Abstract
Introduction
With a primary focus on preparing future generations of highly educated sections of society, the medieval university sector was described as a place of learning and not a site for research. Wilhelm von Humboldt’s (1767–1835) model, which views research as inseparable and even identical to teaching and learning, serves as the foundation for modern universities. According to von Humboldt’s ideal, “the unity of research and teaching should result in learning on the part of the teacher as well as the student” (von Humboldt cited in Annala and Marita, 2011: 3). Thus, the concept of the research-teaching nexus is typically associated with von Humboldt’s work in the early 1800s, when he was tasked with reorganising and reforming Prussian education. Von Humboldt proposed an alternative approach to challenge the conservative model of higher education, contending that instead of the teacher and student acting as teachers and pupils, “the student conducts research on his own behalf, and the professor supervises his research and supports him in it” (von Humboldt cited in; Visser-Wijnveen, 2009: 23). Most universities and higher education institutions in the Western world (Global North) have adopted the Humboldtian tradition, emphasising a strong connection between research and teaching (Geschwind and Broström, 2015). Nonetheless, some intellectuals and scholars of the 19th century disagreed with the notion of a link between research and teaching. For instance, in 1853, John Henry Newman asserted that teaching and research were ‘distinct functions’ and ‘distinct gifts’ that were not typically present in the same individual (in Halse et al., 2007: 727). However, as highlighted in Halse et al., “more than a century and a half after Newman, belief in a link between teaching and research persists, and the nature of this relationship continues to cause dissent and tension among academics and policymakers as well as in the funding arrangements for public universities” (Halse et al., 2007: 727). Nevertheless, inspired by von Humboldt’s vision and based on her collaboration with universities in the United States, Professor Manju Singh (2013: 2) argues that “It is an axiom of modern higher education that universities must not only teach what is already known, but also push back the frontiers of knowledge by investing in research.”
The academic discussion over enhancing the connection between research and teaching has followed an inconsistent trajectory. However, the debate reemerged in European higher education institutions during the 1970s. According to scholars such as Page (1972), the university curriculum is contingent upon research and staff enthusiasm, and their capacity to cultivate a research-oriented mindset in students depends on their active involvement in scholarly pursuits. Individuals regarded as excellent educators may possess diverse and distinct research approaches that yield positive results. According to Page, the strength of an institution’s research determines its competitive profile and sectoral positioning, and research plays a crucial role in advancing many academic disciplines. Nevertheless, Page’s study also highlighted that the scientific demonstration of the link between ‘good research’ and ‘good teaching’ was local and fragmentary. This evidence was deemed insufficient to consider research a prerequisite for higher education (Page, 1972). In the 1980s, there was a shift in attitude toward maximising the synergy of research and teaching. For instance, in 1988, numerous European universities prioritised teaching and research as fundamental aspects of academic freedom (Malcolm, 2014). Additionally, there was a surge in intellectual support for enhancing the synergy of teaching and research in the early 1990s, particularly at universities. High-volume books and other peer-reviewed publications that debated various aspects of this strategy also reflected the support and request for its implementation. Academics such as Boyer (1990) and Barnett (1992), along with others, were prominent advocates in the early 1990s for integrating teaching and research. According to Barnett, academics actively seek involvement with their disciplinary communities, and this involvement mostly takes place through research. Furthermore, research specifically emphasises academics’ career development (Barnett in Malcolm, 2014). Multiple studies suggest that universities aiming to implement research-intensive education should choose study programs that enable them to forge a distinctive educational identity as institutions that closely integrate teaching and research (Elsen et al., 2009; Malcolm, 2014). Coate et al. have identified six possible relationships between teaching and research, classified as (a) integration, (b) research as a positive influence on teaching, (c) teaching as a positive influence on research, (d) separate activities with little impact on each other, (e) research as a negative influence on teaching, and (f) teaching as a negative influence on research (in Kaasila et al., 2021). The majority of studies on implementing research-informed teaching have focused mainly on changing individual academic practices. Nevertheless, critics contend that it is imperative to consider the contextual circumstances of the activity. Within the academic realm, it is necessary to examine how scholars express their ability to take action in their teaching methods, considering the particular circumstances and limitations they encounter (Mathieson, 2019: 799).
