Learning in vivo

WIL bridges the knowledge-to-practice gap

The “gap between what is known from research and what is done in applied practice—is called ‘the science-to-service gap’” say Grassetti et al. (2021: 175); and add that this gap “is further exacerbated by a lack of intentional collaboration between researchers and practitioners”. They assert that “Students will be positioned to make valuable contributions in their future careers if they are trained to think from an implementation science framework, apply data-driven decision-making to practice in the field, and collaborate with community partners.” This notion is deemed equally applicable to work-integrated research higher degrees (WIRHD) focussing on real-world practice-based problems and issues, relevant to workplace settings and similar contexts such as communities.

Service learning (SL), as a form of work-integrated learning, “is a progressive, cooperative pedagogical approach that grounds experience as a primary basis of learning and uses student engagement in community service as a method to develop academic knowledge and skill” say Grassetti et al. (2021: 176). It “may enhance graduate education by challenging students to apply their knowledge to community service where they may further develop practical skills” (p. 175).

“There are many definitions of service-learning” say Machtmes (2009: 156) and various forms or models thereof. One such is “a ‘problem-based service-learning course’ in which students work individually or in teams work with community partners to ‘meet specified community needs’ which ‘provide community situations and problems as service-learning opportunities for students’”. With problem-based service-learning students gain experience by acting as consultants to, for example, a community organization.

The National Service-Learning Clearinghouse, cited by Machtmes (2009: 156), states that all definitions of service-learning have the following components:

Service-learning combines service objectives with learning objectives with the intent that the activity change both the recipient and the provider of the service. This is accomplished by combining service tasks with structured opportunities that link the task to self-reflection, self-discovery, and the acquisition and comprehension of values, skills, and knowledge content.

By acting as consultant to a community, the doctoral candidate could through service-learning undertake research, and in that way bridge the gap between knowledge and real-world realities.

Grassetti, S.N.; Solic, K. & Getz, Z. (2021). Bridging the science-to-service gap: service learning in graduate-level psychology education. Teaching of Psychology, 48(2), 175-181. https://doi.org/10.1177/0098628320971208

Machtmes, K., Johnson, E., Fox, J., Burke, M. S., Harper, J., Arcemont, L., Hebert, L., Tarifa, T., Brooks, R. C., Reynaud, A. L., Deggs, D., Matzke, B., & Aguirre, R. T. (2009). Teaching Qualitative Research Methods through Service-Learning. The Qualitative Report, 14(1), 155-164. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2009.1398

Practice-based research of real-world problems and issues

This blogpost relates to two previous posts on work integrated research (WIRHD) at post-graduate level, relevance in the workplace. This post draws from scholarly research practice literature that advocates the researching of “real-world problems and issues relevant to” “workplace communities and contexts” (Klenowski et al, 2011: 681). In addition to those key issues, practice-based (or work-integrated) research “doctorates begin by framing the practice-derived problem, as opposed to the gap in knowledge that is more typically associated with” (San Miguel and Nelson, 2007: 75, emphasis added) traditional postgraduate research. Doctoral candidates would be examining a problem arising from their own or workplace context. The “positioning of the researcher/practitioner vis-a-vis the research site and participants” (p. 77) must be clearly articulated, and the literature review should address and should grow out of the problem under investigation.

The “growth, in recent years, of research projects and degree programmes with strong industry links has generated much discussion in the higher education literature” indicate San Miguel and Nelson (2007: 72). Strengers (2014: 552) indicates that “Industry usually refers to a broad cross section of interests and stakeholders, including government organisations, community organisations, businesses, companies and external research organisations”. San Miguel and Nelson (2007: 73) state that such “doctorate degrees are designed for mid-career professionals who do not aspire to become academics but rather to undertake research that emerges from, and will be useful to, their own workplaces and professions”. Strengers (2014: 546) further observes that in contrast to ‘traditional-academic-discourse’, both interdisciplinary and industry collaborations are becoming more common for doctoral research. Whereas historically the doctoral candidate has been a “disciple of an academic master”, by the knowledge economy is pushing for the skilled candidates. San Miguel and Nelson (2007: 71) encountered some challenges pertaining ‘practice-based research’, such as the “framing [of] a real-world problem as a research issue; incorporating one’s own (and others’) professional knowledge; and using the literature to contextualise and theorise the issue under investigation”.

