Abstract
To show how research and teaching, core academic activities are discursively shaped through policy discussion we critically identify and examine the institutional effects of senior academics’ discourses on research-led teaching. The analysis sheds light on the interrelationship between university policy and the powerful and productive effects of senior management ‘talk’ in framing the object of policy, the relations between research and teaching. Our approach moves analysis of the teaching and research relationship beyond system-wide debates and challenges, to a detailed study of the effects of institutional ideology and attendant discourses. Our analysis of senior academic managers’ interview data reveals that implicit in the call to construct a stronger alignment between teaching and research, is the valorisation of research at the expense of teaching and learning which is problematised and devalued. Our contention is that policy implementation based on these simplified assumptions may well strengthen university research outcomes but in doing so may prove unsuccessful in improving teaching and learning outcomes. The contribution of our analysis is that it surfaces complexities that underpin apparently instrumental and normative institutional policy prescriptions and in so doing contributes to a deeper understanding of the political and practical effects of senior managers’ views on policy implementation.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Alvesson, M., & Karreman, D. (2000). Varieties of discourse: On the study of organizations through discourse analysis. Human Relations, 53, 1125–1149.
Ball, (1993). What is policy? Texts, trajectories and toolboxes. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 13(2), 10–17.
Barnett, R. (2005). Introduction. In R. Barnett (Ed.), Reshaping the university (pp. 1–8). Maidenhead, UK: SHRE and Open University Press.
Brew, A. (2003). Teaching and research: New relationships and their implications for inquiry-based teaching and learning in higher education. Higher Education Research and Development, 22(1), 3–18.
Brew, A. (2006). Research and teaching: Beyond the divide. Sydney: Palgrave Macmillan.
Brew, A. (2007). Research and teaching from the students’ perspective. Paper presented at the Colloquium theme: International policies and practices for academic enquiry from http://portal-live.solent.ac.uk/university/rtconference/rtcolloquium_home.aspx.
Brew, A. (2010). Imperatives and challenges in integrating teaching and research. Higher Education Research and Development, 29(2), 139–150.
Chan, A. (2005). Policy discourses and changing practice: Diversity and the university-college. Higher Education, 50(1), 129–157.
Elton, L. (1986). Research and teaching: Symbiosis or conflict. Higher Education, 15(304), 299–304.
Elton, L. (2001). Research and teaching: Conditions for a positive link. Teaching in Higher Education, 6(1), 43–56.
Fairclough, N. (1993). Critical discourse analysis and the marketization of public discourse: The universities. Discourse and Society, 4, 133–168.
Fairclough, N. (2005). Discourse analysis in organization studies: The case for critical realism. Organization Studies, 26(6), 915–939.
Fairclough, N. (2009). A Dialectical-relational approach to critical discourse analysis in social research. In R. Wodak & M. Meyer (Eds.), Methods of critical discourse analysis (2nd ed.). London: Sage Publications Limited.
Frazer, I. (2006). How can a “teaching and research” academic scientist survive in the current economic climate? HERDSA News, 28(2), 1–5.
Grant, D., & Hardy, C. (2004). Introduction: Struggles with organizational discourse. Organization Studies, 25(5), 5–13.
Group of Eight (2010) http://www.go8.edu.au/. Accessed 4 October, 2010.
Hattie, J., & Marsh, H. (1996). The relationship between research and teaching: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 66(4), 507–542.
Hattie, J., & Marsh, H. (2004). One journey to unravel the relationship between research and teaching. Paper presented at the Research and Teaching: Closing the Divide? An International Colloquium. Marwell Conference Centre, Winchester, 17–19 March.
Hughes, M. (2005). The mythology of research and teaching relationships in universities. In R. Barnett (Ed.), Reshaping the University (pp. 14–26). Maidenhead, UK: SHRE and Open University Press.
Jenkins, A. (2004). A guide to the research evidence on teaching-research relations. Heslington, York, UK: The Higher Education Academy.
Jenkins, A., & Healey, M. (2005). Institutional strategies to link teaching and research. Heslington, York, UK: The Higher Education Academy.
Keenoy, T., & Oswick, C. (2004). Organizing textscapes. Organization Studies, 25, 135–142.
Kinchin, I., & Hay, D. (2007). The myth of the research-led teacher. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 13(1), 43–61.
Louie, B., Stackman, R., Drevdahl, D., & Purdie, J. (2002). 13 myths about teaching and the university professor. In J. Loughran & T. Russell (Eds.), Improving teacher education practices through self-study (pp. 193–207). London: RoutledgeFalmer.
Marginson, S. (1997). Steering from a distance: Power relations in Australian higher education. Higher Education, 34, 63–80.
Marginson, S. (2000). Rethinking academic work in the global era. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 22(1), 23–35.
Marginson, S. (2007). Global university rankings: Implications in general and for Australia. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 29(2), 131–142.
Marginson, S., & Considine, M. (2000). The Enterprise University: Power, governance and reinvention in Australia. Oakleigh, Victoria: Cambridge University Press.
Mumby, D. (1987). The political function of narrative in organizations. Communication Monographs, 54, 113–127.
Neumann, R. (1992). Perceptions of the teaching-research nexus: A framework for analysis. Higher Education, 23(2), 159–171.
Neumann, R. (1993). Research and scholarship: Perceptions of senior academic administrators. Higher Education, 25(1), 97–110.
Oswick, C., Keenoy, T., & Grant, D. (2000). Discourse, organisations and organizing: Concepts, objects and subjects. Human Relations, 53, 1115–1122.
Potter, J., & Wetherell, M. (1987). Discourse and social psychology: Beyond attitudes and behaviour. London: Sage.
Pratt, M. (2009). For the lack of a boilerplate: Tips on writing up (and reviewing) qualitative research. Academy of Management Journal, 52(5), 852–856.
Schapper, J., & Mayson, S. (2010). Research-led teaching: Moving from a fractured engagement to a marriage of convenience. Higher Education Research and Development Journal, 29(6), 641–651.
Smith, K. (2008). “Who do you think you’re talking to?”—the discourse of learning and teaching strategies. Higher Education, 56(4), 395–406.
Taylor, J. (2007). The teaching-research nexus: A model for institutional management. Higher Education, 54, 867–884.
Taylor, S., Rizvi, F., Lingard, R., & Henry, M. (1997). Education policy and the politics of change. London: Routledge.
Tharenou, P., Donohue, R., & Cooper, B. (2007). Mangement research methods. Port Melbourne: Cambridge University Press.
The Teaching Research Nexus: A guide to academics and policy makers in higher education (2011) http://trnexus.edu.au. Accessed 27 November 2011.
Trowler, P. (2001). Captured by the discourse? The socially constitutive power of new higher education discourse in the UK. Organization, 8(2), 183–201.
Wodak, R., & Meyer, M. (2009). Critical discourse analysis: History, agenda, theory and methodology. In: R. Wodak & M. Meyer (Eds.), Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis 2nd Edition, London: Sage Publications Limited.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Mayson, S., Schapper, J. Constructing teaching and research relations from the top: an analysis of senior manager discourses on research-led teaching. High Educ 64, 473–487 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-012-9505-8
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-012-9505-8