Providing pedagogic research support is critical because integrating pedagogic research into teaching practice is neither automatic nor effortless (Stierer & Antoniou, 2004). Existing literature identifies several barriers to such engagement. For example, a lack of time, motivation and recognition, plus competing priorities, low perceived value of pedagogic research and unfamiliarity with educational research (Cotton et al., 2018; Heng et al., 2020). This blog post discusses how The Octopus has developed to enhance academic staff engagement in pedagogic research through our Teaching and Learning Community of Practice (T&L CoP) at CUHK. Specifically, we ask: ‘How can we support most colleagues without academic training in Education to conduct pedagogic research?

Supported by the Teaching Development and Language Enhancement Grant, our 2022–25 T&L CoP aims to address academic staff members’ pedagogic research needs. Inspired by the eight-limbed mollusc for its flexibility in motor control for diverse functions (Richter et al., 2015), The Octopus (figure 1) provides various means of support to meet the diverse pedagogic research needs of colleagues navigating the research-teaching nexus (Oliver & Gourlay, 2018; Cotton & Kneale, 2018). The Octopus includes:

1. professional development workshops
2. sharing sessions
3. resource development
4. writing retreats
5. dissemination opportunities
6. consultations
7. collaborations
8. research.

Specifically, our research aims to explore the blockers and enablers of engagement in pedagogic research among colleagues, along with their associated pedagogic research needs. The results will be analysed to inform our support and practice.

Figure 1. The Octopus

Drawing on some key principles of cultivating communities of practice (Wenger & McDermott, 2002) and our project management experience, our approach to pedagogic research support is based on three principles: capacity, community and sustainability. For capacity, we have launched six pedagogic research workshop series since 2022 for interested colleagues. Regarding community, the sharing series provide a cross-disciplinary platform to share teaching innovation and pedagogic research. Writing retreats are also included to create space for networking and identifying collaborators while carving out quality writing time. In terms of sustainability, individualised pedagogic research consultations, dedicated support for outputs, collaborations among colleagues and with the project team, and the research study mentioned above are all interrelated, playing complementary roles in our support.

‘We are moving towards a collaborative culture where we adopt an emic lens to work with, rather than for, our colleagues.’

Like many projects, we encounter operational issues, such as running a small team to handle high demand and addressing complex inquiries that require diverse skills. However, we want to highlight one particular challenge that also contributes to our success. Drawing from our ongoing reflection and inspiration from interviews with our community, we ask: ‘What are our relationships with the current and prospective pedagogic researchers?’ This question resonates with the emic/etic perspectives of researchers and the researched (Beals et al., 2020). From the emic perspective, how similar are we? Are we representing and understanding the perspectives of the pedagogic researchers? Alternatively, from the etic perspective, are we merely a service provider, supporting them as outsiders? However, our role has gradually shifted from service provider to that of collaborator, as we become increasingly similar through periodic contact and in-depth interviews with them (figure 2). In other words, we are moving towards a collaborative culture where we adopt an emic lens to work with, rather than for, our colleagues.

Figure 2. Relationships between the T&L CoP and pedagogic researchers

We are mindful of our capabilities and strive not to give false hope, but we will keep our dialogue as open as possible to facilitate different forms of collaboration.

References

Beals, F., Kidman, J., & Funaki, H. (2020). Insider and outsider research: Negotiating self at the edge of the emic/etic divide. Qualitative Inquiry, 26(6), 593–601. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800419843950

Cotton, D. R. E., Miller, W., & Kneale, P. (2018). The Cinderella of academia: Is higher education pedagogic research undervalued in UK research assessment? Studies in Higher Education, 43(9), 1625–1636. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2016.1276549

Heng, K., Hamid, M. O., & Khan, A. (2020). Factors influencing academics’ research engagement and productivity: A developing countries perspective. Issues in Educational Research, 30(3), 965–987. https://www.iier.org.au/iier30/heng.pdf

Oliver, M., & Gourlay, L. (2018). The research-teaching nexus revisited. In J. Davies, & N. Pachler (Eds.), Teaching and learning in higher education: Perspectives from UCL (pp. 21–34). UCL IOE Press.

Richter, J. N., Hochner, B., & Kuba, M. J. (2015). Octopus arm movements under constrained conditions: Adaptation, modification and plasticity of motor primitives. Journal of Experimental Biology, 218(7), 1069–1076. https://doi.org/10.1242/jeb.115915

Stierer, B., & Antoniou, M. (2004). Are there distinctive methodologies for pedagogic research in higher education? Teaching in Higher Education, 9(3), 275–285. https://doi.org/10.1080/1356251042000216606

Wenger, E., & McDermott, R. A. (2002). Cultivating communities of practice: A guide to managing knowledge. Harvard Business School Press.