Investigating invisible writing practices in the engineering curriculum using practice architectures

Writing practices are seen to be essential for professional engineers, yet many engineering students and academics struggle with written communication, despite years of interventions to improve student writing. Much has been written about the importance of getting engineering students to write, but there has been a little investigation of engineering academics’ perceptions of writing practices in the curriculum, and the extent to which these practices are visible to their students and to the academics. This paper draws on research from an ongoing study into the invisibility of writing practices in the engineering curriculum using a practice architectures lens. The paper uses examples from the sites of practice of two participants in the study to argue that prevailing practices in engineering education constrain more than enable the development and practice of writing in the engineering curriculu

Everyday learning at work: communities of practice in TAFE.

Ongoing restructuring, new types of students, changes in systems and the movement of staff within sections and institutes are only some of the daily challenges facing practitioners in many areas of TAFE as they grapple with the notion of organisational flexibility and customer responsiveness. This paper looks at how members of four workgroups based in two metropolitan institutes are dealing with challenges through informal learning. This paper draws from preliminary findings of an Australian Research Council collaborative research project concerned with determining the significance of informal learning and its contribution to organisational performance. The project is currently midway through and has completed interviews and held feedback sessions with members of four workgroups undertaking quite different types of work. While the project is based in an educational organisation, the major focus of the research project is on TAFE as a workplace. Wenger has written extensively on communities of practice and his work provides a new perspective for viewing learning occurring in workplaces (Wenger, 1998). This paper draws from Wenger’s theoretical work and views the four workgroups from the point of view of communities of practice. In doing so, it enables many of the everyday work practices of the workgroups to be articulated as ‘learning’. This offers potential for learning and development because it begins to foreground practices within TAFE that may foster informal learning environments and strengthen what is already occurring in these communities

Navigating the demands of academic work to shape an academic job

Findings from interviews with mid-career academics in English and Australian universities elucidate how academics interpret and navigate complex institutional contexts in shaping academic jobs. The paper argues that how they do this is a function of what they notice and respond to as well as the mode of reflexivity they employ. Three core areas are seen to affect academics sense of agency as they shape their own jobs: how they orient themselves to the world around them including the academic institution and department; their underlying goals and purposes as they seek to have a fulfilling role; and how they relate to structural conditions of the workplace. The paper argues that understanding academics’ differing foci of awareness in these areas is helpful to institutional policies and strategies

Academic artisans in the research university

In the changing context of universities, organisational structures for teaching and research problematize academic roles. This paper draws on a critical realist analysis of surveys and interviews with academics from universities in England and Australia. It identifies important academic work, not captured simply in descriptions of teaching or research. It shows that many academics, who are not research high flyers nor award-winning teachers, carry out this essential work which contributes to the effective functioning of their universities. That work is referred to as academic artisanal work and the people who do it as academic artisans. Characteristics and examples of academic artisans are presented and the nature of artisanal work is explored. Implications for higher education management and for future studies are discussed. The paper points to an urgent need to better understand the complex nature of academic work

Measuring what matters: the positioning of students in feedback processes within national student satisfaction surveys

The increasing prominence of neoliberal agendas in international higher education has led to greater weight being ascribed to student satisfaction, and the national surveys through which students evaluate courses of study. In this article, we focus on the evaluation of feedback processes. Rather than the transmission of information from teacher to student, greater recognition of the fundamental role of the learner in seeking, generating, and using feedback information is evident in recent international literature. Through an analysis of the framing of survey items from 10 national student satisfaction surveys, we seek to question what conceptions or models of feedback are conveyed through survey items, and how such framing might shape perceptions and practice. Primarily, the surveys promote an outdated view of feedback as information transmitted from teacher to student in a timely and specific manner, largely ignoring the role of the student in learning through feedback processes. Widespread and meaningful change in the ways in which feedback is represented in research, policy, and practice requires a critical review of the positioning of students in artefacts such as evaluation surveys. We conclude with recommendations for practice by proposing amended survey items that are more consistent with contemporary theoretical conceptions of feedback

Responding to university policies and initiatives: the role of reflexivity in the mid-career academic

How do academics make sense of university policies and strategic initiatives and act on them? Interviews were conducted with 27 mid-career academics in different disciplines, different research-intensive university environments and two countries (England and Australia). Data were analysed iteratively utilising a critical realist perspective, specifically, Archer’s modes of reflexivity. The paper argues that individuals’ responses to university policies and initiatives, to changes in policy and policy conflicts can at least partially be understood through interrogating the modes of reflexivity they employ

Co-producing knowledge: negotiating the political.