Mindful that “the pressing problems of the real world are not organized into disciplinary categories, there is an urgent need to make doctoral education more interdisciplinary” says Rashid (2021: 508). “The term ‘discipline’ was coined as ‘disciplina’ by the Romans [and] by medieval times, ‘disciplines’ referred to a handful of professions (e.g. law, medicine, engineering) that required specialized knowledge”, indicates Rashid (2021: 509). The contemporary “concept of disciplinarity emerged from developments in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries” and can be defined as “an identifiable but evolving domain of knowledge that its members study using certain tools that serve as a way of knowing that is powerful but constraining”. Each discipline is furthermore “characterized by an epistemology, i.e. beliefs about how (much) we can understand about the world” and tends to be the organising principle within universities. However, “the disciplinary approach to addressing a complex problem is a reductionist one that focuses on an aspect of the problem that the discipline is concerned with, whereas the interdisciplinary approach is a holistic one that integrates insights from different disciplines concerned with different aspects of the problem” indicates Rashid (2021: 509). There is furthermore a “delicate balance needs to be maintained in ensuring that the boundaries of the project are sufficiently broad (and defined) to allow for interdisciplinary understandings of the problem, without compromising the discipline within which the candidate is seeking to gain accreditation” caution Strengers (2014: 552).

Neuhauser et al (2007: 5) admit that there is no consensus about the many existing terms and propose to follow the typology of research practice:

• Level 1. Multidisciplinary: Researchers from different fields work independently or sequentially (with little interaction), each from his or her field, to address a common problem.
• Level 2. Interdisciplinary: Researchers work jointly, but still from their own disciplines, to address a common problem.
• Level 3. Transdisciplinary: Researchers work together from the outset to develop a shared conceptual framework that integrates and extends discipline-based concepts, theories, and/or methods to address a specific common problem.

San Miguel and Nelson (2007: 76) further submit that it is “useful to consider the two modes of knowledge identified by Gibbons and his colleagues (Gibbons et al., 1994)” namely:

• Mode 1. Knowing-in-theory: “knowledge is generated within universities and then applied to practical, ‘real-world’ problems in the broader society”
• Mode 2. Knowing-inaction: “knowledge is generated in the broader society”

Universities must prepare doctoral graduates “for the complexities and challenges of the twenty-first century. To address problems as complex as climate change, environmental pollution, sustainability, healthcare, and the Covid-19 pandemic, students need relevant skills.” (Rashid, 2021: 508). “Professional doctorates were introduced in the 1990s for practitioners to research ‘real-world’ problems relevant to their respective workplace communities and contexts” say Klenowski et al (2011: 681). One of the strengths of such doctoral degrees “is that it bridges the worlds of academe and the professions by equipping candidates with academic knowledge and research skills required to explore professional contexts” they indicate.

Klenowski, V., Ehrich, L., Kapitzke, C. & Trigger, K. (2011). Building support for learning within a Doctor of Education programme. Teaching in Higher Education, 16 (6), 681-693.

Neuhauser, L.; Richardson, D.; Mackenzie, S.; & Minkler, M.  (2007). Advancing Transdisciplinary and Translational Research Practice: Issues and Models of Doctoral Education in Public Health. Journal of Research Practice, 3(2), 1-25. http://jrp.icaap.org/index.php/jrp/article/view/103/97

Rashid, R. (2021). Updating the PhD: making the case for interdisciplinarity in twenty-first-century doctoral education. Teaching in Higher Education, 26(3), 508–517. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2021.1892624

San Miguel, C. & Nelson, C.D. (2007). Key writing challenges of practice-based doctorates. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 6, 71–86. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1475158506000658?via%3Dihub

Strengers, Y.A-A. (2014). Interdisciplinarity and industry collaboration in doctoral candidature: tensions within and between discourses. Studies in Higher Education, 39(4), 546–559. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2012.709498