Research, Teaching and Learning: making connections in the education of adultsPapers from the 28th Annual SCUTREAConference

Combining Teaching, Learning and Research.

David Wray, University of Northumbria, UK.

“I never really understood just what was going on at work until I got involved in this course. Now I look at my job through different eyes, and I am not particularly happy at what see.” Student and Shop Steward.

There is, within the general literature available on teaching and learning in higher education, a large portion dedicated to the discovery of a relationship between research and teaching. The most widely held view is that while a relationship does exist, the precise nature of that relationship remains problematic. The range of opinions surrounding this debate are, perhaps, best articulated by Ramsden and Moses (1992). They offer three contrasting views: the strong intergrationist view that links active research with good teaching; the intergrationist view that believes links between research and teaching do exist, but not at the level of the individual academic; and the independence view which states that no relationship exists at all. In their attempts to unravel this relationship, Brew and Boud argue that ‘… it is not teaching and research that are directly (if weakly) related, but that each is related to something else’. They believe the ‘something else’ to be learning, that in fact the ‘processes of research are similar to those that students go through and…. in teaching you are therefore a learner helping others to learn’ (1995 pp.35). This paper represents a personal reflection of the experience of a teacher of a group of adult students involved in a unit on a part-time Higher Education Certificate in Trade Union and Labour Studies. Those reflections suggest that a relationship between research and teaching does exist, and the conclusions of Brew and Boud are indeed correct; that research can and does assist the process of learning. Moreover, they also suggest that, given the correct circumstances, teaching can inform research. The teacher can, in fact, learn both with, and from, the students.

The students concerned (3 women and 8 men, though gender was not a factor) were all actively involved in the trade union movement and should be considered industrial relations practitioners. The unit, entitled ‘Control at Work’, was developed to provide the student with an understanding of the complexities of the employment relationship, and of the mechanisms of control that are available to employers, as they seek to regulate that relationship. In the early weeks of the unit it became apparent that the academic material being covered was registering positively with the students, dealing as it was with some of the more problematic issues experienced by them, in their individual workplaces. As active industrial relations practitioners, the students were at the forefront of the fight to establish the ‘frontier of control’ (Friedman 1978) that defines the ‘contested terrain’ that is the workplace (Edwards 1979). As such, they engaged with the unit in ways that confirmed problems identified by Schon (1986) in that gaps exist between: the scientific knowledge generated by academic research and the relevance of that research to practitioners; and between the institutional conception of what constitutes professional knowledge, and the competencies required by the practitioners.

While the students on this course would never be classed as professionals within a narrow definition of that term, as experienced practitioners they should be identified as such. This was a misconception that I was also guilty of making. In my delivery of the academic material required by the syllabus, explaining bureaucratic, technical and cultural forms of control etc., I was failing to provide that material in a way that was useful to the students in helping them understand their lived experiences at work. As a consequence, I was failing to meet their requirements as practitioners (if not professionals). The unit, in providing a theoretical framework through which they could identify, and better understand, the mechanisms of control they were experiencing in their individual employment relationships, was also causal in identifying what it was failing to provide; namely, a framework within which they could develop strategies of resistance to those mechanisms of control.

The realisation that I was failing to meet the needs of this group of students brought with it the need for a re-assessment, not only of the method of delivery of the unit, but also of my own role as the unit tutor. This process of re-assessment brought me to Williamson’s paper, based on case studies of similar students on a similar course. He concludes that:

It follows from these observations that those who seek to provide greater educational opportunities for adults must seek to do so in ways which build upon an understanding, not only of the personal interests of different people, but of how they make sense of change, in their own lives and in the society in which they live. (1992 pp.176)

Following this advice, and in an attempt to maximise the learning process for all concerned, I organised the students into a focus group, and changed emphasis in the delivery of the academic material. As previously stated, emphasis had centred on an attempt to define and understand, through a study of the academic literature, the mechanisms of control available and used in the workplace. Following this re-organisation, emphasis was firstly placed on identifying and understanding the influences and constraints those mechanisms of control imposed on the working lives of the students. Once identified, those influences and constraints were then examined and tested against the academic literature. This was instrumental in assisting them in their attempts to develop and articulate strategies of resistance. In essence, my aims were now to get the students to reflect on their own experiences of control in the workplace, and to set those experiences against the perceived understanding of the employment relationship enshrined in the academic literature.