This paper takes its cue from Stronach and MacLure (1997) and hopes to be more problem-generating than problem-solving. We do not want to set down a ‘how to do collaborative research’, but instead explore the methodological and political complexities of doing collaborative research with industry partners. In doing this we want to draw attention to the uncertainties and messy ‘business’ of collaborative research. We are particularly interested in exploring the political tensions around the co-production of knowledge and we ask ‘how might we use research methodologies that incorporate uncertainty and disruption while at the same time remaining credible and legitimate to our research partners and academics?’ We recognise that a ‘methodology of disappointment’, where the ‘comforts of certainty’ are abandoned (Stronach & MacLure, 1997), may not have the same appeal to our industry partners as it does within our research team. And not always do academics enjoy uncertainty! We explore these themes and questions by taking a reflexive look at our own research practice in a collaborative research project that is currently underway in Australia. Government views on the relationship between research and economic activity are driving changes in research funding arrangements in Australia (Hon. Dr Brendan Nelson MP, 2002). The increase in collaborative research partnerships between universities and industry, as well as an increasing pressure on universities to view their work in commercial terms are evidence of these changes. In these performative times we are told we need to be ‘entrepreneurs’ (Gallagher, 2000) and the commodification of education requires that researchers learn how to play a new game. But does playing the game mean we need to automatically ‘tow the corporate line’ in collaborative partnerships with industry? Stronach and MacLure (1997) suggest that ‘it may be possible to envisage new concepts and practices of research that do not simply surrender to…the general demands of performativity’ (Stronach & MacLure, 1997, p. 100). Luke (1995) writes about a ‘pragmatic politics of the postmodern’ and recommends that it is time to start ‘getting our hands dirty’. Scheeres & Solomon (2000) point out that one way of doing this is to recognise the research methodology as ‘a site of contention’ where a number of different positions can be taken up by researchers. We are interested in this paper in exploring the ways knowledge is being co-produced in the ‘Uncovering Learning’ project and the contested nature of this knowledge production. We adopt an understanding of power, where we are more interested in the way power relations have been negotiated in the project and the spaces this has opened up, rather than assuming that industry is all-powerful. But before exploring the ‘sites of struggle’ of the project and the spaces that have been opened up, we take a closer look at collaborations in the ‘Uncovering Learning’ project. The ‘Uncovering Learning’ project involves many layers of collaborative partnerships. The project is a three-year Australian Research Council funded project which is part of the strategic partnerships with industry – research and training (SPIRT) program. The project involves a research partnership between the University of Technology, Sydney (UTS) and the Department of Education and Training (DET), a state government department. DET and UTS are working collaboratively to explore the significance of everyday learning at work. The workplace being studied is TAFE NSW, the state government provider of vocational education and training in NSW. But rather than focusing on TAFE as an educational institution our interest in this project is on TAFE as a workplace. TAFE is a large organisation and employs approximately 35,000 people in NSW. As well as the partnership between UTS and DET, the research team present as another layer of collaboration. The research team could be described as a ‘cross-boundary’ group, as members come from both inside and outside of TAFE, as well as across various disciplines including adult education, applied linguistics, psychology and organisational behaviour. The team is made up of two senior researchers from UTS, a DET representative who works in the Professional Development Network at TAFE, a research associate and a doctoral student. The research interests of the team members vary and this has contributed to the opening up of project questions and connections beyond the focus of just one discipline. In this sense, we (the research team) could be thought of as the embodiment of the theoretical and knowledge worlds we are studying in the project. The research team is working collaboratively with four workgroups in TAFE and this illustrates yet another layer of collaboration. The four workgroups that we are working with in the project come from diverse occupational areas and diverse hierarchical levels across two institutes in TAFE. One group are senior level managers in an institute, another are trade teachers, another group works in a human resources unit performing mainly administrative functions and the final group provide business related training in the workplace. While these are the most obvious collaborations, there are many other layers of collaboration connected with the project. For example collaborations between the research team and: the Faculty of Education at UTS; the Research Office; and the Australian Research Council. There are also layers within layers of collaboration, for example the two senior researchers in the project are the academic supervisors of the PhD student. The contemporary research context and the interrelated layering and multiplicities associated with collaborative partnerships begin to ‘flag’ the political complexities of doing collaborative research. These are foregrounded when we ask: What’s in it for UTS? What’s in it for TAFE? What are the interests of each of the members of the research team? What do the Professional Development Network want from this? What are the interests of each of the workgroup members who are collaborating on the project? The ‘political’ refers to both the macro politics of government policy and the local politics of research teams and workgroups and the alignments between these. We will explore the political complexities of collaborative partnerships further by focusing on some of the ‘sites of struggle’ in the ‘Uncovering Learning’ project. There is pressure on researchers to produce output-driven knowledge in the contemporary research context (Usher, 2000). The research contract between UTS and DET provides an example of