-
This article was downloaded by: [Tulane University]On: 09
October 2014, At: 17:17Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered
in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice:
Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Higher Education Research &DevelopmentPublication details,
including instructions for authors andsubscription
information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cher20
Beyond the teaching-research nexus:the
Scholarship-Teaching-Action-Research (STAR) conceptual
frameworkSandra Jones aa School of Management, Royal Melbourne
Institute ofTechnology , Melbourne , AustraliaPublished online: 22
Apr 2013.
To cite this article: Sandra Jones (2013) Beyond the
teaching-research nexus: the Scholarship-Teaching-Action-Research
(STAR) conceptual framework, Higher Education Research
&Development, 32:3, 381-391, DOI:
10.1080/07294360.2012.688941
To link to this article:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2012.688941
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy
of all the information (theContent) contained in the publications
on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our
licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe
accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the
Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are
the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or
endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould
not be relied upon and should be independently verified with
primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be
liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs,
expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever
caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in
relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private
study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction,
redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply,
or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms
&Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cher20http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/07294360.2012.688941http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2012.688941http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditionshttp://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
-
Beyond the teaching-research nexus: the
Scholarship-Teaching-Action-Research (STAR) conceptual
framework
Sandra Jones
School of Management, Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology,
Melbourne, Australia
As knowledge for competitive advantage develops beyond the
transfer of simpledata and information to focus on knowledge that
has meaning, values, purposeand a more integrated aspect, higher
education is required to graduate studentsable to operate in a more
worldly manner across disciplines. Governmentsresponse to this need
has been to demand that universities adhere to morerigorous
quantitative output measures of the quality of research and
teaching.The response from universities has been mixed. While some
academics areexploring teaching innovations to develop students
knowledge, research andproblem-diagnostic skills through actively
engaging them in authenticprofessional challenges, others are
focusing on increasing discipline-linkedresearch outputs. This is
leading to a renewed debate as to the relativeimportance and
contribution of teaching and discipline-based research. Thispaper
argues that, rather than re-open this old division, a new framework
isneeded in which multi-directional interactions between
discipline-based research,teaching-as-practice and scholarship of
teaching are recognised. A
conceptualScholarship-Teaching-Action-Research framework is
presented to provide focusfor further discourse.
Keywords: action; research; scholarship; teaching
Introduction
The ambiguity that has resulted from multiple dynamic causations
of complexity(Prigogine & Stengers, 1984) has led writers to
emphasize the need to develop anew epistemology that moves beyond
Cartesian mechanistic views based on Newto-nian physics towards
more dynamic, interconnected views that draw on insightsfrom
quantum physics, complexity theory, behavioral science, social
theory andliving systems (Allee, 2003, p. 23). This new
epistemology needs to focus awayfrom the traditional divorce
between science and philosophy towards a more integratedapproach
between the natural sciences and humanities through a broader focus
on com-plexity and cultural studies (Wallerstein, 1999, p. 44). A
new knowledge archetype isneeded that focuses beyond existing
disciplinary boundaries into inter-disciplinaryapproaches that
touch fields from mathematics to evolution to economics to
meteorol-ogy to telecommunications (Kurtz & Snowden, 2003, p.
464) and incorporates morelevels of knowledge. Allee (1997, p. 62)
proposes a seven-step archetype that includesdata, information,
knowledge, meaning, philosophy, wisdom and union (or worldview).
Engestrom, Miettinen, and Punamaki (1999) argue that activity
theory presentsa possible approach given its emphasis on action
linked to practice that transcends thedualisms between thought and
activity, theory and practice, facts and values (p. 5).
# 2013 HERDSA
Email: [email protected]
Higher Education Research & Development, 2013Vol. 32, No. 3,
381391, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2012.688941
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tul
ane
Uni
vers
ity]
at 1
7:17
09
Oct
ober
201
4
-
In response to this identified need for a new, broader and more
integrated epistem-ology, organizations are reconsidering how they
attract employees with skills to engagein ongoing knowledge
sharing, both within and between disciplines. Employees need
todemonstrate both discipline-specific (content) knowledge and
generic skills that willassist them to communicate and network
across disciplines such that innovationemerges. In Australia, these
employability skills include self-motivation, team partici-pation,
effective communication, the ability to plan and organise,
problem-solve,demonstrate initiative and creativity and efficiently
use information technology as itemerges (Department of Education,
Science and Training and Australian NationalTraining Authority,
2002; Precision Consultancy, 2007). In the UK, a skeleton
frame-work for employability (Yorke, 2010, p. 5) has been developed
that includes: under-standing, skilful practices in contexts,
self-efficacy and personal qualities, as well asmetacognition. In
the USA, identified employability skills include knowledge ofhuman
cultures and the physical and natural world, a range of
intellectual and practicalskills and a diversity of personal and
social responsibility, all anchored through activeengagement in
professional practice and synthesised across general and
specializedstudies (Association of American Colleges and
Universities, 2007).
