I have heard many people, in the past few years, struggling with the nature of the research they need to undertake as a key part of their CETL project. [For those who have come in from outside UK Higher Education, CETLs are government-funded, practice-driven centres where successful learning and teaching initiatives are encouraged to flourish - there are 74 CETLs in England and Wales].
I'm looking forward, with some scepticism, to the annual CETL conference at the end of this week. The sorts of questions that are being addressed seem, as far as I can see, to focus on
'How do we evaluate and demonstrate impact?'
This question seems to me to be a self-referential, closed hypothesis that is really about justifying effective use of funds - in no way is this a research question. The other question we apparently ought to concern ourselves with involves 'dissemination', as if sprinkling seed from our work is the nature of the task. I should not refer here to the strangely masculine nature of this seed sprinkling activity, or the biblical disapproval of such wasteful acts. Unless we are able to talk with some confidence about contexts for risk, learning and change - the conditions for successful germination of seed - the issue of dissemination truly is not worthy of further attention.
In my view, neither 'dissemination' or 'impact' are useful focus for evaluation or research.There are some hard and messy questions: 'How does change happen in xxx University with yyy sorts of students?' 'What conditions seem to enable learning in aaa discipline?' 'What processes help people think more creatively and work better with their students under bbb conditions?' Of course, these aren't 'proper' research questions and don't have quantifiable answers. Learning and change are local and contexted, so generalisations are difficult. But I'd rather spend time thinking, talking and writing (if I ever claim the time for this) about those practical questions than measuring and disseminating value for money.
Comments