangle a skein of thought to detect what is sophistical and to
discard what is irrelevant.” (Newman and Svaglic, 1982, p. 6). Although, Newman's
philosophy is at the heart of universities across the globe, the day-to-day reality
of delivering his core principles within the context of a modern-day university is
such that a casual observer might not see how a graduate should be able to develop
the skills that Newman originally espoused. However, here we argue that by engaging
students at the very heart of the research activity that is regularly carried out
in a contemporary university it is indeed possible for Newman's original vision to
be realized.
That said, it is worth considering Newman's philosophy in the context of the period
when there were very few universities, mostly of ancient origins, and were dedicated
to the education of elite “gentlemen.” The curriculum was a loosely structured experience
of academic teaching that centered on political debate, religious knowledge, and physical
pursuits (de Ridder-Symoens, 1996). From the 1850s influenced by Newman and others,
in the UK a small number of civic universities was created following the examples
in the UK of Durham, Manchester, and London where students were prepared for their
role in the world with science, engineering, and politics appearing on the curriculum.
The relevance to the world of work was more clearly aligned with Newman's original
ideals with preparation for employment being delivered via critical thinking rather
than professional knowledge.
Following the Second World War, universities widened their recruitment pool and grew
as a more egalitarian world was sought. There was a wider remit and a sense of state
funded paternalism where students were the grateful recipients of whatever learning
experience the university's academics considered appropriate.Later there was a movement
toward collectivist ideals of the 1960s where universities were seen by activists
and some academics as being democratic communities of learning where students and
staff had an equal role. In some ways, these ideas were the basis of widening participation
in the 80s and 90s culminating for example in the UK with ambitious aims for university
attendance of 50% (Smithers, 2001). It was at this time when the emergence of the
specialist teaching university started to emerge where the onus was on the completion
of effective learning by students and not so much on the creation of knowledge through
research.
The gradual evolution of the global HE sector into a two-part system can now be seen
with the emergence of groups such as the Ivy League system in the US, the Russell
Group in the UK and the Group of Eight in Australia. These groups consist of universities
that claim to be leading in research excellence in a particular area (see e.g., Williams
et al., 2007). Reputationally it makes perfect sense to be considered as a research
active university than a teaching active university (Wuchty et al., 2007). Most of
the professoriate consider their professional identity to be more aligned toward their
research activity than to teaching (Harris, 2005). There is also a greater opportunity
to secure more institutional funding. Indeed, financial support in the form of private
endowments for institutes such as Harvard and Yale Universities in the US are substantial
2
.
That said, even these research intensive universities are sensitive to the vagaries
of market forces that would shape the delivery of their core product—i.e., excellence
in a researchinformed learning experience. Thus in light of ever-growing market complexity
it remains to be seen whether or not the provision of research informed teaching and
indeed research as an activity is still the raison de etre in the modern university.
It may come as a surprise to many that the inclusion of research activities within
the portfolio of a university was not the main driver for their creation. Newman was
clear in his disdain for research in his early writings and initially saw research
activity as being completely distinct from an effective university education. Indeed,
he was clear in the role that research activity had in the development of a University
e.g., “Intellectual training was the primary duty of a university. Research is not
training, but rather it is philosophical or scientific discovery or “advancement”…
if its object were scientific and philosophical discovery, I do not see why a University
should have students” (Newman and Svaglic, 1982, p. 1).
The separation of research and teaching activities is clearly not in the market interests
of a modern-day university. Here we argue that a university should not only facilitate
the various research activities of the professoriate, but that the role of the student
should be placed firmly at the center of such activities.
Notwithstanding Newman's early concerns on the separation of research and teaching,
there is a significant benefit to be had with the research activity itself (Hathaway
et al., 2002). Scholars who are engaged in the activity of scientific discovery are
in general at the forefront of scientific thinking to ensure that they can address
a specific research question (Jones and Moreland, 2003). These individuals tend to
be flexible minded and open to feedback and by its very nature they are used to the
experience of failure which quite paradoxically drives innovation and an enterprising
mind-set (Cope, 2011). Clearly, the modern-day undergraduate would have much to benefit
be spending time with such individuals. Yet this is not a one-sided relationship with
the students developing a unique transferable skill set by being embedded within a
research culture. The researchers themselves would benefit from the exposure to the
constant inquiry that arose by carrying out their activities alongside students which
would ingrain a collaborative research culture into the notion of the scholarly community
(Shulman, 1993).