Nevertheless, to undertake this research, over 80 sources, including books and peer-reviewed articles, related to the topic of this paper were carefully screened and evaluated. Following this search, I have selected approximately 50 sources, primarily research publications, and actively referenced them to include them in this study. The terms ‘nexus,’ ‘synergy,’ and ‘integration’ were utilised to explore pertinent literature on the subject of ‘teaching and research’ for this article. In order to gain a deeper understanding of the discussion surrounding the integration of teaching and research, the perspectives, arguments and rationales of both proponents and opponents of this approach were taken into account during the data collection process and analysis. Moreover, when considering the topic from a broader international standpoint, instead of solely focusing on the Global North’s perspective, it becomes essential to do research incorporating scholars from the Global South, particularly in India. This paper’s main contribution is that, despite advocating for an approach that promotes the importance of integration of teaching and research, it brings together a combination of historical and contemporary reflections on the emergence, origin, and rationale behind these debates. Furthermore, this paper has integrated the debate by simultaneously presenting the founding research of leading scholars, both opponents and advocates, within the teacher-research nexus. This will enable the reader to evaluate the significance of integrating teaching and research while familiarising themselves with different arguments and perspectives.
Defining research-teaching synergy
Multiple (sometimes contested) interpretations exist regarding the understanding of teaching-research synergy. Academic developers have not often viewed the concept of ‘research development’ as a crucial component of academic work. Undoubtedly, the relationship between teaching and research has consistently been ambiguous. In the words of Lubbe and Duff (2021: 110), “The relationship between teaching and research has been the source of vigorous debate over the past three decades. This conversation is generally termed the teaching-research nexus (TRN). The idea of a TRN has become increasingly important in higher education, proposing that teaching and research should be closely linked. Historically, perceptions of quality in education suggest research and teaching and learning are interdependent.” For example, the 2002 International Consortium for Educational Development conference focused on various teaching, learning, and assessment issues. However, the conference barely addressed the concept of research and its connection to teaching and learning (Reid and Petocz, 2003: 107). Various scholars’ interpretations of this concept express one aspect of its definitional vagueness. Willcoxson et al. definitions and practical interpretations of the research-teaching nexus state that “the link between teaching and research lies in the direction of transferring research into teaching rather than vice versa” (Willcoxson et al., 2011: 1). They achieve this transfer by using research to inform teaching and, less frequently, by engaging students in research. Despite substantial research, there remains a lack of consensus on the precise definition of the research-teaching nexus. The term ‘research-teaching nexus’ has been employed in various ways (Kaasila et al., 2021). The following are a few examples of different definitions of research-teaching nexus; “The ‘research-teaching nexus’ means integrating disciplined-based research into course content to develop students’ research ability” (Abdel Latif, 2021: 69) and “The orientation the institution adopts towards the research–teaching nexus can also be seen as characteristic of a lecturer’s occupational context, which, in turn, is likely to interact with his or her own research and teaching activity” (Kreber, 2010: 173). Furthermore, and in the same context of integration of teaching and research, Musthafa and Sajila (2014: 124) argue that “The term
Neumann identified a three-level nexus between teaching and research in their 1992 article. This multi-level relationship is known as, a. the
Integration as an important challenge
Rubio et al.’s study highlights the research-teaching nexus as a ‘two-way relationship’ where research and teaching mutually support each other (2016: 104). There are three specific strategies for integrating teaching and research: bringing research into the classroom, involving undergraduates in research projects, and broadening the definition of scholarship beyond frontier disciplinary research (Prince et al., 2007). Brew describes higher education institutions as a fragmented community where academics, students, and support staff operate in separate social spheres, each with its own distinct objectives and responsibilities. Nevertheless, she also alludes to factors that tend to inhibit the integration of research and teaching. The factors contributing to this issue include a limited scope of research, a lack of research-oriented activities in the curriculum, a rigid research-centric environment, government funding mechanisms that prioritise the separation of teaching and research, research funding bodies that do not encourage undergraduate student involvement in research, and institutional reluctance to foster this relationship (Brew, 2010).
Neumann argues that the presumed symbiotic relationship is partially deceptive. Academics who engage in active research are the only ones capable of effectively conveying the subtle and diffuse nuances that deviate from the current dominant norms (Neumann cited in Annala and Marita, 2011: 4). Academic domains commonly perceive teaching and research as contrasting aspects. Institutions often employ a strategic approach separating teaching and research, such as establishing distinct committees dedicated to each area. Nevertheless, the distinction between research and teaching is not beneficial for academic practice since it prompts faculty to categorise themselves as either educator who engage in minimal or no research or as scholars focused solely on their disciplinary research who also happen to teach (Jenkins and Healey, 2005).