the type of output-driven knowledge that is required in partnership arrangements. For example, the contract states that UTS will provide their industry partner with the following research outcomes: • Improved recognition of the learning to be found in the organisation, to the benefit of both the organisation and individual employees. • Improved understanding by key personnel in the organisations of the ways in which organisational culture and procedures encourage or inhibit learning, and the issues which need to be resolved in developing the learning organisation. • Improved learning systems and learning strategies in the organisation that will more effectively facilitate learning embedded in practice. But rather than providing just a straight ‘outcomes’ focus for the project we have attempted to reconcile the performative contractual obligations with our own research interests and desires. In this sense, the methodology of the project becomes a ‘site of struggle’. Various ‘openings’ have been created in the project to move it beyond a performative focus. One way we have done this is by disrupting conventional educational discourses of learning. Stronach and MacLure suggest that rather than providing certainty through educational research that a better strategy might be ‘…to see how far it can get by failing to deliver simple truths’ (1997, p. 6). While they are referring to commissioned research for the development of educational policy by government, we can see that this is also a useful way for approaching industry contracted research in the field of workplace learning. While contemporary adult learning discourses such as lifelong learning and situated learning have contributed to breaking down the old binaries between work and learning, these discourses do not challenge performative notions of what counts as learning in organisations. We are interested in mobilising the meanings of ‘learning’ and opening up different ways of thinking about learning at work. The above discussion suggests a unified purpose within the research team, however, the cross-boundary nature of the research team has meant a multiplicity of interests and desires. We have different ideas on what the project should be doing and what we want out of the project. But rather than adopting a research methodology based on consensus, with unified research goals and objectives, we have tried to open-up space in the project for a multiplicity of voices, identities, meanings and narratives (Rooney, Boud, Harman, Leontios, & Solomon, 2003). Having said this, we have still followed the established model of research where researchers: enter the workplace, collect data, analyse the data, and report the findings to our research partner, academic communities and other relevant agencies. But within this structure we have disrupted and made space for different voices. For example there have been different ways of analysing and making sense of the data we have collected. One version adopted an interpretive approach and examined the ‘who we learn from at work’ (Boud & Middleton). Another focused on the discourses of learning and explored the ‘naming of learning at work’ (Boud & Solomon, 2003). Still others used a communities of practice framework (Leontios, Boud, Harman, & Rooney, 2003). There are many examples from the project of the contested nature of co-produced knowledge. Some of these are referred to in other papers from the project (Rooney et al., 2003; Solomon, Boud, Leontios, & Staron, 2001) while many just do not get written up. Some project stories remain unwritten and only circulate in oral accounts. This is yet another instance of negotiating the political, where some things just can’t be written. While wanting to disrupt and challenge, there is also the recognition that the members of the research team have ‘business’ interests. For example, the academics are in the business of research where there is a need for ongoing contracts with industry partners, and this is less likely when you are using a ‘methodology of disappointment’! The tensions around ‘disrupting’, ‘contesting’ and ‘resisting closure’ in the ‘Uncovering Learning’ project were foregrounded in the project during feedback sessions with the workgroups. After conducting initial interviews with members from each of the workgroups, feedback sessions were organised to move the project into its second stage, where we would be working with each of the workgroups on a ‘learning’ project. A document was prepared which we presented to the workgroups, not as a document of ‘facts’, but more as a trigger for conversations about their learning. In this sense it was a document that raised questions rather than provide simple truths. It was around this time that dissatisfaction was expressed by some of the workgroups about the project. They felt it was vague and lacked direction. The hybridity and looseness of the project needed to be ‘tightened up’ for us to establish legitimacy with the workgroups. We made a strategic decision to present a coherent story to each of the workgroups in an effort to seduce. It is important to recognise that when we talk about collaborative partnerships as sites of struggle it is not as simple as drawing an academy/industry divide. Further complexity is added when we take into consideration that one of the ‘we’ writing this paper is also an employee of the partner organisation and representative of the industry partner on the research team. There are struggles around managing the outcomes focus required by your employer while not wanting to restrict the ‘intellectual freedom’ of project team members. Overall, our reflexive tales point to the political nature of collaborative research. Collaborative partnerships connect multiple stakeholders with different accountabilities. The ‘multiplicities’ within collaborative research produce messiness and uncertainty, but with this ‘messiness’ there is also regulation. This account of the project draws our attention to the tensions around ‘messiness’, hybrid methodologies and regulation, and these tensions provide yet another layer of political complexity. While the messy research of our collaborative partnership may produce discomfort, for both industry partners and academics, we suggest they are productive. Our hybrid methodology/s have enabled the opening-up of spaces in the research project and the production of knowledge about learning, and researching learning at work. Our reflexivity has enabled us to explore the tensions around co-producing knowledge. We have found these practices ‘useful’ in our performative research context