Once in a job, these employees are expected to view knowledge
not as a scarceresource to be hoarded but rather as an asset to be
shared so that it continuallyevolves. Nonaka (1991) termed this the
socialization of knowledge that taps thetacit and often highly
subjective insights, intuitions, and hunches, of individual
employ-ees and makes these insights available for testing and use
by the company as a whole(p. 24). This requires knowledge to be
viewed not as a commodity separated from theknower to be
negotiated, stored, protected and measured, but rather as the
outcome of adynamic social process that involves employees in its
sharing, creation, learning, appli-cation and communication within
various contexts (Nahapiet & Ghosal, 1998).
The implication of this change for higher education is that
there are increasingexpectations of graduates from institutions.
This is creating what has been describedas a crisis over the
purpose, status and criteria of what passes as knowledge(Barnett,
1997, p. 167). A recent national report into higher education in
Australia sum-marised this as the need for universities to:
provide students with stimulating and rewarding higher education
experiences . . . [to]play a pivotal role in the national research
and innovation system through the generationand dissemination of
new knowledge and through the education, training and develop-ment
of world-class researchers. (Bradley, Noonan, Nugent, & Scales,
2008, p. 6)
In response to these pressures, governments are demanding more
evidence of qualityoutputs from higher education in both
discovery-research that adds to new knowledgeand teaching that
disseminates existing knowledge and graduates students with
therange of required skills. Quantitative measures of teaching
quality are being introducedthat include levels of student demand
against levels of graduate employment, as well asmeasures of
student satisfaction with the quality of teaching. Similarly,
quantitativemeasures of discipline-based research quality
excellence are being introduced thatinclude numbers of publications
in high impact peer-reviewed journals, levels of exter-nal
competitive research income attracted and numbers of higher degrees
by researchstudents. The effect of this increased focus on the
reporting of quality measures andmore specific identification of
graduate skills is a change in the nature of academicwork,
accompanied by a reduction in the flexibility, freedom and autonomy
that has
382 S. Jones
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tul
ane
Uni
vers
ity]
at 1
7:17
09
Oct
ober
201
4
-
traditionally defined academia. The pressure this is creating
for academics is leading torenewal of a long-standing debate over
the relative value of discipline-based research,teaching as
practice and scholarship of teaching, as academics seek to balance
the con-flicting time pressures upon them to increase research
outputs at the same time asimproving the quality of teaching. Brew
(1999) has described this as caused byshifts in ideas about the
nature of knowledge (p. 291).
An alternate approach presented in this paper is to encourage
new discourse onhow higher education institutions can integrate
research in discipline, scholarshipof teaching (for and from) and
teaching practice, by focusing on action needed toengage students
in authentic learning to develop a broader range of knowledgeand
skills within, and across, disciplines. This approach actually
builds on thefour-scholarship framework proposed by Boyer (1990)
such that knowledgebecomes central to the kind of teaching that is
done and to what we understandas research (Brew, 1999, p. 291).
Higher education and the paradox of knowledge
Traditionally within higher education, discovery-research
(disciplinary) has occupied aprivileged position over teaching.
This is exemplified in the esteem afforded researchover teaching
(Hattie & Marsh, 1996; Neumann, 1993; Robertson & Bond,
2001). Itis also exemplified in the unequal emphasis on research
achievements for purposesof academic promotions and progression
(Coate, Barnett, & Williams, 2001; Green-bank, 2006). Indeed
Halse, Deane, Hobson, and Jones (2007) state that the
currentresearch funding framework is unable:
to recognise alternate forms of research and scholarship
dissemination, and the ways inwhich research funding regimes play
into the construction of the divide between teachingand research.
(Halse, et al., 2007, p. 742)
This is despite the fact that it is now over two decades since
Boyer (1990) broadenedthe definition of research to incorporate
four scholarships discovery (originalresearch that advances
knowledge), teaching (systematic study of teaching and learn-ing
processes), application/engagement (within and outside the
university) and inte-gration (synthesis across disciplines or
time). While it is acknowledged that therelationship between
research and teaching is not uni-directional, pre-eminence isstill
afforded disciplinary-based research as the source of knowledge
that is usedto guide and enhance teaching and learning (Krause et
al., 2008, p. 22). Brew(1999) identifies the virulence of this
ongoing debate as resulting in teaching andresearch constantly
pulling away from each other, vying for resources and aca-demics
time (p. 299).