Educational development is crucial in prompting academics to reassess their stance on research and teaching. To improve the integration of research into teaching, Griffiths developed a four-element paradigm known as research-led, research-oriented, research-based, and research-informed teaching. The first three parts prioritise integrating research and teaching to enhance students’ research experiences and knowledge. In contrast, the fourth method emphasises the importance of teachers and students reflecting on teaching practices and sharing insights to improve their effectiveness (Griffiths, 2004). Nonetheless, it is crucial that to understand the various research and teaching nexus features in curriculum design, different modes of students’ learning are to be considered (students as audience or participants), and research activity is to be understood (research as contents or processes) (Singh, 2013: 2). Abdel Latif (2021: 70), inspired by Jenkins and Healey (2005), and Ozay (2012), defines the four forms of Healey’s (2005) adapted research-teaching nexus model as follows: a. Research-led teaching, which involves familiarising students with current research and its trends in the target area; b. Research-oriented teaching, which engages students in learning about the methods and data sources used in investigating research issues; c. Research-based teaching, which involves students in undertaking inquiry-based activities (such as doing small-scale studies or reviewing literature); and d. Research-tutored teaching, which engages students in discussing their experiences and the findings and observations they have made while conducting their inquiry- or research-based activities.
It is important to emphasise that these four recommended types are considered to be complementary to each other. Therefore, effective integration of research into teaching requires the incorporation or merging of components from all four types. Integrating learning and research is a complex task that necessitates thoughtful strategies and proactive efforts to connect instruction (Brew, 2001). According to Howell, the question of how a research-intensive university can integrate and embed research into the curriculum to enhance student learning and improve graduate attributes is a topic of immense importance. Contemporary research and reports, like the Boyer Commission report, have emphasised the value of research in education. For instance, the Irish ‘National Strategy for Higher Education to 2030’ report highlighted the intimate relationship between research and teaching and strongly encouraged the integration of research-led teaching in Irish universities at both undergraduate and postgraduate levels (Howell, 2021: 1).
The concept of ‘research supports teaching’ and ‘strengthening the research-teaching nexus,’ as highlighted by Prince et al., refers to the idea that “better teaching is teaching that leads to greater learning or related student benefits such as higher retention in academic programs, and strengthening the research-teaching nexus means increasing the extent to which research supports teaching in this sense” (2007: 284). Prince et al. (2007) suggest that the most conventional argument for how research supports teaching is that faculty with active research programs bring their research into the classroom and use it to inform their teaching. However, opposing such arguments, Pocklington and Tupper (cited in Prince et al., 2007: 285) call similar recommendations unjustified and claim that “current models of integration are inadequate philosophically, they are naïve politically, and they ignore reforms essential to integrating research and teaching.” Furthermore, Colbeck concludes that it is difficult to bring research into the classroom in ‘hard’ disciplines such as the physical sciences and engineering for two reasons: “hierarchical knowledge structures in those disciplines put most research well over the heads of most undergraduates, and rigidly constrained curricula limit opportunities to bring in new material” (Cited Prince et al., 2007: 285).
Research expectations and research productivity are crucial components of the research-teaching nexus, as universities increasingly rely on external research funding to sustain their core activities. Additionally, academic staff members strongly desire high national rankings. The assertion that research improves teaching often serves as an explanation for the emphasis on research productivity. However, this phenomenon has sparked a significant debate between two opposing perspectives. The advantages of strengthening this approach seem clear for those promoting the idea of research-teaching synergy. One of the dominant arguments is that students can benefit from effective linkages between faculty research and undergraduate education; “faculty can benefit from the efficiency and satisfaction of integrating their primary professional responsibilities, and universities can benefit when their stakeholders perceive that they are not neglecting their educational missions, […] resulting in a stronger and more selective student body” (Ibid). On the opponent/sceptical side, several studies (e.g., Ramsden and Moses, 1992; Hattie and Marsh, 2002) and claim a ‘zero correlation’ between teaching and research. According to them, teaching and research are independent and do not affect each other in a positive or negative way. For instance, Marsh and Hattie’s study concludes that “it is important not to perpetuate the myth that there is a positive and reciprocal relation between teaching and research. There is no doubt that many would like such a positive relation to be true” (Marsh and Hattie, 2002: 631). According to McLean and Barker’s study (2004), controversy about the research-teaching nexus came to a head with the Government of the United Kingdom’s (UK) declaration in the White Paper on Higher Education, The Future of Higher Education (2003), when this document suggested: “that research funding should be concentrated in research-intensive universities while others should be encouraged to focus on other parts of their mission.” However, this document suggests that there is no connection between research productivity and teaching quality. There is a long-standing, substantial, and inconclusive literature on the research-teaching nexus (Ibid). As emphasised by Kaasila et al., academics have multiple identities, and their professional identities can sometimes be fragmented. However, they may also have different approaches, views, and strategies for integrating research with teaching (Kaasila et al., 2021: 583).