Research productivity and academics' conceptions of research

This paper asks the question: do people with different levels of research productivity and identification as a researcher think of research differently? It discusses a study that differentiated levels of research productivity among English and Australian academics working in research-intensive environments in three broad discipline areas: science, engineering and technology; social science and humanities; and medicine and health sciences. The paper explores the different conceptions of research held by these academics in terms of their levels of research productivity, their levels of research training, whether they considered themselves an active researcher and a member of a research team, and their disciplinary differences

Uncovering learning at work.

The Australian Research Council project, Uncovering Learning at Work explored the extent and nature of informal learning and its contribution and significance to the TAFE workplace and its employees. The research was a qualitative study carried out in partnership between the University of Technology, Sydney and the TAFE Professional Development Network unit. This collaborative arrangement was ideal for this study because TAFE, as an organisation, are interested in the relationship between work and learning. The research employed the term ‘everyday learning’ to describe the phenomenon under investigation. This understanding recognises that there are elements of both formality and informality in all learning situations. Uncovering Learning at Work was conducted in three stages. The first involved one-to-one interviews and the collection of initial qualitative data. In the second the researchers worked closely with individual workgroups around particular workplace issues. The final stage examined the implications of the project for TAFE and its employees in collaboration with key TAFE stakeholders. The questions the research focused on were about: • ideas staff had about learning • staff perceptions of learning opportunities in TAFE • how staff constructed learning through their work relationships for their own benefit and for the strategic goals for TAFE • key strategies for identifying and utilising learning opportunities without undermining existing informal learning processes • theories of adult learning that took account of the work-related learning of TAFE staff in an organisational context. This research followed four workgroups over a period of three years. The four workgroups came from two Sydney metropolitan Institutes of TAFE. The workgroups represented a range of organisational areas including a trade teaching unit, an administrative unit, a group of senior managers and a unit responsible for workplace delivery. Analysis of project data resulted in several important findings. These are presented in four themes, which are briefly discussed in this report: full details are available in the listed publications. The four themes are: 1. What we learn and who we learn from - Three significant areas of learning were evident in analysis of the interviews. Analysis of the project data yielded two interesting findings with regard to who workers learned from. Very few people that were actively sought by staff to help them learn are generally understood as people with an ‘official’ role in promoting workplace learning. 2. Naming learning and naming oneself as a learner – The research suggests there is a complex politics involved in the naming of learning and the naming of oneself as a learner in this organisation. This is further complicated given that TAFE has learning as its raison d’etre and, as a workplace, there is much more informed discourse about workplace learning and its value compared to most other organisations. 3. Spaces of learning – this report suggests ‘Space’ is a helpful concept for thinking about everyday learning in TAFE and at work in general. The research drew on broad understandings of space, identity and learning and found the analysis of everyday learning in spatial terms can open opportunities for investigating workplace learning. The focus drew attention to what was called ‘in-between’ spaces. These new understandings unsettled the binaries that are commonly accepted by most workplaces: on-the-job / off-the-job, worker / learner etc. It is these ‘in-between’ spaces that interesting things were happening in regard to everyday learning. 4. Researching learning in contemporary workplaces - Throughout the project the research team explored the complexities of collaboratively researching workplace learning. This was important because while workplaces are popular sights for contemporary research, and collaborative research is popular catchcry of contemporary researchers, both workplace and collaborative research typically gloss over the complexities and contradictions this type of research often encompasses. Arising from its analysis, this report puts forward a number of discussion points for consideration by TAFE. The areas for discussion include: - relationships between informal and formal - significance of everyday learning - imposing formality - languages of learning - learning dimensions of change - local relationships - role for structured learning - future research. These areas for discussion suggest some possible strategies that TAFE may consider in order to enhance the everyday learning of the organisation

The transformative potential of reflective diaries for elite English cricketers

The sport of cricket has a history of its players suffering from mental health issues. The psychological study of cricket and, in particular, the attendant demands of participating at an elite level has not previously received rigorous academic attention. This study explored ten elite male cricketers’ experiences of keeping a daily reflective diary for one month during the competitive season. The aim was to assess how valuable qualitative diaries are in this field. Participants were interviewed regarding their appraisal of the methodology as a self‐help tool that could assist coping with performance pressures and wider life challenges. Three outcomes were revealed: first, that diary keeping was an effective opportunity to reflect upon the past and enhance one’s self (both as an individual and a performer); second, that diary keeping acted as a form of release that allowed participants to progress; and third, that diary keeping allowed participants to discover personal patterns of success that increased the likeliness of optimum performance