Putting Research Outcomes into Practice (PROP)
Notes of the meeting held on July 4th/5th 2007 at the Chancellors Conference Centre, Manchester.
Those present:
1
Bill Law
Brian McIvor
David Stanbury
Della Fazey
Helen Wakefield
Jane Artess
Jenny Bimrose
Karen Carter
Kent Roach
Lindsey Bowes
Paul Dowson
Paul Jackson
Peter Hawkins
Ros Healey
Ruth Lawton
Sharon Nicholson
Terry Dray
1
Apologies were received from:
1
Alistair Work
Amanda Wood
Andrew Bottomley
Barbara Graham
Becka Currant
Claire Callender
Claire Rees
Dave Kilmartin
David Gibbison
Deirdre Hughes
Gareth Dent
Graham Nicholson
Helen Colley
Jeff Goodman
Kate Purcell
Laurence Whitson
Lee Harvey
Loretta Jennings
Margaret Dane
Pat Quinn
Rob Ward
Sarah Ryan
Val Butcher
1
Agenda
Peter Hawkins again facilitated a range of sessions as follows:
1 / Welcome & objectives / To clarify the next steps2 / Weather mapping / Review of the sun/rain in PROP progress
3 / Flash of lightning / What research has struck you lately? Action?
4 / Blue sky thinking / What practice has shone as being innovative? How has it influenced you?
5 / Winds of change / How does PROP need to evolve? Agree a model for managing PROP network and commissioning core work
6 / Weather forecast / Next steps!
Weather mapping
Participants in PROP have reported the following immediate outcomes/intentions,
-encouragement to develop culture of personal development amongst (careers) service staff
-professional support - energising - confidence in approaching researchers
-provides structure for professional reflection
-establishment of a research post within the careers service
-stimulated thinking about how research can be used
-more inclined to take risks; to innovate
-desire to re-visit 'old chestnuts' and to reframe new ones (eg coaching event)
-create a 'green-housing' atmosphere
-undertaken a literature review connecting psychological (learning) theorising with that of career development
-more use of narrative and metaphor in own teaching
Equally, challenges are articulated as,
-not all research is the same or of the same apparent value
-much research is written for other researchers - the missing step appears to be articulating what practitioners can do about/with it
-there is a need for a clear framework of principles and values to underpin PROP and the exposition of models or ways of working
-how do we find research? How does it find us?
-there is a role for PROP to alert members to new research
-PROP member contact is short-lived; not enough time
Flash of lightning
Participants swapped papers and explanations. Discussion raised the following:
-Do we need research that explains that inequality (or other issues) is not the fault of HE CAS? Students not finding work is presented as institutional failure
-How can we influence policy in HE?
-Citizenship (in schools) is seen as part of the policy solution but careers ed is not seen as contributing to any policy agenda - can we do anything about that?
-Need to appeal to a variety of stakeholders
-Important to connect with other professional groups (eg ICG)
-Student autonomy is an important pre-condition for happiness - some may choose not to apply for jobs
-Is 'career' an outdated notion? Ought we to use the term 'roles' ?
What roles does PROP fulfil? PROP participants provide the following roles in relation to research and practice:
-commissions
-designs
-conducts
-advises
-links/networks
-develops researched material
PROP does not need to generate any long term research projects - rather its outcomes should be short, sharp and readily accessible. We already have a lot of research therefore PROP needs to focus on translating, interpreting, badging or showcasing what is already in the public domain. There needs to be a 'demonstration' project - using the green-housing approach which has the dual purpose of helping researchers to write for practitioner-use and to help practitioners to use researched evidence. The example of the NCSL's networked learning communities was provided, where - starting from a consensus about values and principles - distinction was made between 'learning with', 'learning from' and 'learning on behalf of' was used not to identify 'best practice' but to develop 'powerful practice' that has an impact within its (local) context. The process of achieving powerful practice is being achieved by a (simple) process of providing good description together with key questions to guide thinking and reflection. PROP appears to have the necessary components to do this.
Blue sky thinking
A draft paper by Jenny and Jane was presented as a stimulus for discussion. The paper described a range of popular 'career theories' and linked these to practical action taken by advisers. Comments included:
-would like to put some of this into practice
-sometimes the model used to justify practice is switched/changed to rationalise the practice!
-what is the difference between practice that is intuitive and expertise?
-we need to check our own theoretical assumptions
-subject disciplines mask similarity
-how can theory be used to update 'old lags'
-theoretical underpinning for practice needs to be flexible
-theories provides a repertoire/range of perspectives
-theory is validated by experience not methodology
-we pick n mix from different theorising (modernist approach)
-use of word 'rational' in career is a modernist conception -
-what would be post modernist?
