Introduction

A number of recent articles on the relationship between teaching and research have pointed to the failure to statistically demonstrate a connection between them indicating that efforts should be made to actively bring research and teaching together. Shore, Pinkler & Bates (1990), for example, suggest that research may serve as a model for teaching, while Barnett (1997a) calls for teaching to become more research-like. Hattie & Marsh (1996) suggest that marrying teaching and research by enhancing the relationship between them is a desirable aim of universities. This article first examines the rationale for bringing research and teaching closer together. It then considers findings from research representing different ways in which the question has been tacked. A detailed discussion of how research and scholarship are conceptualised by those who carry it out leads to a consideration of the implications of this analysis for teaching and learning in higher education.

The challenge of bringing research and teaching together is not merely an academic exercise to prop up arguments that all academics should engage in research. There are some key features of the changes in higher education which have challenged the relationship. These include: the move to a mass higher education system (Elton 1992; Westergaard 1991) the amount of time available both for teaching and for research (Hattie & Marsh 1996) as well as changes in the nature of research and in the nature of teaching in higher education (Rowland, 1996) and changes in the nature of knowledge (Brew in press). Also of relevance is a changed policy context, which (Elton 1992) argues has given urgency to questions about the relationship between teaching and research. These changes have meant that teaching and learning have taken a different route away from a focus on preparation for research and an academic career. The suggestion that teaching and research should be more firmly drawn together should not be seen as an argument for educating all students to become academics. Nonetheless concern has been expressed,

particularly in the literature on the nature of scholarship, about the division which is caused by this rift between teaching and research.

Indeed, in the USA, growing unease about universities' role and mission has centred around calls to redefine or to extend the concept of scholarship to incorporate both research and teaching. (See for example Boyer 1990; Rice 1992; Scott & Awbrey 1993.) It has been argued that research has increasingly come to be viewed narrowly in terms of publication of fundamental knowledge based on technical rationality (Schön 1995; Scott & Awbrey 1993; Rice 1992) This has led to concern about the status of teaching vis à vis research (Leatherman 1990; Mooney 1990; Ruscio 1987). The need for scholarship to result in a greater connection between the university and outside and for there to be a greater sense of connectivity within the university community is also a factor (Scott & Awbrey 1993 ). Schön (1997) argues that new definitions point to the need to change institutional epistemology to take account of the requirements of professional practice. In all of this there is an underlying concern about what to reward in higher education.

Many different frameworks to describe scholarship have been suggested and a wide range of teaching, research and community service activities have been presented as important elements of it (See for example, Paulsen & Feldman 1996; Podgorecki 1997; Sundre, 1992). This all demonstrates considerable confusion about what is understood by scholarship. It is used to apply to research, teaching and even community service. This is exemplified, perhaps most notably, in the work of Boyer and colleagues at the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching (Boyer, 1990). Investigations into undergraduate education led them to suggest a fourfold definition which, they argue, corresponds to different approaches to the ways knowledge is perceived and approached: the advancement of knowledge, its application, representation and integration in society. The scholarship of discovery, Boyer (Boyer, 1990) suggests, comes closest to the idea of "research." It contributes to the "stock of human knowledge" and also to the intellectual climate of the institution. The scholarship of integration is concerned with making inter-disciplinary connections:

The third type of scholarship defined by Boyer and his colleagues is the scholarship of application. This draws attention to the application of knowledge in the wider community. There is a caution against seeing theory and practice separate for what is envisaged is a dynamic interaction where the "one renews the other" (Boyer 1990: 23). Finally there is the scholarship of teaching. This involves well informed teachers; teaching which is carefully planned, continuously evaluated and relates to the subject taught; teaching which encourages active learning and encourages students to be critical creative thinkers with the capacity to go on learning after their university days are over; and a recognition that teachers are also learners (Boyer 1990: 24).

All of these different definitions of scholarship have their roots in the changing face of higher education. However, there has not been an equivalent literature on definitions of research (Brew 1998). The motivation for extending the concept of scholarship, by and large, is concern about how to reward academic work; not how to integrate it. For Barnett, in contrast, the call to make teaching more research-like is part of the need to redefine the roles of student and teachers in the development of a culture of critical action in higher education. It is part of the process of redefining the academic role to take on the context of uncertainty; a context in which, he argues, both research and teaching need to change (Barnett, 1997a).

