The Society for Research into Higher Education conference 2011 took place in Newport, Wales in December. The conference entitled Positive Futures for higher education; connections, communities and criticality sought to debate and discuss the challenges that face higher education. My paper on flying faculty teaching experiences and their impact on transformational learning and professional development was one of 200 peer-reviewed papers and symposia. The standard of papers was generally very good and there was a wide variety of stimulating pieces. I shall give an overview of my highlights here.
Professor Sir David Watson’s (University of Oxford) keynote address, “Misunderstanding contemporary higher education: some category mistakes”, drew on William Empson’s (1930) “Seven Types of Ambiguity” to explore misunderstandings around higher education. Watson considered the ‘university’ as a unit of analysis; the notion of ‘access’ to higher education; talking about ‘higher’ education when ‘tertiary’ is more appropriate; research selectivity; the concept of ‘world class-ness’; the divide between public and private institutions; the meaning of ‘informed choice’; and reputation and quality. Well referenced, well delivered and thought provoking, David Watson’s piece suggested that category mistakes (i.e. mistakes arising when things or facts of one kind are presented as if they belonged to another) made about higher education led to misunderstandings about the sector in which we work.
Jane Clarke, De Montfort University, presented a paper focussed on a research project exploring the experiences of ‘middle layer’ academics. The paper Strengthening the core: uncovering and meeting the challenges experienced by programme leaders and principal lecturers highlighted the significant issues that programme leaders and principal lecturers often face. They have a lot of responsibility but no real authority; there is often no preparation or induction into the new roles; there is a heavy administrative burden; and there is a lack of team working. Clarke suggested that programme leadership roles should involve a phase-in and phase-out period; that promotion criteria to principal lecturer positions should be made more explicit; and that mentorship should be offered. Jane Clarke’s work resonated with my own experiences of working with programmes leaders on curriculum review: these staff are often tasked to design, develop, and review programmes comprised of disparate modules when they have no authority over the module leaders. This can lead to considerable stress and pressure in terms of fulfilling their role.
Paul Hewson, University of Plymouth, offered an analysis of the NSS survey data in his paper: Implications of fully modelling the National Student “Survey” (NSS). Hewson noted that the NSS is not a survey at all, but a census (as everyone has the right to respond). The NSS does not use random sampling techniques, which means that it is difficult to say anything about the missing data, i.e. the implications of ‘missingness’. In order to limit some of the issues associated with missing data, Bayesian models were fitted to the survey which took into account personal, institutional and subject specific characteristics as well as accounting for the non-response bias. The study showed clear patterns in terms of subject group responses to different questions: students who have been on placement rate their confidence more highly, while students on courses (such as mathematics) where objective marking is more readily attainable are more likely to agree that their assessment was “fair”. These findings were interesting in and of themselves; however, for me, the paper was a reminder of the dangers of producing policy recommendations based on the analysis of incomplete data.
Paul Ashwin, University of Lancaster, offered a series of presentations at the conference with colleagues Monica McLean, University of Nottingham, and Andrea Abbas, Teesside University. They were reporting on their ESRC-funded project looking at pedagogic quality and inequality in first degrees. In a lively presentation, Ashwin asked Where is the knowledge? Visions of high quality undergraduate education in UK policy documents. The paper was based on the analysis of 91 policy documents from different groups (government, student bodies, employer groups, trade unions, and international higher education agencies). The research looked to explore the way in which a ‘high quality’ undergraduate education was positioned in documentation. The study found that students’ relations to knowledge are largely invisible within the visions of a high quality undergraduate education that are offered by these documents. I have also carried out research looking at the language of higher education policy and have highlighted what policy documents say and do not say about higher education; Paul Ashwin’s work, noting the absence of knowledge, raises issues about the ways in which a ‘high quality’ undergraduate education is defined.
Michael Vogel’s (Institute of Education) “The loneliness of the higher education teacher”, captured my interest as it used critical discourse analysis (CDA) as a means to analyse the in-depth interviews, informal conversations and unstructured observations collected for the study. As a proponent of CDA, I was keen to hear what Vogel had to say about teaching. His study was carried out in a German higher education institution. He highlighted that teaching often takes place behind closed doors and is treated as a private affair, seeped in what Shulman has called ‘pedagogical solitude’. Vogel’s work shows that the discourses of working conditions construct pedagogical dialogue as practically impossible, while professional identity discourses present it as unnecessary. This renders pedagogical solitude normal and any attempts to overcome it are likely to be met with resistance. This undoubtedly raises challenges for those involved in new lecturer development, where development often calls for the visibilising of teaching through discussion, debate and reflection.
Finally, Professor Patrick Ainley, University of Greenwich, was honoured with a Fellowship of the Society for Research into higher education for his contribution to the field of higher education research.