Vivienne Walkup
‘To publish or not to publish’: a discussion of reporting and disseminating research into the experiences of students who are mothers returning to higher education.
Vivienne Walkup
University of Derby, U.K.
Paper presented at the 36th Annual SCUTREA Conference, 4-6 July 2006, Trinity and All Saints College, Leeds
This paper discusses the choices available for the reporting and dissemination of recent research findings based upon the experiences of students who are mothers returning to Higher Education. There is a consideration of the ways in which publication exerts control over knowledge and the implications this has for those outside of the dominant culture.
The study’s findings indicate that there is a need for Higher Education to recognize and respond to the needs of students who are mothers, in terms of offering flexibility and support. It is argued here that the research should be disseminated in an accessible and meaningful manner in order to provide access by those outside of the ‘academy’ and to challenge traditional modes of publication.
Whilst it is not claimed that the findings from this small-scale study (40 students at a university in the Midlands) can be generalized to a wider population, it is suggested that they provide a taster of the feelings and experiences of other students who are mothers in Higher Education. Thus they may indicate areas which higher education in general should be aware of as possible sources of student discontent.
The study found that the data obtained from two sets of data (Q-sort and focus group) indicated that the sample group of students who are mothers (SWAMs) experienced a number of problems which were not common to the vast majority of undergraduates:
- ‘Time poverty’ as a result of managing academic, childcare and domestic tasks.
- Feeling of being excluded by the university in terms of their specific needs and identity being ignored.
- Experiencing emotional stress about child-care provision and guilt about conflicting roles of ‘mother’ and ‘student’.
This is important not only from the viewpoint of individual students within this category but also for the wider declared aims the government with regard to higher education. The response to the Dearing Report (1997) stressed the government’s commitment to widening participation:
Increasing opportunities for people to learn and widening access are at the heart of this Government’s policies for creating a learning society. The Government is committed to the principle that anyone who has the capability for higher education should have the opportunity to benefit from it. (DfEE, Higher Education for the Twenty-first Century, Ch. 1)
However, the data gathered here suggests that students who are mothers are encountering barriers which impede their progress within higher education. Although they have demonstrated their ‘capability’ by reaching graduation, this has been in some ways despite rather than because of the limitations of the provision offered. It follows then that there is a need for Higher Education to acknowledge the essentialism of students who are mothers and to actively include them within the institute’s provision.
Issues about the way in which this research is disseminated relate to notions about traditional modes of publication and dominant cultures. The recognition that these are connected with male-dominated hierarchical discourses is well documented within feminist texts (Weiner, 1998; Stanley, 1990; Malina and Nutt, 2000) and therefore these traditional modes are seen as unconvincing means of dissemination for this research which is bound up in issues around the marginalization of women and their experiences.
Publication
First, it is important to consider issues around the need to publish in order to add to existing professional knowledge and secondly to discuss the function of gate-keeping which publishing serves in order to control the entrée of material into the wider academic arena.
Adding to professional knowledge
Pring (2001) comments that research involves ‘pursuing and telling the truth’ and ‘the generation of knowledge’ (p.14) arguing that this involves important issues related to practice, policy, accountability and development of solutions and therefore needs to be subjected to wider critical discussion. Publication of research then would seem to be a way of allowing this to happen. Further, it allows for public awareness of matters which affect them, particularly those involving improving standards or removing threats.
However, this raises issues related to control of material and the ‘right to know’ which might be at odds with dominant cultures and power structures. Martin (1998) argues that reporting the truth is not enough to ensure dissemination of that truth and scholars are perhaps naïve to assume that this is the case. Research findings may be rejected for publication because they threaten a powerful group in some way or because they fail to generate income or status rather than because the research is flawed. Nixon (1999) questions whether there is ‘a genuinely public debate’ achieved by the publication of educational research as this is part of an enclosed ‘professional discourse’ which alienates those outside of it. This reflects Bourdieu’s (1998) concerns about knowledge production being directed by marketing concerns. Thus it is argued that there is a continuing need for ‘reaching out’ in order to include the majority of people instead of the exclusive minority.
This is a particularly relevant concern with this research which aims to include and empower a group who have remained a silent minority within higher education.Weiner (1998) engages with similar issues in her discussion of the relationship between power, academic publishing and scholarship claiming that editors and reviewers have powerful roles as gate-keepers because they are involved in judging the quality of academic work. Further, based upon her ‘Getting Published Project’ she suggests that ‘journal cultures’ exist which promote specific elitist values and under-represent women and minority groups and that judgements about publication are not always fair or objective. Therefore, the idea of controlling academic standards becomes fraught with a complexity of pressures and influences which are not openly acknowledged and questions the whole concept of the public right to know.
Additionaly, within the field of academic publishing, peer review is widely used, supposedly to ensure quality is maintained and encourage the development of high standards of academic writing by providing:
…an informed, fair, reasonable and professional opinion about the merits of research work (Runeson & Loosemore, 1999:529).
However, there is considerable evidence to suggest that this is often not the case (Ceci & Peters, 1984; Morton & Jamieson Price, 1986;Chubin & Hacket, 1990) and further that there is ‘…apparent bias against threatening ideas’ involving:
rejection and hostility…rather than critical examination and discussion… (Runeson & Loosemore, 1999:535).
Issues such as these then, based upon power structures and the maintenance of the status quo, attack the idea of gate-keeping as a means to ensure the production and transmission of high quality knowledge and add fuel to the fire of feminist claims that publishing controls are based upon paternalistic cultures and paradigms. Indeed, Weiner’s (1996-8) report on publication practices found that there are clear signs of continued male dominance there:
…female academics have been found to have poorer publications and research records, and poorer rates of citation, except in gender and women’s studies where the reverse is often the case (p.3).
This is an important concern with relation to the current research where both the researcher and the participants are female. Thus it is likely that they will encounter similar barriers and restrictions but essential that a suitable means to address this is found in order to disseminate the research effectively and challenge existing structures.
A positivist culture
Relevant also are issues such as dominant research paradigms linked with patriarchal structures. These include positivist assumptions about the nature of the research process producing some kind of testable and final truth.
This is contestable, however, because this ‘final truth’ is bound up with preconceptions and ways of understanding already in place. As Stanley and Wise (1983) point out:
Positivism is a paradigm which is part and parcel of the construction, not just the interpretation, of social reality (p.185).
and therefore impossible to analyse objectively.
Within the positivist paradigm there is an emphasis upon empirical assumptions such as scientific measurement through the use of quantitative methods to provide neutral findings. This is bound up in objectivity and an attempt to minimise researcher subjectivity (Heiman, 1998). However, feminist researchers argue that quantitative methods inflict boundaries and constraints whereas the use of qualitative methods allow for fluidity and responsiveness, (Barnes & Clouder, 2000) reflecting the need to emphasise involvement and subjectivity in the research process (Stanley, 1990).Thus, sharing information and research findings helps to challenge some of the interpretative expectations inherent within positivist frameworks. Barnes and Clouder (2000) suggest that dissemination is ‘an ongoing conversation’ (p.7) throughout the research rather than an end product. Therefore, both researcher and participantsare engaged in exploring meaning together.
However, powerful as these arguments are, they remain rooted in white, academic, middle-class feminism (Weiner, 1994)and therefore do not reflect other minority feminist viewpoints, such as those of lower socio-economic status, ethnic minority groups and lesbian women (Stanley, 1997).This then takes us back to the problems of gate-keeping perpetuating hierarchical power structures which control research publication and points out the gap between those inside and outside of academic circles and cultures.
The present research seeks to attract attention to the experiences of a group which is currently under-represented and thus relates to these problems such as the inclusion of minority views within academia which Weiner (1998) outlines.Therefore, it is necessary to publish this research because there is a need to disseminate insights gathered from those outside of the ‘small theoretical circle’ (Stanley, 1997:182) in order to make knowledge public which has not been adapted to fit into current academic expectations and cultures. However, the way in which the findings are disseminated is of importance.
Whilst academic journals are the most obvious way to communicate academic knowledge they remain routed in elitist academic cultures. Electronic Publishing, on the other hand, is a more accessible and increasingly common means by which authors may choose to make knowledge public and is part of a widening definition of what publication is and what is published. Lynch (1996) comments that academics are now part of a network of information with ’a growing range of alternative genres through which to communicate and share their knowledge’ (p.137).
Debates about the desirability of these new models of publication rage as issues such as protecting the standards of the established academic community and the ownership of knowledge (Frazier, 2000) are raised. However, as discussed above some of these so called problems may be advantageous in terms of the present work, which is seeking to make information accessible to a wider community and include the voices of those outside of dominant cultures.
Whilst the disadvantages of electronic libraries replacing paper-based ones are well argued by writers such as Crawford (1998) and Humphreys (1997) there is nevertheless recognition that they provide additional resources through which to disseminate knowledge, which is surely a welcome addition (Chodorow, 1997).Further, they allow greater freedom and world-wide accessibility, providing a more ‘democratic’ outlet (Frazier, 2000, p.123)
Therefore, this exploration of possible outlets for the dissemination of this research into the experiences of SWAMs suggested electronic publishing as the preferred means of initial publication and a paper was sent to the Leeds University website which presents a wide range of articles and papers, relevant to the field of education through ‘Education-line’ (www).This was thought to be an appropriate form of dissemination because it is freely accessible and readership is not limited to those belonging to an academic group of some kind although it is acknowledged that only those already included within the educational arena are likely to be aware of or interested in this facility
In terms of the SWAMs involved in this research, though, it meant that they were able to see and comment upon the first report of the results of the study immediately. Many of the group found this exciting and rewarding as they read their own comments and recognized the words of one SWAM in the title of the first paper, I don’t want you to be a teacher; I want you to be my mummy’ (Walkup, 2004).