In recognizing the impact of new concepts of knowledge, Brew
(1999) proposed afocus on communication and negotiation . . . [that
creates] . . . a more intimate, plura-listic relationship between
research and learning . . . [on] . . . the interpretive nature
ofacademic work . . . [in which] . . . research and teaching . . .
[are] . . . viewed as beingin a symbiotic relationship (pp.
296297). In other words, she argued that:
at the heart of the changes are shifts in ideas about the nature
of knowledge . . . the way inwhich knowledge is conceived is
central to the kind of teaching that is done and to whatwe
understand as research. (p. 291)
Higher Education Research & Development 383
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tul
ane
Uni
vers
ity]
at 1
7:17
09
Oct
ober
201
4
-
This can be achieved, she further stated, by creating new
relationships in Communitiesof Practice (CoP) (Brew, 2003). This
concept is similar to the argument for situatedlearning first
proposed by Brown and Duguid (2000). Situated learning places
emphasison the link between knowledge and practice-based
organisational learning on-the-job,such as the journeyman or
master-servant apprenticeship models. It also underpinsthe concept
of CoP coined by Lave and Wenger (1991), a structure that enables
novicemembers to learn from experienced members through legitimate
peripheral partici-pation. Defined as groups of people who share a
concern, a set of problems, or apassion about a topic, and who
deepen their knowledge and expertise in this area byinteracting on
an ongoing basis (Wenger, McDermott, & Snyder, 2002, p. 4),
CoPhave been utilised in higher education to provide a forum for
staff to debate strategiesto deal with these competing priorities
and their impact on teaching and learning at theindividual level
(McDonald, 2012). Accordingly, it is argued, CoP can be utilised
tohelp students develop their research skills by the transference
of knowledge andskills from experienced researchers (academics) to
novice researchers (students),both within and between
disciplines.
Brew (1999) argues that the required learning environment should
enable studentsto engage in understanding, applying, communicating
and synthesising knowledge, notas an objective factor separated
from the knower but, rather, as a social relationship in
asocio-political context. She advocates that this can be achieved
by developing theresearch skills of students through a four-part
process of finding or creating underlyingmeanings, a personal
journey or discovery, the social exchange of product and the
syn-thesis of separate elements to solve problems or answer
questions. In this context, shesees scholarship as preparing for
research, creating new knowledge and integrating anddisseminating
ideas and knowledge to, for and with society. To achieve this, she
states,higher education needs to design new environments and
activities for learning thatengage a variety of stakeholders in
various ways. In addition, there is need for newreward systems that
acknowledge and encourage new approaches to academic,policy and
management decisions.
In response to these pressures and ideas for change, various
attempts are being madeto more closely integrate teaching and
research. On the one hand, changes are beingintroduced designed to
develop the research skills of undergraduate students. In theUK,
Healey (2005) and Healey and Jenkins (2010) propose a
two-dimensionalmodel of undergraduate research and inquiry in which
research is conceptualised ascontent, processes or problems in
which students engage either as participants or audi-ence. The
model they propose identifies a spectrum of teaching-research
studentrelationships, from research-tutored (student engages in
research discussion),research-based (student undertakes research
and inquiry), research-oriented (studentdevelops research and
inquiry skills and techniques), to research-led, (student
learnsabout current research in discipline). Implementation of this
model is being assistedby the design of practical resources,
including good-practice examples of undergradu-ate students engaged
in research and inquiry in different disciplines (both within
thecurriculum and in extra-curricular activities) and the
establishment of a foundationfor a national centre for the
integration of research, teaching and learning
(http://www.undergraduateresearchAustralia.com).
On the other hand, academics are being encouraged to develop a
more scholarship-oriented approach to their teaching through
institutional support for a broader, morefluid and flexible
interpretation of research. Based on a UK experiment, Couper
andStoakes (2010) advance what they describe as a non-prescriptive
diagrammatic
384 S. Jones
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tul
ane
Uni
vers
ity]
at 1
7:17
09
Oct
ober
201
4
http://www.undergraduateresearchAustralia.comhttp://www.undergraduateresearchAustralia.com
-
representation of Scholarly and Research Activity (SandRA) that
enables academics toflexibly identify learning and teaching as four
forms of research primary, creative,applied and action (p. 97).
