Tag: collaboration

Seminar recording: Collaborative inquiry and student participation in domain-specific knowledge practices

We are delighted to share with you another seminar recording from the research group HEIK (Higher Education: Institutional dynamics and Knowledge cultures). HEIK is a research group located at the Faculty of Educational Sciences in University of Oslo, the coordinating institution of Hedda.

Dr. Crina Damsa  (HEIK/FALK, University of Oslo)

Dr. Crina Damsa
(HEIK/FALK, University of Oslo)

This time, we are pleased to feature Dr. Crina Damsa from University of Oslo who gave a presentation titled: “Collaborative inquiry and student participation in domain-specific knowledge practices (characteristics and challenges) in teacher and computer engineering education

Listen without the Flashplayer

Abstract for the session: 

and the solving of complex problems, critical use of knowledge resources and productive participation in knowledge work. Little is known, however, about how students participate in such inquiry-oriented activities that are related to core knowledge and practices of their given domain. This study explores how students are introduced to and participate in domain-specific knowledge practices in two study programs, school teaching and computer engineering, respectively. Data were collected from two introductory courses that employed collaborative inquiry projects and the activities of 10 student groups (N=48) were analysed qualitatively. The findings identify characteristics of students’ participation and engagement with the inquiry tasks, and the challenges students are facing in this process. These are related to distinct principles for knowledge construction and practices within the two domains. The article discusses implications of these differences for educational practice and future research.

New patterns in internationalization of science

A few weeks ago, Nature took up the topic of increased and changing internationalization patterns in research. As a part of this, the results from a study examining the internationalization patterns in research were highlighted. The survey covered 17 000 scientists in 16 countries (including four areas: biology, chemistry, Earth and environmental sciences and materials) and the questions were for the most part about country of origin, attractive countries to work in and reasons for migration.

A number of the results were not very surprising, for instance, that United States has a very large number of international researchers (38%), whereas a particularity of the US is their lack of outward mobility. On the other hand, Switzerland has en even higher level of international researchers (58%), but one in three researchers with Swiss origin works outside the country. Of course, in the case of Switzwerland, one has to consider the impact of for instance CERN.

When the respondents were asked about the current stronghouses of research, again the usual suspects were mentioned – with USA, UK and Germany topping the lists. However, when asked on who was seen as having the greatest impact in 2020, the country that emerged on top was China – potentially a somewhat surprising result considering the short time span. Nevertheless, only a fraction of the respondents from the study would consider moving there.

Of the reasons why one would consider to move to another country, the two aspects that received highest support were general quality of life and opportunities for research funding. Other factors, such as salary level, or opportunity for more senior positions were considered important incentives, but not to the same extent, hinting towards more intrinsic motivation linked to the discipline.

Guest blogger: Research collaboration and research policy – Disciplinary differences are important

Professor Jenny M. Lewis (University of Melbourne)

This guest entry is by professor Jenny M. Lewis, who is an Australian Research Council Future Fellow at the University of Melbourne, Australia. In 2010-12 she was Professor of Public Administration and Public Policy at Roskilde University, Denmark. She held a grant from the Australian Research Council from 2008- 2010, to examine academic collaboration and research performance. The following is based on this study, and a book: “Academic Governance: Disciplines and Policy”, will be published by Routledge in 2013. Find out more about her work here.

Attempts to increase research collaboration can be seen in the type of grants available in many national funding systems, around the world. However, if these are aimed at one particular model of collaboration, the effects may be deleterious rather than beneficial, both to the academics conducting research, and to the nations that hope to benefit from the fruits of these collaborations. Research policy and funding should bear these differences in mind when seeking to stimulate collaborative research, so as to gain better outcomes across a range of disciplines. The following summarizes some findings published in a recent article in Higher Education (Lewis et al 2012).

There are profound differences in how academics in different disciplines do research, and it could be expected that this is also true of how they collaborate. Collaborative working in (biological and physical) science has been extensively studied, but the literature examining collaboration in the humanities (particularly), and also in the social sciences, is much smaller. So how do academics (other than biological and physical scientists) collaborate? And are there substantial differences between disciplines in the how and why of collaboration?

Improving research policy requires a more thorough understanding of the variety of collaboration types across disciplines. It seems that

Co-authorship – who comes first?

In this post, Hedda associate Mari Elken looks into co-authorship and the various rules and practices of this across disciplines, and the challenges related to the various practices. 

The business of disseminating research results through writing books and journal articles is a core output of academic work. If one does not publish the results, the research itself does not contribute to the cumulative growth of knowledge and looses its extrinsic value. Research as a personal project without contribution, connection or at least some openness to the wider society in any way is a private hobby and quite likely difficult to justify in the modern world.

In the context of publishing, increased collaboration and co-authorship has already been noted to be  literature more than 15 years ago, and in more recent years the trend is just continuing, as indicated in a 2005 article by W. Glänzel and A. Schubert. And, it has also been indicated that international co-authorship results in articles with a higher impact factor. While discussing this with colleagues a few days ago, we ended up discussing co-authorship and how this is practiced. Is it based on alphabetical order, academic seniority, input to research, or something different? And more importantly – is it the same across disciplines?

Is there a clear rule for co-authorship in higher education research?

Taking higher education research and social sciences as a starting point, the problem is that there does not seem to be a definite rule. While some disciplines have a somewhat clear guideline, higher education draws from a multitude of different disciplinary bases with each of their own traditions and guidelines.

Call for Papers: internationalisation and university collaboration

The GEEP project, hosted by Oslo and Akershus University College, is having their closing conference in Oslo on 11-13th of September 2012 with a title “Rethinking internationalization and university collaboration: Academics, actors and analysis“.

The conference features a number of keynote speakers, amongst else Linda Chisholm who works as a policymaker in South Africa, Nazir Carrim from University of Western Cape in South Africa, and Brian Denman from University of New England in Australia.

The call for abstracts has been announced and the deadline for sending in 250 word abstracts is 1st of June. Please find more information about the application procedures by downloading the announcement here (pdf).

The conference has a focus on North-South dynamics and the need to redefine and critically analyze internationalisation, and the organisers have put these key questions as guidance: