Research partnership inside & outside the curriculum: Opportunities, benefits, & challenges
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Drawing on the experiences of two undergraduate students and an academic staff member based in the discipline of geography, this paper will explore the opportunities for student-student and student-staff partnership in research before progressing to examine the benefits and challenges of such engagement. Using the model of Griffiths (2004) opportunities for student engagement and partnership in research will be mapped across the undergraduate learning journey. This model envisages scaffolded development from passive research-led to more participatory research-informed teaching and learning. The student and staff presenters will highlight examples from their own institutions and invite you to consider your learning experiences through research. Examples of research engagement and partnership will include opportunities embedded within and falling outside of formal curricula. The personal experiences of the team will be combined with a literature synthesis to draw out the benefits of progressive student engagement in the research process and research partnership. These benefits include development of graduate attributes (Barrie, 2004) and self authorship (Baxter-Magolda, 2004) and they highlight an important role for extra-curricular activity in enabling the creative development of graduate competencies free from the constraints of formal assessment. Key challenges are also identified relating to coping with personal vulnerability, de-stabilizing traditional power relations and altering conceptualizations of role and identity, sustaining initiatives, and considering ethics of co-research and co-publication. We conclude that undergraduate research is the pedagogy of the twenty-first century (CUR, 2005) and that, well managed in the undergraduate learning journey, engagement with the full research cycle can prepare students for employment and citizenship in a rapidly changing world. Fulfilling the promise of research partnership, however, does require co-ordinated evolution of institutional policies that enable productive disruptions through partnership, and appropriate recognition and reward for staff and students.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.054 | 0.056 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.028 | 0.028 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.031 | 0.030 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.044 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".