-people chose (jobs) on the basis of the brand name
-theorising is white, and male - there are (feminist, minority ethnic) gaps in theorising
-comparative work is needed - how do other countries theorise
-grounded theorising could use vignettes of practice as a basis for analysis
-its difficult to articulate theoretical conception because we internalise it
-need a framework for 'comparative appreciative enquiry'
-do we know enough about how different groups learn
-students want to know what is happening to others like themselves
Winds of change
The discussion began with an examination of the familiar DOTS model. As co-author of it Bill led a critique of it that included:
-DOTS has been a useful linear model for developing careers education programmes
-It does not provide direction, order or process (or verbs!)
-Nor does it include social context or sense of influences upon career decision-making
-Self concept is socially determined and dynamic
-Need to be able to think outside the DOTS (eg the joining the dots up with 4 lines game illustrates this)
-Distinguish between (student) 'autonomy' and 'power' where autonomy is a learned condition but power is contextual
-(Students) need to be "free to …(act) " not "free from ….(deficiencies to act)"
-Bill suggested a new model - CPI which is an acronym for Coverage, Processes and Influences.
-(Career) learning is procedural, semantic and episodic - the best way to capture that is via narrative explanations
-Or via metaphor
-It is possible to represent experience through action and to generate lists rather than stories
-Normative stories are easier to capture than non-normative
-There is a need to include a 'spiritual' - where meaning and purpose can be placed together (see also Savickas)
-We need new terms (DOTS is too well-known) - we should be talking about roles rather than careers and thinking of individuals as rounded citizens not just workers
-There is a need to value relationships (networks) and to build process skills and identify what (an individual's) influencers and values are
-This will involve critical thinking and the development of coherence (consensus) in individuals
-None of us know if our choices are correct until we put them into practice - that is, have experience
-Where does (careers advisor) expertise fit into this?
-There is no such thing as 'ipartial' - all information needs to be subject to critical scrutiny
-CPI might look like: height and width provide coverage and process but the depth would include influencers/feelings, attributes and purposes
Weather forecast
Bill's contribution achieved a sense of direction - that PROP could focus on the development of an up-to-date, three dimensional model for careers work in HE that would draw upon the theorising and also provide a basis for researcher-practitioner collaboration. In the final sessionDella began a debate by suggesting a staged way in which this could be taken forward:
NB in describing the following, it was acknowledged that all PROP members (both present and not) had contributed to this thinking. After some initial concern, there was a consensus that this would be a useful way of moving forward. For brevity this will be referred to as 'Della's model'.
- Identify question(s) that practitioners and researchers need answers for.
- Commission a researcher(s) to undertake a literature review of all that is already published on the question
- Researcher produces synthesis paper for a group of practitioners
- A workshop/discussion group is held to look at how the ideas in the paper could be put into practice (in the contexts that the practitioners are working)
- Practitioners return to practice for say, 3 or 6 months (there is no other intervention from the researcher at this stage)
- Researcher then interviews each practitioner and uses their responses to develop a second synthesis paper
- Practitioners validate contents of paper in respect of 'own' practice
- Researcher then writes paper
- Second workshop/discussion group is held to discuss paper and the outcomes that the process has generated - it could be published - with both the names of researcher and practitioners as author.
Issues:
1) how would this process be sustained? (momentum) 2) how would it be funded? - especially the researcher's time and the workshop sessions (HECSU, others?) 3) how would quality assurance be achieved?
Outcomes:
1) research would be put into practice. 2) PROP would develop 'adaptive expertise' in a variety of settings.
Making it happen:
1) someone with research skills would be needed for the researcher role. 2) a facilitator would be required for the workshops and to help practitioners to articulate questions. 3) the practical accounts could be used to collect narrative data/case studies of practice. 4) if a group of practitioners collate practice instead of researcher interviews, then the outcomes would be led by practice. 5) the researcher's role would then be to pull the threads together and express the conceptualisations. 6) PROP would be at the intersection of public-knowledge (published), practice-knowledge and new-knowledge (to be published). 7) Use on and off-line 'tools' as well as what is traditionally thought-of as research.
Outputs:
The product would be the process.(but is this enough?)
A new model-for-practice informed by current research.
Researchers would be working collaboratively with practitioners.
Practitioners would be critically-engaging/interrogating with research.
Queries:
Relationship with (this) PROP group?
Is the model sufficiently flexible?
Bill could be involved (not until late in Autumn term)
Some ideas for research 'questions'
-Gangs, identities and cultures (Valerie)
-Practitioners theoretical background - could start with Jenny/Jane's paper (Paul)
-Windmills enhancement (Pete)
-Student autonomy - creating a supportive environment - paper was offered (Della)
-Mini projects identified at Crewe meeting, Dec 2006 (all)
-Staff competence/expertise
Action:
- Notes to be prepared as soon as possible (Jane and Brian)
- Send out template asking for questions/themes and individuals to take on role of researcher/practitioner in relation to those.
- Create a long list of ideas to discuss at the next meeting.
- Use Bills' CPI idea to galvanise the whole group to work together.
Next meeting
Was agreed to be October 12th - venue to be confirmed.
1