Supporting staff to research in a post-1992 teaching-intensive university: an institutional ethnography.
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This research paper is framed using an institutional ethnography approach, which stems from the work of the eminent Canadian sociologist, Dorothy Smith (2005). It is concerned with how institutional texts organise and rule people’s work in institutions. It explores what people know because of what they do to make sense of how things work the way they do to make things work better. Observations formed the entry-point in the design of this research, which noted the disjuncture between what key institutional texts say about research and what academic staff know about research and how they do research. Thus the ‘problematic’ is ‘how can a post-1992 teaching intensive university better support staff to research?’ The research draws on broad observations, institutional texts (formal and informal), surveys, and interviews, to inquire about the problematic. This paper draws on preliminary analysis of observations, institutional texts, and surveys with 38 faculty academic staff to illustrate what they know about research and what they do about research to show how things work and how to make them work better. These faculty staff come from multiple and inter-disciplines. Preliminary analysis shows that most staff 'face-away' from research, despite the explication of research and scholarly activity in key institutional texts, such as the academic contract, work loading, and instead they 'face' teaching (related) activities. Many staff who completed the survey are new and/or inexperienced in their 'lecturing' posts and some staff are not contracted to research. This has implications for what the university can do for new, inexperienced, and ‘uncontracted’ faculty academic staff in supporting them to research in a post-1992 teaching-intensive university. These standpoints of people in institutions are important for institutional ethnography and particularly for inquiring into the problematic for this research. Hence, the collaboration of the two authors on this research project who are at different stages of their academic careers.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it