Building capacity in the FE sector
Andrew Morris (FEDA) and Geoff Stanton (University of Greenwich)
(E-mail: )
Discussion Paper presented at the ESRC Teaching and Learning Research Programme, First Annual Conference - University of Leicester, November 2000
Introduction
Research activity relating to the FE sector has become more widely recognised in recent years. This is partly due to better communications between work done in the FE and HE sectors through, for example, the FEDA[1] FE Research Network (and SFEU in Scotland)[2], the BERA Post-16 Special Interest Group, and the journal College Research. Research in FE means quite different things to different people, ranging from research by social scientists in HE through market research in TECs to curriculum development projects in FE colleges. It therefore involves a wide variety of actors with a range of differing purposes and sources of funding. This has led to the suggestion (Stanton and Morris, 2000, p 137) of a cycle of distinct processes, grouped broadly into research activities and development activities. Research with development can be contrasted with the formulation, more common in HE, of research followed by dissemination. Development activity generates research questions and demands particular analytical work to inform it. Research requires the contributions of developers in the design of research, in particular, its capacity to influence change. This paper focuses on this cyclical process. It does not deny the value of other forms of research in FE, such as action research, speculative or experimental research, scholarly or theoretical study.
Stages of research
The question of capacity for such inter-linked development and research therefore relates to a number of distinct elements. Firstly, capacity at the stage of problem identification. HE-based researchers may identify problems arising from the unfolding of their subject discipline, from the elaboration or extension of previous research, or from contracts they have with sponsors. Policy officials may prioritise issues arising from the development, implementation or evaluation of government-led policies, on, for example, key skills, graduation certificates or foundation degrees. Without transformation through practitioner knowledge, it is likely that findings from such research will have limited impact on practice (ESRC-TLRP, 2000). Practitioner knowledge, based on the experience of teachers, advisers, counsellors, technicians, librarians and others, is central to what Gibbons et al (1994) have termed “mode 2” research. In this, “discovery occurs in contexts where knowledge is developed for use and put to use”. This description appears relevant to much research in FE. Recognition of it is limited, however, because such knowledge, held as it is by individuals, is neither easy to locate nor to distil.
In Further Education, a long tradition of project-based development has effectively created an industry with the potential to mediate between the lone practitioner and the researcher. The key roles in this industry are those of developer and development manager (Stanton and Morris, 2000, p 139). The developer, frequently a practitioner seconded partially and temporarily from their primary role, will lead a project and may involve other practitioners in its conduct. The development manager, perhaps a vice principal, quality manager or departmental head, attempts to co-ordinate a range of projects and to secure impact from today’s projects and funding for tomorrow’s. Securing impact depends on the ability to identify implications for staff, curriculum and institutional development. Clear capacity problems arise for these developers and the researchers with whom they might interact. The developer role is not conceptualised in a comparable way to that of the researcher. As a consequence, the training, information and support needed to equip developers are usually absent. The knowledge generated by developers, and the practitioners amongst which they operate, is relatively undervalued. This disparity means that developers and researchers do not interact sufficiently.
The identification of research questions that are both researchable, but also likely to produce useable outcomes, requires dialogue between researchers and developers. Practitioner experience, often expressed through development work, needs interpreting to generate useful research questions. Similarly, research questions posed by academic researchers may require adaptation through the knowledge of practitioners. Similarly, at the specification stage, an interplay of the two kinds of knowledge are needed to arrive at projects, dissertations or development programmes that are both robust and applicable.
In the conduct of research, care is needed to ensure that tasks are undertaken by those best equipped to undertake them. In general, this is likely to mean that professional, dedicated researchers are required. Indeed a range of specialists may well be called for to bear on the complex problems of practice and policy formation. Expert observers, interviewers, statistical analysts, theorists and scholars, from a range of disciplines, may be needed, of whom only some are likely to be found within the practitioner community.
But, as the messages of research begin to emerge, the interaction between researcher and developer or practitioner again becomes paramount. For research to make a difference, its impact needs to be planned. The types of outcomes need to be anticipated so that particular audiences can be visualised and materials developed to suit them. As an example, a project undertaken by FEDA for the DfEE into the reasons for non-completion of GNVQ courses produced data from surveys and interviews with students, ex-students, teachers and managers, analyses of college statistics and from a review of relevant literature (Davies, P. 1998). However, the interpretation of these data, designed to encourage improvement action, involved teachers, managers and admission staff as well as the researchers. The context in which students, teachers, personal tutors and careers advisers worked, shaped the messages that were drawn out from the data. A teacher guidance manual, supported by training workshops together with a briefing note for policymakers were included in the research specification.