Across this spectrum, research is viewed as both (oreither) a
commodity or a process, with the vagueness of the nexus said to
encourageacademics to define and articulate their practice and
research in their own termswithin their particular research
aspirations (p. 101). The outcome of this approachhas been
extremely positive:
a new research centre has been established; an online peer
reviewed journal has beenlaunched; schools have developed in-house
forums for encouraging publications; fourvisiting professors have
been appointed; applications for university college researchfunds
have increased year after year; the number of publications and
conference presenta-tions have increased significantly and an
annual Learning, Teaching and Research confer-ence has been
established as a means of sharing research and pedagogy within
theInstitution. (p. 102)
While not decrying the importance of these innovations, a third
approach, which focuseson action to encourage continuous
multi-directional scholarship, teaching and researchand in which
equal weighting is given to the contribution of teaching design,
scholar-ship-for-teaching, scholarship-from-teaching and
discovery-research, is advocated inthis paper. This action needs to
be underpinned by three principles: teaching designedaccording to
action-learning principles, scholarship designed according to
action-researchprinciples and research and scholarship connected
through collaboration encouraged byCoP. The
Scholarship-Teaching-Action-Research (STAR) framework is presented
as aconceptual framework that, while acknowledging the need for
empirical investigationof its utility as a tool to redirect the
dysfunctional separation between teaching andresearch, is informed
(as illustrated) by the authors experience.
The Scholarship-Teaching-Action-Research (STAR) framework
The action that underpins the STAR framework (see Figure 1) aims
to equip studentswith the capability of continually contributing to
the development of new knowledge.
This is achieved by progressing through the various steps of a
new knowledgearchetype (as illustrated earlier) by blending
disciplinary (content) knowledge withlearning opportunities to
explore new knowledge that extends beyond disciplinaryboundaries.
Armed with such capabilities, the ability for graduate employees to
contrib-ute to creativity and innovation needed for organizations
to remain competitive isincreased. This action combines a focus on
engaging students directly in their ownlearning, both individually
and collectively, through cycles in which reflection in,and on,
action (Schon, 1987) develops proposals for new action based on
learningfrom past action. These concepts are incorporated in the
theories of action-learning,action-research and reflective
practice.
Action-learning assumes a four-stage continuous learning cycle,
in which immedi-ate or concrete experiences provide the basis for
observation and reflections that arethen assimilated and distilled
into abstract concepts producing new implications foraction that
are actively tested (see Kolb, 1984). This action must be authentic
andengage participants (students and academics) in reflective
opportunities that underpincycles of change. These four stages are
associated with four preferred learning stylesidentified as (in
parallel to the order above) feeling, watching, thinking and
doing.The Theory of Experiential Learning developed as a form of
action-learning that inte-grates content knowledge into practice.
In turn, action-learning has been influential in
Higher Education Research & Development 385
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tul
ane
Uni
vers
ity]
at 1
7:17
09
Oct
ober
201
4
-
focusing attention on the importance of teaching designed to
engage students in auth-entic learning. Biggs (2003) describes this
as:
when the basic bodies of knowledge and knowledge relating to
professional practice, arechanging as rapidly as they are, it no
longer makes sense to teach students all those thingsthey will need
to know in their professional careers. . . . Students should be
taught how tolearn, how to seek new information, how to utilize it
and evaluate its importance, how tosolve novel, non-textbook,
professional problems. They will need metacognitive skills,and an
abstract body of theory on which to deploy them, so that they can
judge reflectivelyhow successfully they are coping with novel
problems, and how they may do better. (p. 90)
Action-research is a research methodology through which the
person (or persons) par-ticipating in the action at the same time
are observing and reflecting upon this action.Action-research
provides the opportunity for academics and students, separately
andtogether, to engage in exploring and understanding how
theoretical knowledge isapplied and, through reflection upon their
experience, to develop further knowledge(Carr & Kemmis, 1986).
Winter (1996) claims that the nature of the learning processis
about the link between practice and reflection, about the process
of attempting tohave new thoughts about familiar experiences, and
about the relationship between par-ticular experiences and general
ideas (p. 14). Action-research thus presents the oppor-tunity to
engage in a systemic process in addressing learning and teaching
issues andmaking improvements (Tomal, 2010, p. 54) and, in so doing
it, provides the necessarylink between self-evaluation and
professional development, through the process ofreflection and
changes in practice (Winter, 1996, p. 14).
Engaging in reflection as part of both action-learning and
action-research providesthe scaffolding for the STAR framework to
support a multi-directional, mutually sup-portive approach to a
scholarship-teaching-research nexus. Encouraging students
andacademics to engage in dialogue through CoP presents the final,
collaborativeelement by providing a space in which stakeholders
(expert and novice teachers
Figure 1. The Scholarship-Teaching-Action-Research (STAR)
framework.
386 S. Jones
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tul
ane
Uni
vers
ity]
at 1
7:17
09
Oct
ober
201
4
-
and researchers) can network to share knowledge developed from
this action. Based onthe centrality of action, the framework
identifies three possible multi-directional loopsof interactions
between teaching and research, scholarship and teaching and
scholarshipand research, as well as further cross-over interactions
between these loops.
The first multi-directional loop identified in the STAR
framework is betweenresearch and teaching. Research in this sense
includes action based on existing knowl-edge from
discovery-research and emergent knowledge as students engage in
activelearning based in research-tutored, research-based,
research-oriented or/and research-led activities (Healey &
Jenkins, 2010). Teaching in this sense includes action-learningthat
engages students in authentic, practice-learning opportunities that
use disciplinaryknowledge to explore new (interdisciplinary)
knowledge. The multi-directional loop isfacilitated by the
combination of action-learning and action-research, underpinned
byengagement of students in reflection upon their learning. In this
process knowledgeis deepened beyond disciplinary boundaries to
incorporate the continuum of the knowl-edge archetype necessary to
underpin innovation and creativity. This potential is facili-tated
by the engagement of students in debriefing in class or in CoP in
which individualreflections are shared, to form a further group
reflective process. The outcome is thatstudents graduate with
knowledge informed by both disciplinary research and by
obser-vation and reflection upon the action-based authentic
learning activities. At the sametime, new issues for future
research are revealed. In summary, research and teachingoperated in
symbiosis rather than in competition.
An example of this from the authors experience occurred in her
research (discov-ery) into, and teaching of, good-practice
negotiations for employment relations in aglobal (rather than
national) environment with a group of cross-cultural MBA stu-dents.
After being presented with various (Western) theories of
good-practice nego-tiation for employment relations, students were
required to undertake their ownresearch into the implications of
these theories for negotiations in global cross-culturalsituations.
Based on this research, students then actively engaged in an
authenticcross-cultural role-play negotiation, using skills and
tactics based on these theories.Following the negotiation activity,
students engaged in individual (journal) reflectionsthat assessed
their experience in light of their research into negotiation
theories. A col-lective debriefing session was then held during
which the question of what furtherresearch is needed to identify
good-practice negotiation in employment relations incross-cultural
situations was discussed. This resulted in the identification of a
diver-gence between Western and Eastern attitudes on the importance
of relationships tosuccessful negotiations. As a further step, a
group of Chinese international studentsagreed to engage in a focus
group to share their collective reflections upon theirexperience.
The outcome was further (discovery) research in the form of a paper
deliv-ered to the 2003 British Academy of Management annual
conference on a proposednew relationship-based collaborative
negotiation theory for cross-cultural nego-tiations. It also led to
a scholarship-from-teaching paper delivered at the sixthPacific Rim
First year in higher education conference in 2002 on different
culturalreactions to active learning as a mode of teaching. This
leads into the second loop.
The second multi-directional loop identified in the framework is
betweenscholarship and teaching. Scholarship-for-teaching in this
sense involves a systematicstudy of existing pedagogy of
action-learning, including situated learning, authenticlearning and
student-led learning. Scholarship-from-teaching involves engaging
stu-dents in an action-research process to reflect upon the
learning experience in order toinform future teaching design. The
multi-directional loop is facilitated by both the
Higher Education Research & Development 387
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tul
ane
Uni
vers
ity]
at 1
7:17
09
Oct
ober
201
4
-
action-learning design and the action-research methodology that
serves to encourageacademics to develop a more scholarship-oriented
approach to their teaching(Couper & Stoakes, 2010). In this
process, knowledge is deepened as reflection onaction identifies
both the links and gaps between theory and practice. In summary,
scho-larship-for-teaching and scholarship-from-teaching interact in
a symbiotic, rather thanuni-directional, relationship.
An example of this from the authors experience commenced with a
systematicstudy undertaken to identify how the web-based learning
environment may comp-lement the design and use of authentic
learning environments to engage students inan online role-play of
real-world professional practice challenges. The study, or
scho-larship-for-teaching, identified a blended-learning
environment (face-to-face andonline) as capable of providing the
authenticity to replicate real-world negotiations.The author then
extended this concept to design a real-world organisation as
aVirtual Situated Learning Environment in order to provide students
from different dis-ciplines, with a variety of industry experience,
with a common environment. Followingthe online negotiations,
students engaged in reflection upon their learning. Thisrevealed
that not only had students developed a good understanding of
appropriatenegotiation skills for different issues, but also that
the virtual environment providedopportunities for students to
experiment with the effects of utilising different nego-tiation
tactics without the adverse real-life consequences of poor
negotiations. Inother words, a safe-fail learning environment was
created. Over several years, theauthor extended these experiments
to include colleagues teaching as part of a teamand observing and
reflecting as peers. This resulted in various publications as
scho-larship-from-teaching evaluating the contribution of Virtual
Situated LearningEnvironments for student development of
professional skills of negotiation (Jones,2005, 2007; Jones &
McCann, 2004, 2005; Law, Jones, Douglas, & Coburn, 2009).