Through sharing their experiences, the students were able, in a much clearer way, to articulate their understanding of the organisational mechanisms of control, economic, social and cultural, that determined and shaped those same experiences. They were increasingly able to understand the apparatus’ that perpetuated the hierarchical systems that represented, for them, control and domination of their working lives. Through this understanding they were able relocate their resistance in ways that were pro-active, rather than re-active. This relocation was achieved, in part, through the unit assessment.

Previously, assessment of the unit had involved the typical 2,000-word essay; chosen from a range of titles. This was changed to an assessment involving a work based research project. Students were required to identify the mechanisms of control encountered in their own daily working lives, and to explore the reasons why their employers had chosen to implement those particular ones. While this was still to be an individual assessment, the students were encouraged to collaborate. This was done for two reasons: firstly, out of a belief that the students themselves represented a valuable learning resource in, and for, themselves; and secondly, that collaborative study would enhance the educational process that has commonly become known as ‘action learning’ (Pedler, 1983: Revans, 1980). Usually associated with post-graduate and ‘professional’ education, it was therefore applicable to this particular group of students. Gregory (1995) describes a system of ‘action learning’ developed specifically for students on a Master of Arts degree in Human Resource Strategy, which sought through work based research to ‘provide human resource professionals with the capability and confidence to influence strategic decision making’, presumably to control the organisations human resources. I felt that if ‘action learning’ would enhance the learning process for students aspiring to develop strategies of control, then the same should apply to students aspiring to counteract those strategies.

The learning process throughout the remainder of the unit could be described as a process of ‘experiential learning’, which is usually associated with the Kolb Learning Cycle (Kolb and Fry 1975), though like other examples differ from Kolb’s original model. These students entered the ‘cycle’ with a reflective observation of the mechanisms of control they were experiencing in the workplace; they then generalised these reflections against historical, and contemporary, research into the subject, out of which came strategies of resistance; which they tested against their own concrete experiences in the workplace. The students developed the ability to reflect, in an informed way, on their own practice in dealing with the everyday life experiences of a shop floor worker. In doing so, they became critically literate of those experiences, and had developed what Jarvinen (1989) describes as the ability to ‘learn to learn’.

By using a focus group as the medium of delivery, the distinction between teaching and learning became blurred, almost to the point of non-existence. Each group member, including the tutor, was at the same time teacher and learner. My role had been transformed from one of teacher, to that of facilitator, and to providing the theoretical framework within which the subsequent discussions took place. Those discussions were directed by the implicit knowledge emanating from the personal experiences of the students, what Salmon (1989) describes as ‘knowledge in our bones, understanding to be lived by’. That implicit knowledge, brought from the factory floor to the classroom, to be tested against the academic theories, allowed a significantly deeper understanding than had been previously available. The students were able to concentrate on issues more specific to their own requirements, and through the process of ‘action learning’ generated by the work based projects, were able to gain a better understanding of the academic requirements of the unit than would have been through the normal delivery method. By ‘living the experience’ of being controlled at work, the product of the research projects undertaken by the students, provided a wealth of valuable information, far more detailed and insightful than could be expected from research undertaken by outsiders, who are allowed only a glimpse into the normally hidden world of work.

These insights, and the enthusiasm of the students to be involved in further research, provided the impetus for the development of a more detailed research project. The students themselves were central in this development. They were instrumental in gaining access to their own organisations and to the relevant individuals within them; in determining the focus of the research; and in contributing significantly to the methodology. The organisations the students were able to negotiate access into included: a car component factory; a heavy engineering plant; a light engineering factory; an armaments factory; and a national brewing organisation. The research project was undertaken, by a colleague, and myself, with the students acting as advisors, and in the interpretation of the subsequent findings. The results of this research will be presented to the Work, Employment and Society Annual Conference at the University of Cambridge in September of this year, as a paper entitled 'Total Quality Management: An Informed View form the shop Floor’.

Conclusion

What can we take from this case study?Looking at it within the context of this conference, I think that we can say, with confidence, that there is an osmotic relationship between research and teaching. Reflecting on the experiences outlined above, I take the strong intergrationist view offered by Ramsden and Moses (1992), being convinced that active research informs and creates good teaching. As a researcher myself, not only in the field of industrial sociology, but also in adult education, I can see within my own performance as a teacher, especially in the context of the case study unit, the benefits that come from both areas of research. The successful re-organisation of the unit, and this paper itself is, I believe, ample proof of that. I also believe that this evidence supports the views of Brew and Boud (1995), who argue that research is more importantly linked to learning. Within the learning process outlined above, the relationship between the research, both industrial and educational, and the learning process of the students and the teacher, can and should be seen as symbiotic.

In a broader context, I think the findings represent a reaffirmation of some important points that have been expressed elsewhere.

  • It is easier to learn, if what is learned somehow connects with the learners own experience. Re-organising the unit in a way that required the students use their lived experiences at work as a focus for their learning, enabled them to gain more form the unit than if it had been delivered in the traditional way. This point will become more important as the drive to expand access leads to an increasingly diverse student population.
  • That education is a vehicle of personal empowerment and through it, social change. Through their involvement in education these students, coming together from the shared background of the ‘shop floor’, came to see that the hierarchies of domination and control they encountered in the work place were social constructions that could, and should be confronted.

The case study also identified certain issues that require further discussion and examination. The most important of which is:

  • Using student experience as suitable material in the learning process has been at the centre of adult education for a long time, but what happens when those student experiences go beyond academic understanding? It became apparent at an early stage in the case study unit that a gap existed between the level of knowledge implicitly understood by these experienced practitioners, and that available from within the broader academic community. As an active researcher, I was able to gain a much clearer picture of the complexities of the employment relationship from the students than I have gained from the more usual methods of social research.

Other points we may wish to consider:

  • How relevant are grand academic theories in assisting students to understand, and come to terms with, their own realities?
  • How best can teachers fulfil the requirements of students, who are also experienced practitioners, and whose expertise may go beyond that of their own?

This paper was not conceived as an attempt to develop prescriptive suggestions for those involved in adult education. It represents a personal refection of what was a greatly rewarding educational experience for all of those involved. It is an example of several things: what is possible if adults are allowed an input into their own education; of how teaching and research can, in certain circumstances, be a symbiotic as well as osmotic relationship; and finally, an example of the enrichment that can come from involvement with adult students.

References

Brew, A. Boud, D. (1995) ‘Research and Learning in Higher Education’, in Smith, B. Brown, S. (ed) Research Teaching and Learning London: Kogan Page.

Edwards, R. (1979) Contested Terrain: The Transformation of the Workplace in the Twentieth Century. London: Hienemann.

Friedman, A. (1978) Worker Resistance and Marxian Analysis of the Labour Process. Nuffield Paper.

Gregory, M. (1995) ‘ The Accreditation of Work-based Research: An Action Research/Action Learning Model’, in Smith, B. Brown, S. (ed) Research Teaching and Learning London: Kogan Page.

Jarvinen, A. (1989) ‘Experiential learning and Professional Development’, in Wiel, S.W. McGill, I. (ed) Making Sense of Experiential Learning: Diversity in Theory and Practice. Milton Keynes: OU Press.

Kolb, D. Fry, R. (1975) ‘Towards an Applied Theory of Experiential Learning’ in Cooper, C.L. (ed) Theories of Group Process. Chichester: John Wiley.

Pedler, M (1983) Action Learning in Practice. London: Gower.

Ramsden, P. Moses, I. (1992) ‘Associations Between Research and Teaching in Australian Teaching’, Higher Education. 23, 3, pp.273-295.

Revans, R. (1980) Action Learning. London: Blond and Briggs.

Salmon. P. (1989) ‘Personal Stances in Learning’, in Wiel, S.W. McGill, I. (ed) Making Sense of Experiential Learning: Diversity in Theory and Practice. Milton Keynes: OU Press.

Schon, D.A. (1986) Educating the Reflective Practioner: Toward a Design for Teaching and Learning in the Professions. San Fansico: Jossey-Bass.

Williamson, B. (1992) ‘Lifeworlds and Learning’, Studies in the Education of Adults, 24, 2, pp.176-190.

page 1