Beyond analysis and interpretation, lies the crucial “impact planning” stage. Understanding of the variety of actual settings in which research findings might find their use, is the special province of the developer and manager. Planning of staff training programmes, production of “how to” teacher materials, creation of web-sites may all flow from research findings, when they have been interpreted, distilled and expressed in ways likely to engage practitioners, managers and policymakers during the normal course of their working lives. By attracting only those who are free to attend, national conferences are unlikely to impact significantly on practice.
Building capacity
So what implications can be drawn from this description of the cycle of research and development, that bear on the question of capacity building? Firstly, capacity needs to be built amongst developers and development managers as well as researchers. Secondly, the criteria for judging quality in research need to be extended beyond those appropriate to academic research. New criteria might include:
· the relevance and priority of the research questions in practitioner or policy terms
· the timing of research outputs in relation to the annual practitioner cycle and the 4-5 year policy cycle
· the extent to which types of outcome can be anticipated which lend themselves to improvement actions
· the extent to which the variety of skills, knowledge and understanding required for “all through” research is recognised
Thirdly, in recognition of this wider set of criteria, capacity will need to be built in each of the stages of the cycle. Developers, and the practitioners with whom they work, need training in understanding research questions - when to spot them and how to formulate them as part of ongoing development activity. Development managers need training in how to locate and select useful research findings and how to bring them to bear on developmental activity. Researchers, in complementary fashion, need training in how to adapt research questions in the light of practitioner knowledge and of management or policy priorities. Researchers also need to understand the transformation of findings into instruments, products or services capable of changing front-line practice and policy development. Particular attention will need to be paid to handling these interface issues in relation to the researcher’s concern for objectivity, independence and ethical behaviour.
Fourthly, capacity, whether in the form of skill, knowledge or understanding, needs to be developed live, as the cycle of operations proceeds. Some initial training may be advisable, but much is best handled in the context of the unfolding project or investigation. In practice this may well require virtual networks of mentors, skill specialists and peers, operating through usernets and conference areas as well as structured face-to-face training sessions.
In general terms, this menu of capacity-building measures implies a collaborative, developmental approach. Examples of university-, college-, community- and TEC-based staff working together in workshops and in on-the-job training are available (Morris and Melliss, 1995; Young et al, 1995; Merrill et al, 2000). However, they occur infrequently and are underdeveloped. Perhaps the opportunity of the Teaching and Learning Research Programme will enable us to conceptualise and then realise effective models for building capacity mutually.
Questions
1. Can the early stages (identifying key problems, specifying useful research) and the later stages (distilling and reporting for practitioners, managers and policymakers) be usefully conceived as part of an all-through process of effective research?
2. Is it feasible for skills, knowledge and understanding to be developed, on a significant scale, amongst practitioners, managers and policy makers that enables them to contribute effectively to the research process?
3. Can sufficient researchers be found who are both qualified in research and experienced as practitioners?
4. Could quality criteria be developed that enable project proposals involving consortia of practitioners, developers, managers and policymakers to become more common?
5. Could additional resources for capacity building be earmarked within the budgets of colleges and other organisations delivering learning?
6. Should alternative approaches to capacity building be themselves the subject of research and development ?
References
Davies, P. (1998), Non-completion of GNVQs , FEDA Research Report no. 3
ESRC-TLRP (2000) Executive Summary of the Teaching and Learning Research Programme (p 4), www.ex.ac.uk/esrc-tlrp/
Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P. and Trow, M. (1994), The new production of knowledge, London, Sage
Merrill, B. et al. (2000), The FE college and its communities, FEDA publications
Morris, A. and Melliss, N. (1995), The Hamlyn/CILNTEC post-16 unified curriculum project, Report to the Paul Hamlyn Foundation
Stanton, G. and Morris, A. (2000) Making research and development more than research plus development, Higher Education Quarterly 54 (2), pp 127 – 146
Young, M., Unwin, L., Howard, U. and Hodgson, A. (1995) Enhancing the research capacity of FE colleges, Working Papers of the University of London Institute of Education Post-16 Education Centre
[1] Further Education Development Agency
[2] Scottish Further Education Unit