Capacity
Is there adequate capacity building to sustain complementary forms of educational research and development?
UK capacity to conduct high quality education research is significant – but it is also vulnerable, particularly in relation to the age-profile of researchers and some skill-sets. Capacity is a particular issue in the smaller UK countries.
The outcome of the 2008 Research Assessment Exercise records some 75 per cent of the education research submitted from 82 higher education institutions to be of international quality or above, with 15 per cent being ‘world class’. Further, the funding outcome resulted in no less than 41 institutions receiving funding which were not previously supported following the 2001 exercise. This outcome recognises the existence of important clusters of high quality work in institutions across most, but not all, of the UK. On the other hand, the numbers of staff submitted to the RAE from some institutions was very small, with an overall median of 13. Further, ESRC’s recent analysis of the research workforce in universities highlights the particular demographic challenge facing education with more than 52 per cent of staff aged 50 or over (Mills, Jepson, Coxon, Easterby-Smith, Hawkins, & Spencer, 2006).
Capacity in quantitative data collection and analysis and in quasi-experimental research designs was recognised in Forum I as being significantly weaker in the higher education sector than for qualitative research. However, the reverse might be said for capacity within other providers of research services such as NFER and the private sector and within local and national government bodies. In relation to teacher education and professional development, appreciation of the value of action research and enquiry into practice to improve the quality of teaching and learning appears to be growing across all sectors. However, existence of capacity to support this commitment at scale is far from proven.
Capacity is interpreted in many ways, and also has many dimensions. In the development of new capacity building provision, there is a need for greater understanding of the multiple elements which contribute to capacity, of how they interrelate together and of how particular stakeholders can contribute to the whole.
Forum I reviewed the important contributions to capacity building which could be made at national, regional, sectoral, institutional, departmental, work group and individual levels. Awareness and provision was shown to exist at some levels and in some countries, but this was far from comprehensive. Even when there is provision there quite often appeared to be a struggle for congruence because of differing views or research and of priorities. Nevertheless, there are signs of progress towards the more explicit delineation of responsibilities for capacity building provision in education as proposed by Andrew Pollard in his introductory remarks at Forum I (see also Pollard, 2008).
In respect of university provision, there have been several capacity building developments since Forum I took place and since RAE 2008 outcomes became apparent. Many of these are focused on early career researchers and on distributing concentrations of social scientific expertise. For example, ESRC has proposed the establishment of a UK network of Doctoral Training Centres (DTCs) and smaller Doctoral Training Units (DTUs), thus in principle enabling the benefits of centres of excellence to be shared more widely in respect of training. ESRC’s National Centre for Research Methods has been funded for a further five years with a new set of specialist nodes exploring cutting edge methods. TLRP has integrated its electronic capacity building resources with those of AERS and NCRM to enable sustainable public access through the good offices of BERA and a consortium of interested bodies (see BERA’s Resources webpage). The Teacher Education Group has created a specific resource for that area. ESRC has also supported three small-scale, short term pilot activities prior to consideration of the needs of the field. Thus the Teacher Education Research Network is piloting a regional capacity building strategy in England and the Welsh Educational Research Network is promoting similar collaboration in Wales, also with HEFCW support. A further pilot funded by ESRC is exploring the roll out of the virtual research environment technology developed by TLRP to support social and professional networks of researchers in education (see the Social and Professional Network for Education Researchers project webpage). However, the future of these initiatives has yet to be decided.
In respect of practitioner research and enquiry, appreciation of its potential to contribute to improvements in teaching and learning appears to be growing across the UK and in many sectors. In the schools sector, the work of the four UK General Teaching Councils is now consistent in promoting this form of professional development. Government agencies, such as the English TDA, appear to be increasingly adopting a similar position in association with a general trend towards new and more devolved forms of accountability. An example, from Further Education, is the Learning and Skills Improvement Service (LSIS) in England which is now leading on the role of practitioner research for quality improvement through the Excellence Gateway and the LSIS Quality Improvement journal. The Higher Education Academy is understood to be similarly developing an enhanced portal to support UK practitioner research and enquiry in higher education.
Demand is growing in each part of the UK for high quality, timely and accessible education research on which to base policy and practice. There are capacity challenges for potential users of research in making best use of the resources and knowledge which are already available as well as in commissioning new work.
The relationship between ‘producers’ and ‘users’ of research was seen as being crucial for applied research of all kinds. It was felt that applied researchers need to better engage policymakers and practitioners in their research – throughout the whole process and not just in terms of disseminating findings. A new commitment to user engagement and co-production has been recommended by the British Academy (Wilson, 2008) and there is also a lot of experience from TLRP to be drawn upon. However it was felt that, in complementary ways, policymakers need to ensure they pay appropriate attention to high quality evidence and have the skills to find, interpret and assess such research. For practitioners, developments such as the Scotland’s Chartered Teacher scheme or England’s Masters in Teaching and Learning had the potential to develop teachers’ engagement with research – although the reach of these schemes has yet to be established. Knowledge mediators such as think tanks and education consultants were recognised as playing an important role in the spread of knowledge, though it was recognised that their specialist capacity in education is not always strong or sustained.
Infrastructural capacity to evaluate and make education research findings available also remains somewhat limited. However, the Evidence for Policy and Practice Information Centre (EPPI-Centre) continues to lead the way on systematic reviews and the Institute for Effective Education is now establishing itself. The Educational Evidence Portal is the latest attempt at establishing a public database and complements the more academic British Education Index, though neither enjoys long-term funding. Databases such as GTCNI’s Access to Research Resources for Teachers Space (ARRTS) to and TDA‘s Teacher Training Resource Bank (TTRB) are reaching particular audiences effectively. Altough at present education does not have an evidence centre offering the depth and accessibility of the Social Care Institute for Excellence (SCIE), the new Centre for Excellence and Outcomes in Children and Young People’s Services (C4EO) is working towards this for children’s services. C4EO brings together partners (NFER, SCIE, Research in Practice, NCB) to identify and coordinate ’evidence of ‘what works’, to create a single and comprehensive picture of effective practice’.
Challenges
Dr Zoe Fowler’s capacity building report from Forum I highlighted three main challenges and these can be followed up on p.43 of the main report. They are:
- sustaining the field in response to demographic challenges and policy pressures;
- developing the field to address systemic weaknesses and to make more effective use of existing resources, both material and human;
- fostering the potential of the field to respond effectively to unforeseen challenges in the future.
Comments Off