Conferences and workshops generally provide the opportunity for discussion of scholarly research with others who have an interest in the area. The WHEN (2004) conference was seen as an appropriate platform for presenting the paper because of its feminist and inclusive nature (WHEN, 2004, National Conference Details).
This relate to the understanding gathered from feminist literature about the gendered nature of academia (Acker, 1994; Weiner, 1990; Raddon, 2002) which suggests that women are under-represented within Higher Education and their views thus marginalized. The WHEN organization actively seeks to address issues such as this which made it a suitable platform for dissemination because the organization’s aims are in line with those of the current research: both include a focus on women and their experience and both are concerned with effecting change within Higher Education in order to empower women.
A further paper, entitled ‘A Voyage round my SWAMs (students who are mothers): a research journey’ (Walkup, 2005a), was presented at the March (2005) GEA (Gender and Education) conference in Cardiff whose theme was, ‘Gender, Power and Difference’. This paper addressed the researcher’s own voyage through the research process andthus challenged traditional, positivist ideas about the objectivity of the presentation and analysis of research as well as including a group of students who are currently missing from Higher Education discourses.
Thus, although reservations about traditional forms of disseminating academic research remain, it became clear, as the research drew to a close, that this might be necessary in order to champion the cause of the SWAMs. It follows then that a conference of this kind is likely to raise the profile of this group and begin the process of inclusion. Further, the researcher submitted this paper for inclusion within the special conference issue of the Gender and Education (International) journal to be published in 2006 in order to further issues of raising the profile of this group and to draw attention to the ways in which they are silenced within dominant, positivist paradigms.
A later paper entitled “‘I’m not stopping until I’ve done it and I’m taking the children with me’: a report upon research into the needs and experiences of students who are mothers (SWAMs) returning to Higher Education” (Walkup, 2005b)was presented at the SCUTREA 35th Annual Conference (Diversity and Difference in Lifelong Learning) at the University of Sussex in July, 2005. This paper focused upon the distinctive nature of SWAMs and the need for institutions of Higher Education to recognize and provide adequate support for them.
Conclusions
This discussion has focused upon a consideration of the advantages and disadvantages of publishing this research and addressed issues such as the quality control and gate-keeping functions served by traditional forms of publication. It has been argued that the piece of work in question relates to an attempt to raise awareness about the experiences of students who are mothers undertaking a degree in Early Childhood and Education Studies. The voices of this group have not been significantly included in the literature on the subject so far and this project begins to address this omission. Therefore, the researcher initially rejects the notion of formal publication and instead opts for newer, more fluid forms such as electronic data bases and conferences as the initial means of disseminating the research findings, in order to increase its accessibility and readership. However, in recognizing that there is a need to publicly champion the cause of this, as yet, formally identified group of students who are mothers, the prospect of publishing the papers presented at the selected conference remains a strong possibility (subject to acceptance by GEA).
References
Acker S (1994) Gendered education: sociological reflections on women, teaching and feminism. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Barnes V, Clouder L, Purkis J & Pritchard J (2000) Dissemination as evidence? Deconstructing the process of disseminating qualitative research. Symposium presented at the Qualitative Evidence-based Practice Conference, CoventryUniversity, May 15-17, 2000.(Viewed
Bourdieu P (1998) (Trans) On Television and Journalism. London: Pluto Press. InNixon, J., 1999, Teachers, Writers, Professionals. Is there anybody out there? British Journal of Sociology of Education, Vol.20, No.2, pp.207-221.
Ceci S & Peters D (1984) How blind is blind review? American Psychologist, 39 (12), pp 1491-4. In Runeson G & Loosemore M, 1999, Gate-keepers or judges: peer reviews in construction management. Construction Management and Economics, 1999, 17, pp. 529-536
Chodorow S (1997) The once and future monograph. InThe specialized scholarly monograph in crisis: or, how can I get tenure if you won't publish my book?: Overview of scholarly communication issues. Proceedings of The Specialized Scholarly Monograph in Crisis, Washington, DC, September 11-12, 1997.(Viewed
Chubin D & Hacket E (1990) Peerless science: peer review and US science policy. New York: StateUniversity of New York Press.
Crawford W (1998) Paper persists: why physical library collections still matter. Online, January, 1998.(Viewed
Dearing R (Chairperson) (1997) The national committee of inquiry into higher education in the learning society: Report of the National Committee. London: HMSO.(Viewed
Department for Education and Employment (DfEE UK Lifelong Learning) (1997) Higher education for the 21st century: response to the Dearing Report.London: Stationery Office.Viewed 14/09/04 at