The third multi-directional loop identified in the STAR
framework is betweenscholarship and research. In this instance,
disciplinary research provides the basis ofknowledge and also
influences the scholarship-for-teaching (for example,
scholarshipfor management, legal, engineering education). This
combination is used to designaction-learning opportunities to
explore practice in the inter-disciplinary arena, withthe
experience contributing to both future discovery-research in
emergent inter-disciplinary knowledge and future design of
inter-disciplinary learning experiences.The multi-directional loop
is facilitated by the action-learning teaching design andthe
action-research methodology that encourages students, academics,
and, potentially,professional practice partners, to explore more
creatively (again in a safe-fail environ-ment) disciplinary
challenges for operating in the interdisciplinary interface.
Knowl-edge is deepened to incorporate the continuum of the
knowledge archetype with anynew knowledge that emerges being
publishable as either scholarship-from-teachingor as
discovery-research into the interdisciplinary arena. In summary
scholarship-for-teaching and research interact in a symbiotic,
rather than uni-directional, relationship.
An example from the authors experience was the design, in
conjunction with fouracademic colleagues, of a multi-disciplinary
learning experience for students from thedisciplines of
engineering, management, architecture and social planning. Having
firstestablished a CoP in which the academics shared their
disciplinary knowledge and itsinfluence upon teaching design, they
designed an authentic learning experience aimedat engaging students
from the four identified disciplines in an action-learning
activity.This activity was cognisant of both the theories that
underpinned each of the disciplinesand the styles of teaching that
had accompanied them. The learning activity required the
388 S. Jones
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tul
ane
Uni
vers
ity]
at 1
7:17
09
Oct
ober
201
4
-
students to work in cross-disciplinary teams to design an
environmentally sensitivestructure for a workable community centre
for the future. This was to cater for thespecific needs of a
diverse age and cultural profile of residents. Each student
wasasked to contribute their separate disciplinary knowledge,
undertake further researchand, through a process of communication
and reflection, to share their separate knowl-edge to design a
workable community centre facility. The outcome was a
communitycentre judged by the four academics and an external
industry representative to be aneffective design, not only as an
environmentally sustainable and architecturally innova-tive
building, but also as an economically efficient facility
appropriate to the commu-nity needs. Through the reflective process
that underpinned the action-researchcomponent, students identified
a number of challenges for inter-disciplinary activity.Combined
with the reflections of the academics, a number of areas for
further researchto assist effective inter-disciplinary co-operation
were identified (Jones, 2009).
Finally, in additional to the three possible multi-directional
flows identified, theSTAR framework identifies the opportunity for
cross-over interactions betweenthese loops that are also
multi-directional, such that scholarship-teaching-researchinteract
in mutually supportive symbiotic relationships. An example from
theauthors experience is a CoP established by the author with two
academic colleagues.Each colleague used different disciplinary
research into negotiations (law, inter-national relations and
employment relations) to underpin the scenario they
designed.Scholarly research into the effectiveness of online
role-play and the use of Web2 tech-nologies was shared in CoP
discussions. The learning activity designed, based on
thisscholarship, was similar. The students engaged in both
individual reflection and groupreflection on the learning activity
during face-to-face debriefing activities. The aca-demics in the
CoP shared their reflections from the relative learning
experiences.These reflections on the learning experience led to
further discovery-research intothe influence of culture and gender
on negotiations. It also led to recognition of oneof the challenges
for inter-disciplinary negotiations, the existence of different
conceptsas to what constitutes good negotiation and the relative
importance of mediation, arbi-tration and negotiation. The CoP also
identified the need for further scholarship intothe importance of
the debriefing process following student engagement in
active-learning activities (Law et al., 2009).
In summary, the STAR conceptual framework does enable
identification of actionthat can be taken to underpin an effective
multi-directional flow between scholarship,teaching and research.
While illustrations from the authors experience require
furtherresearch, they do serve to illustrate the potential
practical application of the framework.Further research is invited
to explore broader application of this framework.
Conclusion
This paper sets out to encourage new discourse on how higher
education institutionscan better integrate research in discipline,
scholarship for and from teaching andteaching practice such that
students develop the broad range of knowledge andskills required
for them to make effective contributions within, and across,
disci-plines. A conceptual Scholarship-Teaching-Action-Research
(STAR) frameworkwas presented as an alternative to the current
divisive approach to viewing researchand teaching as
non-integrated, competing components of higher education. TheSTAR
framework is underpinned by action, scaffolded by reflective
practice andencouraged by collective knowledge-sharing through CoP.
