Early research into the nature of teaching research linkages suggests that there is not a single set of initiatives that will result in the TRN in different disciplines. Manifestations of the TRN differ widely between disciplines (Moses, 1990; Neumann, 1994). Moses (1990) accredited this to differences in the form of teaching across departments, while Kinkead (2003) suggests that the differences in disciplinary research necessitate different manifestations of the nexus across disciplines. It is likely that both teaching and disciplinary research styles are at least partly responsible for the need to create and use discipline-specific initiatives to achieve stronger connections between teaching and research.

Smeby (1998) found that at undergraduate level, students in disciplines such as Humanities and Social Sciences were more likely to believe their learning was linked to research, while this was less likely for students in the Natural Sciences, Medicine and Technology. This difference was not evident at graduate level. Robertson and Blacker (2006) contend that these disciplinary differences are directly related to knowledge structures in the discipline. They argue that in ‘high paradigm consensus disciplines (like physics), knowledge tends to be cumulative’ (p. 224). As a result, the connections between research, teaching and student learning are typically hierarchical, with research influencing teaching, which in turn enables learning. On the other hand, in ‘low-paradigm consensus disciplines (like English), the ‘flatter’, more accessible structure of knowledge means that it is possible for students to engage with that knowledge earlier and through their own research’. (p.225)

These propositions support those of Smeby (1998) who argued that research in the Humanities and Social Sciences was less specialised than research from other disciplines and therefore easier to link to undergraduate teaching. In Smeby’s study, academics from humanities and social sciences were more likely to believe there was a relationship between teaching and research. These academics were also more likely than colleagues in the other three disciplines to think that undergraduate learning should be shaped by research.

Jenkins, Healey and Zetter (2007) argue that:

• effective teaching research links are not automatic and need to be constructed; and
• academic departments and disciplinary contexts are key to developing the links between research in the discipline and student learning for this is where students’ intellectual development and staff identity can and should be developed

In their comprehensive resource on linking research and teaching in disciplines and departments, they identify ten disciplinary ‘forces’ shaping ways in which students might experience the teaching-research nexus in their discipline. These are as follows (adapted from pp.34-40):

• Research and teaching cultures and attitudes – disciplinary communities have distinct cultures and may differ in their attitudes to the roles of research in relation to teaching.
• Research organization – e.g. team-based (sciences) vs individualistic (humanities)
• Research and scholarship connections – in some disciplines (e.g. the humanities), the boundaries between research and scholarship may be less defined than in the sciences. It may therefore be easier to connect staff research and curriculum content in some disciplines than in others.
• Disciplinary research frontiers in relation to the curriculum – staff research in some disciplines may be too difficult for undergraduate students to understand.
• Hierarchical disciplinary knowledge structure – when the disciplinary knowledge structure is very hierarchical, it may not be feasible to engage undergraduate students in disciplinary inquiry until later years.
• Disciplinary concepts of knowledge and ontology - how individuals see knowledge shapes the teaching-research relations they perceive and construct.
• Student perspectives and expectations – students’ motivation for study and expectations of university learning will shape their attitudes to research and problem-solving activities.
• The role of professional societies and accreditation requirements – professional requirements for accreditation may support or impede teaching-research linkages in the curriculum.
• The role of practice in shaping knowledge and the curricula in professional disciplines – if professional knowledge of practice is valued over development of research skills and knowledge, then an emphasis on teaching-research linkages may be seen as an impediment.
• The role of Mode 2 knowledge in professional disciplines – in some disciplines, teaching-research linkages may need to emphasise staff consultancy-based research, dissemination and application over the research process.

For a more comprehensive discussion of these ‘forces’, please refer to: Linking research and teaching in disciplines and departments.

Our interviews with Australian academic staff across a number of universities and disciplines have highlighted many creative and innovative examples of how teaching and research are being linked in the disciplines. View and download discipline-specific examples and case studies demonstrating teaching-research linkages.

Linking teaching and research across year levels

Bibliography