However, the identity and mission of many universities are also traditionally based on the connection between research and teaching. For example, the website of the University of Helsinki says, “Scientific research of a high standard carried out in the faculties and departments of multidisciplinary universities provides a fertile ground for teaching based on research and social interaction” (University of Helsinki, 2007: 65). The University of Oxford, in its
Student and lecturer-focused teaching-research synergy
Many higher education institutions have stressed integrating research and teaching in a student-focused manner, to routinely involve and encourage students to participate in research initiatives (Prince et al., 2007: 285). For instance, highlighted in the Boyer Commission, a student in a research university, among other things, has the; “opportunity for work with talented senior researchers to help and guide the student’s efforts. […] The research university must facilitate inquiry in such contexts as the library, the laboratory, the computer, and the studio, with the expectation that senior learners, that is, professors, will be students’ companions and guides. The research university owes every student an integrated educational experience in which the totality is deeper and more comprehensive than can be measured by earned credits” (Boyer Commission, 1998 cited in: Elsen et al., 2009: 65). Focusing on a student-focused implementation of the teaching-research nexus, Healey argues that this connection can be realised along three dimensions: (a) the emphasis is on research content or research processes and problems; (b) the students are treated as the audience or participants; and (c) the teaching is teacher-focused or student-focused (Healy in Trigwell and Prosser, 2004). This framework highlights that student learning may improve because the students feel that they are part of a social and intellectual group. Jenkins et al.’s study, which focuses on students’ perceptions and experiences of the research-teaching nexus, reveals that students tend to become more motivated when they familiarise themselves with academic staff’s research early in their studies. Students realising that their lecturers have integrated their research into their teaching stimulates their intellectual excitement and creates the impression that staff are enthusiastic about what they are teaching (Jenkins et al., 2003: 15).
Furthermore, Seymour et al.’s research informs about ‘exclusively positive outcomes,’ resulting in elevating students’ confidence to conduct research, gaining more interest in their discipline, and improving critical thinking skills and understanding of the research process within a given scientific community (Hunter et al., 2004). According to the literature, the general argument is that the concept of the nexus, as understood by scholars and students, is mainly about the ‘functional interdependence’ of two academic roles. This concept is rooted in a world where academic definitions of knowledge and higher education hold significant influence (Henkel, in OECD, 2004: 20). Nevertheless, as emphasised by McLean and Barker, “there is consensus that academics are highly motivated by the dual mission to teach and to research, adhering strongly to the beliefs that students are well served by research-active teachers and a research culture, and that teaching can vitalize research” (McLean and Barker, 2004: 408). However, despite the apparent positive trend towards research-oriented undergraduate programs, there are several documented challenges related to the integration of research with teaching. For instance, Brew argues that “the belief that there is a connection is stronger than the statistical evidence [i.e., quantitative evidence] when it comes to the relationship between teaching and research” (Brew cited in Gretton et al., 2022: 260). The literature indicates that there is a need for teachers to be familiar with the research associated with their multiple tasks and activities. Therefore, as emphasised by Levy, it is important to help teachers acquire the research knowledge and skills needed to activate their roles as researchers (Levy et al., 2015).
Related to strengthening the research-teaching link and its importance for educators/lecturers, Dawson and Burke propose the pursuit of research-inspired teaching. Relevant discipline theory and research serve as the foundation for this type of instruction, thereby bolstering evidence-based practice. Nonetheless, teachers’ incorporation of research evidence in their teaching helps increase student learning (Burke and Rau, 2010: 134). The literature reveals that most academics view a strong connection between research and teaching as an essential part of their job satisfaction despite the disputed views and arguments surrounding the research-teaching nexus. Jensen (1988) identified three different types of perceptions of how teaching can benefit from research: (a) research fertilises teaching with new topics and methodological advances; (b) research provides teachers with a personal engagement of great pedagogic significance; and (c) academic staff research guarantees connections with developments in the world of international research. Nevertheless, moving beyond the classroom to link teaching and research may also provide an exciting experience for learners and leaders. As argued by (Singh, 2013: 6–7) “This learning process passes through different stages of learning and works to bring it to a successful end with a certain research output. It helps them to learn and express with a great deal of understanding based on observations underlying the comprehension. This may be considered as the best way of learning how to probe and question, how best to extract the truth behind an issue, how to record, interpret and communicate.”