While it was recognised
Higher Education Research & Development 389
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tul
ane
Uni
vers
ity]
at 1
7:17
09
Oct
ober
201
4
-
that this conceptual framework requires further research, the
illustrations providedfrom the authors experience support the
effectiveness of the framework to achievethe desired aim. This sets
the stage for further empirical research to test thebroader
veracity of the framework.
ReferencesAllee, V. (1997). The knowledge evolution. Newtown,
MA: Butterworth Heinemann.Allee, V. (2003). The future of
knowledge. Burlington, MA: Butterworth Heinemann.Association of
American Colleges and Universities. (2007). College learning for
the new global
century: A report from the National Leadership Council for
Liberal Education andAmericas Promise. Retrieved August 5, 2011,
from http://www.aacu.org/leap/documents/GlobalCentury_final.pdf
Biggs, J. (2003). Teaching for quality learning at university.
Buckingham, UK: SRHE and OpenUniversity Press.
Boyer, E. (1990). Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the
professoriate. New York: JohnWiley & Sons.
Bradley, D., Noonan, P., Nugent, H., & Scales, B. (2008).
Review of Australian higher edu-cation: Final report. Canberra:
Department of Education, Employment and WorkplaceRelations.
Barnett, R. (1997). A knowledge strategy for universities. In R.
Barnett & A. Griffith (Eds.), Theend of knowledge in higher
education (pp. 166179). London: Cassell.
Brew, A. (1999). Research and teaching: Changing relationships
in a changing context. Studiesin Higher Education, 24(3), 300.
Brew, A. (2003). Teaching and research: New relationships and
their implications for inquiry-based teaching and learning in
higher education. Higher Education Research &Development,
22(1), 318.
Brown, S.J., & Duguid, P. (2000). Organizational learning
and communities of practice:Towards a unified view of working,
learning and innovation. In E. Lesser, M. Fontaine,& J. Slusher
(Eds.), Knowledge and communities (pp. 99122). Boston,
MA:Butterworth Heinemann.
Carr, W., & Kemmis, S. (1986). Becoming critical: Education,
knowledge and action research.Lewes, UK: Falmer.
Coate, K., Barnett, R., & Williams, G. (2001). Relations
between teaching and research in highereducation in England. Higher
Education Quarterly, 55(2), 158174.
Couper, P., & Stoakes, G. (2010). Introducing SandRA: Visual
representation of the research-teaching nexus as a tool for the
dissemination of a new research strategy. Higher
EducationQuarterly, 65(1), 94105.
Department of Education, Science and Training and Australian
National Training Authority.(2002). Employability skills for the
future, Commonwealth Department of Education,Science and Training.
Retrieved March 23, 2011, from
http://www.dest.gov.au/archive/ty/publications/employability_skills/final_report.pdf
Engestrom, Y., Miettinen, R., & Punamaki, R.-L. (1999).
Perspectives on activity theory.New York: Cambridge University
Press.
Greenbank, P. (2006). The academics role: The need for a
re-evaluation? Teaching in HigherEducation, 11(1), 107112.
Halse, C., Deane, E., Hobson, J., & Jones, G. (2001). The
research-teaching nexus: What donational teaching awards tell us?
Studies in Higher Education, 32(6), 727746.
Hattie, J., & Marsh, H. (1996). The relationship between
research and teaching: A meta-analysis.Review of Educational
Research, 66(4), 507542.
Healey, M. (2005). Linking research and teaching: Disciplinary
spaces. In R. Barnett (Ed.),Reshaping the university: New
relationships between research, scholarship and teaching(pp. 6774).
Maidenhead, UK: Society for Research into Higher Education and the
OpenUniversity Press.
Healey, M., & Jenkins, A. (2010). Developing undergraduate
research and inquiry. Yorke, UK:Higher Education Academy.
390 S. Jones
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tul
ane
Uni
vers
ity]
at 1
7:17
09
Oct
ober
201
4
http://www.aacu.org/leap/documents/GlobalCentury_final.pdfhttp://www.aacu.org/leap/documents/GlobalCentury_final.pdfhttp://www.dest.gov.au/archive/ty/publications/employability_skills/final_report.pdfhttp://www.dest.gov.au/archive/ty/publications/employability_skills/final_report.pdf
-
Jones, S. (2005). Using IT to augment authentic learning
environments. In A. Herrington &J. Herrington (Eds.), Authentic
learning environments (pp. 172181). Hershey, PA:Information
Sciences Publication.
