Constituting the significance and value of research: views from information technology academics and industry professionals

Abstract

Abstract:The IT research community, comprising both academic and industry stakeholders, is responding to national and international imperatives that challenge disparate groups to work together. In this article we show how, within both academic and industrial contexts, researchers interpret, or constitute, the significance and value of research in different ways.Important aspects of these differences may be described in terms of what comes to the foreground when members of the community are asked to consider the significance of projects; and what recedes to the background, ultimately forming a 'perceptual boundary' beyond which they do not see. The study reported here represents a first step in understanding one dimension of the 'collective consciousness' of the IT research community.The framework developed may contribute to the widening awareness of more experienced researchers, as well as revealing something of the character of the research community to those engaged in researcher training, education and development.

Growing and developing as a university researcher

“…There are now a number of studies indicating that a focus on contributing to a larger field or community represents one way in which academics think about their research and being a researcher (Brew, 2001;Bruce et al, 2004;Bowden et al, 2005;Å kerlind, 2005a, in press). Consequently, there is a way of thinking about researcher development that I would have expected to see, along the lines of ''enhancing one's capacity to contribute to a larger field or community'', that did not emerge in this study.…”

“…However, there have been a small number of recent studies investigating the ways in which academics experience research and being a researcher (Brew, 2001;Ingerman & Booth, 2003;Bruce, Pham, & Stoodley, 2004;Bills, 2004;Bowden, Green, Barnacle, Cherry, & Usher, 2005;Pham, Bruce, & Stoodley, 2005;Kiley & Mullins, 2005;Prosser, Martin, Trigwell, Ramsden, & Middleton, in press;Å kerlind, in press). With the exception of Bills, and Kiley and Mullins, these studies have all been conducted using a phenomenographic research approach, with a focus on searching for variation in academics' ways of understanding the nature of research.…”

“…• within disciplines (physics-Ingerman & Booth, 2003;information technologyBruce et al, 2004) as well as across disciplines (Brew, 2001;Bowden et al, 2005.;Prosser et al, in press; Å kerlind, in press); • within research intensive universities (Brew, 2001;Å kerlind, in press) as well as non-research intensive universities (Bowden et al, 2005;Bruce et al, 2004); • amongst senior academics (Brew, 2001) as well as early career academics (Ingerman & Booth, 2003. ; Å kerlind, in press).…”

Experiencing higher degree research supervision as teaching

“…The role of a supervisor focus (Deuchar 2008) has been given extensive attention and attends to the development of models, such as master-apprentice, facilitator or critical-friend. An expanding awareness focus suggests that bringing about learning involves widening the experience of students as they learn to become researchers, with work conducted across disciplines (Å kerlind 2005, 2008Bills 2004;Brew 2001;Kiley and Mullins 2005;Wright, Murray, and Geale 2007), including in specific discipline contexts (for example Bruce, Pham, and Stoodley 2004;Pham, Bruce, and Stoodley 2005;Wood 2006). Adopting a learning outcomes focus, Kiley and Wisker (2009) explore the idea of threshold concepts in the context of research supervision.…”

Implications for Professional Development

“… conceptions of research (Brew 2001, Ingerman 2003, Ingerman & Booth 2003, Bruce et al 2004; and  the relationship between teaching and research (Robertson & Bond 2001, Brew 1999.…”