Conclusion
This study contends that the continuous discussion about the research-teaching nexus debate has persisted for a considerable duration. Advocates of research-teaching synergy commonly assume that teaching and research are the primary functions of higher education and, as a result, are intimately interconnected. Incorporating research and teaching is regarded as crucial in achieving balance in their role, maintaining their enthusiasm or drive, and indirectly influencing the calibre of their work. Despite the controversy surrounding the teaching-research synergy, there are many reasons to test integration strategies at the individual faculty and institutional levels, such as (a) integrating research into the classroom, (b) involving students in research projects, and (c) expanding the paradigm for academic scholarship (Prince et al., 2007: 284). An important conclusion of this research is that the terms ‘research-led,’ ‘research-intensive,’ ‘research-oriented,’ and ‘research-based’ dominate the landscapes of higher education institutions. Research and its integration with learning and teaching are currently viewed as crucial marketing and recruitment tools to increase prestige, ‘brand power,’ and resource accumulation. The UK university sector also heavily emphasises the Research Excellence Framework (REF). One can also express the importance of research-teaching synergy by considering the development and use of research as a means of understanding the complexity of teaching and learning within specific disciplinary environments.
This research emphasises the pursuit of academic development in line with the importance of teaching-research synergy, despite the awareness of difficulties related to this strategy, because as also emphasised by Reid and Petocz “teaching and learning is only one aspect of academic work, albeit an important one” and therefore in order to carry out the academic activities most effectively “it is important that academic developers broaden their focus from the improvement of just one facet of academic work to the enhancement of all aspects of academic life, specifically including research, [because] focusing on research development gives academics the opportunity to develop their teaching scholarship, prepare publishable work, and cultivate teaching and learning practices that are aligned with their specific discipline environments” (2003: 105). Inspired by the existing literature, this research concludes that higher education institutions widely use research-led teaching to promote undergraduate degrees, meet employability demands, and justify the rising costs of higher education studies. The findings suggest that students experience the research-teaching nexus as a dynamic process both within and beyond their degree programs. Furthermore, it is effective. That is to say, the nexus is multidimensional and is not just a technical imposition of a particular pedagogical form but also a strategy in which students develop feelings and reactions to it (Clark and Hordosy, 2019).
This brings us to the main point of reinforcing the article’s argument, which asserts that ‘despite the controversies surrounding the connection between research and teaching, the literature demonstrates that most academics view a strong link between the two as essential for their career development and job satisfaction.’ Moreover, numerous reasons exist to advocate for enhancing such an approach at the institutional and faculty levels. Drawing on personal experience and supported by literature advocating for the significance of the teaching-research nexus, implementing this approach is crucial for multiple reasons, primarily because it can elevate the learning environment in higher educational institutions, such as universities. The integration will boost student development by employing the expertise of research-active lecturers and educators to foster the growth of critical thinking and analytical skills. Students will benefit from their lecturers’ engagement, excitement, and advanced critical thinking abilities. However, when considering this approach from an academic development standpoint, teaching activities may benefit researchers by allowing them to gain a more profound understanding of their subject. Similarly, students can contribute to academic clarity of thought by participating critically and actively in teaching and other learning environments. Moreover, this approach allows lecturers to actively engage in research and incorporate the latest developments in their field of study into their course materials. Implementing this strategy would lead to a symbiotic atmosphere, enhancing the educational experiences of students and scholars across various levels. Moreover, the integration of research and teaching enables academics to share their research results effectively, collaborate with a wider range of individuals, and foster opportunities for innovative collaborations. Multiple strategies exist to promote the effective integration of teaching and research. These include encouraging student participation in research activities, aligning research goals with teaching objectives, incorporating research funding into the classroom and other learning environments, facilitating interdisciplinary, cross- and trans-institutional collaboration, and actively seeking institutional support for this approach. For instance, according to Mohamedunni Alias Musthafa and Sajila, in order for such an approach to succeed, it needs to design a curriculum for transmitting research-based knowledge for effective teaching and learning in higher education institutions because “the link between research and teaching (R&T) is not automatic. It needs to be formally created in HE departments in order to achieve a productive relationship and manage research activities with teaching duties” (Musthafa and Sajila, 2014: 124).
Footnotes
Acknowledgements
Declaration of conflicting interests
Funding
ORCID iD