In our earlier work we have also found that students expected to be part of the research
culture of the university and report the experience of working side-by-side with a
member of the professoriate as one of key experiences of a university education (Towl
and Senior, 2010). Here, they regarded research activity as being a fundamental aspect
of the university experience. Moreover, the expectation to be trained in contemporary
research techniques and the development of a sense of community development was the
key extrinsic motivator for participation. The importance of taking part in research
activity was first highlighted by in the 1998 report commissioned by the Carnegie
Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching in the United States of America. For universities
to deliver a truly authentic learning universities would need “…to be able to give
their students a dimension of experience and capability they cannot get in any other
setting…” (Boyer, 1996, p. 27). Boyer showed that learning would be best facilitated
by a culture based on discovery that was guided by mentoring rather than solely on
the traditional didactic transmission of information. Unfortunately the presence of
such research based partnerships between the professoriate and student is not the
current orthodoxy—a situation that led to noted Nobel Laurates decrying the separation
of active research experience from the student cohort (Hubel, 2009). Placing research
activity at the very heart of student culture could be a relatively straightforward
way to ensure that the modern day undergraduate student benefits from focused mentoring.
In considering the above, there is clearly a need for institutional managers to facilitate
research activity as well as encourage students to participate fully with such activities.
However, there is a secondary benefit that students can acquire via participation
in research activity that is now discussed. This will inform a complete understanding
of the role that research activity plays as an effective learning process within higher
education and further place Newman's core ideals of enabling students to detect sophistry
in any argument firmly at the center of all contemporary university activity.
Research activity requires a unique set of professional skills that ultimately benefit
the student in the post-graduation workplace. These transferable skills, such as project
management and team skills, are vital for effective employment and make an excellent
contribution to the professional skillset that undergraduate students expect to develop
within HE (Senior et al., 2014). And yet there is only sporadic effort at best to
ensure that all students have the opportunity to experience research activity.
Effective research activity is rarely carried out in isolation so much so that it
has now become the norm for the best quality research to be carried out in teams (Tissington
and Senior, 2013). The tacit skill set that is developed is something that is eminently
transferable into the world of work. However, it is rare for students to be provided
with a framework to operate to when working in groups and standard pedagogic practice
to develop team skills such as group assignments are seen as learning by doing and
not reflective. Participation in research activity is one way in which the development
of reflective team skills can be is embedded within the curriculum
3
.
These “Non-Technical Skills” are regarded as being crucial for professional teams
across professions and in extreme environments such as aviation and operating theaters
is regarded as crucial (Salas et al., 2013). However as they might be referred to
in universities as being “non-academic skills” there is a risk that they are perceived
as being of less value by the students. However, by incorporating research activity
into the curriculum students will benefit from by developing both technical and non-technical
skills. The advantage of such an approach is that the development of team skills is
broadly similar regardless of the activity that the student undergoes and that the
students are not aware that developing this important skillset (Senior and Howard,
2014). The critical element to ensure effective learning is that students are actively
encouraged to participate in research activity throughout the course of their learning.
Research activity provides a valid opportunity for the learning of team skills and
by providing learning about the evidence base for teams (e.g., West, 2012), students
will discover ways of working to avoid pitfalls of teamworking frequently experienced
in the workplace. Our recommendation is for students to have development sessions
to foster team skills before and during these research projects. But we specify that
this training would be based on firm evidence so (inter alia) students could learn
classic findings such as groupthink (Janis, 1971) as well as recent evidence about
conflict (De Dreu and Weingart, 2003), the pre-requisites for “real teams” (Lyubovnikova
et al., 2015) and how to avoid social loafing (van Dick et al., 2009). In this way,
students would see the value of the application of research to their practice as well
as learning concepts of teamworking which would then be applied in team based research
projects.
These are important transferable skills that students expect to acquire with a university
education. However, this is not the sole benefit for engaging with research activity.
As is described above those students who engage with research activity also experience
a greater degree of affiliation with their professoriate and engagement with their
studies (Towl and Senior, 2010). These are the core skills that will ultimately ensure
that the student will be able to detect sophistry and focus on what is relevant to
ensuring success at university and in their careers—whatever these may be.
Author contributions
All authors listed have made a substantial, direct and intellectual contribution to
the work, and approved it for publication.
Conflict of interest statement
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial
or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.