Jones, S. (2007). Adding value to online role-plays: Virtual
situated learning environments.Proceedings of ASCILITE: Providing
Choices for learners and Learning, Singapore.Retrieved February 27,
2011, from
http:www.ascilite.org.au/conference/singapore08/procs
Jones, S. (2009). Virtual situated learning environments:
Developing inter-professional skills forhuman services. In J.
Martin & I. Hawkins (Eds.), Interactive computer technology
forhuman service education and delivery: Concepts and cases (pp.
7286). Hershey, PA:Information Sciences Publication.
Jones, S., & McCann, J. (2005). Authentic situated learning
environments: The flexible learningalternative for peripatetic
managers in a global world of flexible workplaces. Journal
ofWorkplace Learning (Special Issue), 17(5/6), 359369.
Jones, S., & McCann, J. (2004). Virtual situated learning
environments: The business educationmodel for developing countries
in a knowledge era. In I. Alon & J. McIntyre (Eds.),
Businesseducation and emerging market economies (pp. 201216).
Norwell, MA: Kluwer.
Kolb, D. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source
of learning and development.Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice
Hall.
Krause, K.-L., Green, A., Arkoudis, S., James, R., Jennings, C.,
& McCulloch, R. (2008). Theteaching-research nexus: A guide for
academics and policy-makers in higher education.Retrieved April 23,
2011, from http://trnexus.edu.au
Kurtz, C., & Snowden, D. (2003). The new dynamics of
strategy: Sense making in a complexand complicated world. IBM
Systems Journal, 47(3), 462483.
Law, S.F., Jones, S., Douglas, K., & Coburn, C. (2009).
E-learning and role-plays online:Assessment options. Proceedings
Australian Technology Network Assessment Conference.Retrieved April
21, 2011, from
http://emedia.rmit.edu.au/atnassessment09/sites/emedia.rmit.edu.au.atnassessment09/files/ATNA09_Conference_Proceedings.pdf
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate
peripheral participation.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
McDonald, J. (2012). Communities of practice helping to enhance
teaching and learning.Retrieved June 5, 2012, from
www.usq.edu.au/cops/higher-education
Nahapiet, J., & Ghosal, S. (1998). Social capital,
intellectual capital and the organizationaladvantage. Academy of
Management Review, 23(2), 242266.
Neumann, R. (1993). Research and scholarship: Perceptions of
senior academic administrators.Higher Education, 25, 97110.
Nonaka, I. (1991). The knowledge-creating company. Harvard
Business Review, 69(6),96104.
Precision Consultancy (2007). Graduate employability skills.
Melbourne, VIC: Business,Industry and Higher Education
Collaboration Council.
Prigogine, I., & Stengers, I. (1984). Order out of chaos:
Mans new dialogue with Nature. NewYork: Bantam Books.
Robertson, J., & Bond, C. (2001). Experiences of the
relations between teaching and research:What do academics value?
Higher Education Research & Development, 20(1), 519.
Schon, D. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Tomal, D.R. (2010). Action research for
educators. Plymouth, UK: Rowman & Littlefield
Education.Winter, R. (1996). Some principles and procedures for
the conduct of action research. In O.
Zuber-Skerritt (Ed.), New directions in action research (pp.
1327). London: Falmer Press.Wallerstein, I. (1999). Social sciences
in the twenty-first century. In A. Kazancigil &
D. Makinsin (Eds.), World social science report, UNESCO (pp.
4249). Paris: Elsevier.Wenger, E., McDermott, R., & Snyder, W.
(2002). Cultivating communities of practice. Boston,
MA: Harvard Business School Press.Yorke, M. (2010).
Employability: Aligning the message, the medium and academic
values.
Journal of Teaching and Learning for Graduate Employability,
1(1), 212. RetrievedJune 5, 2012, from
http://jtlge.curtin.edu.au/index.php/jtlge/article/viewFile/7/7
Higher Education Research & Development 391
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Tul
ane
Uni
vers
ity]
at 1
7:17
09
Oct
ober
201
4
http:www.ascilite.org.au/conference/singapore08/procshttp://trnexus.edu.auhttp://emedia.rmit.edu.au/atnassessment09/sites/emedia.rmit.edu.au.atnassessment09/files/ATNA09_Conference_Proceedings.pdfhttp://emedia.rmit.edu.au/atnassessment09/sites/emedia.rmit.edu.au.atnassessment09/files/ATNA09_Conference_Proceedings.pdfwww.usq.edu.au/cops/higher-educationhttp://jtlge.curtin.edu.au/index.php/jtlge/article/viewFile/7/7
