“Getting on the same page”: Negotiation and intellectual collaboration in student research groups (original) (raw)
Related papers
It’s Not a Lonely Journey: Research Collaboration Strategies for Knowledge Production with Allies
Academy of Management Learning and Education, 2021
This article examines research collaboration in business schools for knowledge production with allies. It is based on a qualitative study that shows how and why researchers collaborate in their research and how their relationships with key allies—organizations and students—vary according to the collaboration strategy used. The study draws from personal interviews with business school researchers and explores the worth experienced through their relationships with allies. The article offers contributions to two discussions. First, it adds to the discussion on research collaboration in business schools’ knowledge production by identifying three research collaboration strategies: fair play, organic dialogue, and efficiency template. Second, and importantly, the article extends the discussion of values in business school research beyond the type of knowledge produced (what) and its audience (for whom) by examining with whom, how, and why researchers produce knowledge. To make business school research more impactful, we suggest that business schools should pay more attention to teaching collaboration skills and understanding the variety of values that can underpin them.
Cookies and coding: A critical discourse analysis of collaborative research interactions
This session presents the preliminary results of a study on the collaborative research process of three graduate student researchers at OISE. Specifically, the study explores the nature of collaborative work for early-career/graduate researchers and ways of attaining ‘researcher praxis’ – that is, negotiating theoretical aspirations with the practical side of conducting research in the field. Whether achieved through self-study (e.g., Pithouse-Morgan & Samaras, 2016), action-research (e.g., Goodnough, 2010), or reflective practice (e.g., Farrell, 2013), praxis, grounded in social and constructivist views of learning, usually involves some form of collaboration. Using Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA), the three researchers conducted an inductive data analysis of their documented oral and written research interactions (e.g., face-to-face interactions, phone conversations, emails, Whatsapp exchanges, etc.) to identify the various collaborative features and functions of their interactions, for example, how they built rapport, negotiated ideas, set goals, made decisions, assigned and adopted roles, developed plans of actions, and shared responsibilities. After engaging in CDA, the researchers critically reflected on their analysis process to identify how their individual and collective researcher praxis was informed by their coding practices. The aim of the study is twofold: to suggest one potential method for conducting and reflecting on collaborative research through CDA, and to begin a dialogue on the inner-workings of collaborative research practices and methods for early-career/graduate researchers. The findings of this study will be presented as an invitation to the audience to reflect on the potential implications of collaborative research for developing researcher praxis among graduate students in Higher Education. References Farrell, T. S. C. (2013). Reflective writing for language teachers. Sheffield: Equinox. Goodnough, K. (2010). The role of action research in transforming teacher identity: Modes of belonging and ecological perspectives. Educational Action Research, 18(2), 167-182. Pithouse-Morgan, K., & Samaras, A. P. (2016). Polyvocal Professional Learning through Self-Study Research. Rotterdam: Springer.
Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 2007
As social and cultural psychologists of learning, we are persuaded of the crucial role of interaction in development and learning. But how do we experience this assumption in our own research practices and in our collaboration with colleagues? Taking as our object of study our own participation in a European Research and Development project that aimed to enhance interactive and argumentative skills in learning settings, this study shows how collaboration among project partners is not something that is to be taken for granted, but something that is elaborated and evolves in time, takes diverse forms, and is mediated by multiple tools. The psychological processes-more particularly tensions and negotiationinvolved in collaboration are developed and discussed. The study explores the processes of establishing collaboration and, through the analysis of specific zones of tensions, sheds light on the way new knowledge (on how to do research, how to communicate, how to work together) is constructed. It contributes to the understanding of the issues and conditions for the development of a community of practice.
Who Is the Expert? Incorporating Undergraduate Researchers Into Collaborative Knowledge Production
SAGE Research Methods Cases, 2019
This case discusses the role students play in field-based survey research and offers a guide to ensuring that their role is beneficial. Student researchers can be integral to the data collection process, benefit tremendously from research experiences, and learn a great deal about the communities they study. It is important, however, to integrate students into collaborative knowledge production. Drawing on my own experience as well as feedback from members of my team, I present several strategies for how undergraduates can best become part of a research team. This overview will help students to understand their important role in field work and guide faculty and graduate students in incorporating undergraduates into their research.
Students' Conceptions of Research. I: A qualitative and quantitative analysis
Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 2005
Relatively little is known about students' conceptions of research and, in particular, whether there are conceptually discrete patterns of variation that can be used to model this phenomenon in terms of research-as-learning outcomes. The present study explores the dimensionality of students' conceptions of research from two complementary research perspectives. The open-ended written responses of students (n5154) to questions aimed at soliciting variations in conceptions of what research is are analysed using a qualitative methodology to isolate ''categories of description''. Findings are summarized in terms of eight such main categories, some of which are further internally differentiated. In terms of the main categories, research is conceived in terms of (variation in): (A) information gathering, (B) discovering the truth, (C) insightful exploration and discovery, (D) analytic and systematic enquiry, (E) incompleteness, (F) re-examining existing knowledge, (G) problem-based activity, and (H) a set of misconceptions. The substantive verbatim excerpts that formed the units of analysis in the qualitative analysis were used as a basis for item stems which were psychometrically operationalized into a Students' Conceptions of Research Inventory (SCoRI). This inventory was administered to a second heterogeneous sample of postgraduate students (n5224) and the resultant data were subjected to exploratory factor analyses that provided empirical support (as dimensions of variation) for a smaller subset of the categories isolated in the qualitative analysis. Empirically, and in terms of additional psychometric considerations, there was support for five dimensions of variation (common factors) in terms of categories B, C, F, G, and H. These findings provide an initial conceptual basis for interpreting how students engaged in research activity may differ from one another in terms of their conceptions, as well as what the likely consequences of any such stable differences may be for research-as-learning outcomes.
We are in an era that calls for increasing "training" in educational research methodologies. When the National Research Council (2004) calls for training in educational research that is "rigorous" and "relevant," the focus strongly emphasizes WHAT should be taught instead of WHO is being engaged in the learning. Similarly, most of the research on teaching educational inquiry explores the "what" and not the "who" of the learning. In contrast, we explore conceptualizations of "research" as expressed by graduate students in a research methodology course, as well as the way that student narratives illustrate their own identity claims in relation to research. We develop the analytical concept of "pragmatic fissures" to explain the tension often present between the way students conceptualize research and the way they perceive themselves in relation to the research process. We suggest that these pragmatic fissures provide an opportunity for expanding pedagogical approaches to course delivery, as well as approaches to methodology textbook design. In the spirit of post-perspectives aimed at challenging the "methods" approach to research learning (St. Pierre, 2014), we welcome an opportunity for thinking about research instruction as more locally and organically connected to the lived experiences and conceptual make-up of students engaged in the learning process.
Student as researcher: Rethinking how to make research methods interesting for students
Journal of Learning Development in Higher Education, 2017
This project aimed to enable students to appreciate the technical and epistemological nuances of different phenomenological approaches. We involved a small group of self-selecting honours level undergraduate students in the plural analysis of focus group data. Students reported that this supportive teaching technique, facilitating peer working, resulted in deeper learning. This case study describes the piloting of a collaborative teaching method, engaging students as researchers. The project lasted six months, with monthly meetings from tutors to guide procedure and to support academic discussion. The group had a shared interest and joint cause but as each student also had an individual task of conducting a certain analysis, we did not observe any group member failing to offer full effort and participation. Reflections of how this type of teaching could be conducted with larger cohorts are considered and critiqued.