Suggesting that the world which the modern university has to face is a world which is "not just unknowable; it is radically unknowable," Barnett (1997b: 4) argues that a university is "a site of organized inquiry for generating and managing uncertainty" (Barnett 1997b: 18). In this context, the pursuit of traditional disciplinary research has to give way to new forms of inquiry involving self-knowledge on the part of the researchers and the ability to engage with policy-makers and bureaucrats and communicate with the world outside the academy. In other words, changes in the world in which academics operate necessitate changes in research which in turn necessitate changes in what is taught and in the relationship between teachers and learners. Indeed, such changes call into question just who are the teachers and who the learners.

A number of suggestions have been made as to how teaching and research could be brought together. These suggestions are based on a number of different ideas about what research is. Indeed, in the absence of research demonstrating how academics conceptualise research, this is hardly surprising. Hattie & Marsh (1996) for example suggest emphasising the construction rather than the imparting of knowledge; encouraging a deep approach to learning; emphasising uncertainty; ensuring the best researchers teach across all levels of students; involving students in "artistic and scientific productivity"; rewarding teachers for the currency of their material; and ensuring public awards for teaching. They argue that creativity, commitment, inquisitiveness and critical analysis should be rewarded in both teaching and research.

Arguing that teaching and research are part of the same enterprise, Brew & Boud (1995) suggest they can be brought together by employing the concept of learning.

Brew and Boud (1995) draw attention to the way in which much of the research on the relationship between research and teaching is based on an outcomes view of research as publication. Focusing attention on research as learning is to shift to a view of research as a process.

In another attempt to integrate research and teaching, the concept of scholarship has been used. Yet here again, there is confusion concerning what is understood by scholarship (Elton 1986; 1992; Neumann 1993; Westergaard 1991). Elton defines scholarship as the interpretation of what is already known; the primary work that feeds into all else academics are supposed to do, what I have called the preparation conception below. Neumann (1993) suggests that the concept of scholarship also includes the idea of a quality describing the way in which inquiry should be done. This is what I have called the quality conception. Westergaard (1991) prefers the concept of "critical inquiry" but insists:

While many teaching developments may be seen as evidence of growing scholarship in university teaching as Boyer (1991) defines it, there is still the question of how teaching can be extended through attention to research. Jenkins and colleagues (1998) suggest that opportunities for motivating students through involving them in discussions of their teachers' research are frequently lost and that students are often ignorant of the research their teachers are doing yet would like to know more. Following an investigation of students' conceptions of their teachers' research, Jenkins et al (1998) argue that not only should students have opportunities to benefit from their teachers' research they should be more often involved in helping to carry it out. Attention should be given in curriculum design to how staff research can benefit student learning, For Jenkins et al (1998), bringing research and teaching together requires policy and management decisions. This could include policies requiring departments to monitor and identify how their research impacts upon and supports the undergraduate curriculum and policies requiring measures of teaching quality to include how individuals integrate their research into their teaching. Here again, what is understood by research has shifted. Jenkins et all (1998) focus more on the idea of research as the pursuit of intellectually challenging ideas.

The emphases on different aspects of research or scholarship in these attempts to draw teaching and research closer together obtain from different understandings of what research is. Different writers focus on different aspects of research or scholarship. With any given phenomenon, different people notice and interpret different things but since they share a common language and culture, there are relationships between all of the different ways of experiencing that phenomenon. Thus, when academics talk about research, different aspects are in the foreground of their awareness and other aspects recede to the background.

In order to bring teaching and research together, we need greater clarity about precisely which aspects of research and scholarship academics are focusing on. It is important to be clear what understandings of research and scholarship are being talked about because different ideas about what research is and what scholarship is, have differing consequences for how to bring research and teaching together. In my investigation of senior academics conceptions of research, four qualitatively different conceptions of research were identified. These provide a framework for examining a range of implications for bringing research and teaching together. Since in the investigation academics sometimes used the concept of scholarship to describe their understandings of research, it was possible also to identify five conceptions of scholarship in the data. The findings of this study have already been reported (Brew 1998; 1999a). In the next section, a brief description of the framework of conceptions is presented in order to provide clarity in the discussion that follows concerning the implications of different ideas about research for university teaching.

The investigation used a phenomenographic approach to identify different conceptions of fifty-seven senior academic researchers. Phenomenographic research on a range of phenomena has established that there are limited numbers of ways in which a phenomenon is experienced. The task of the phenomenographic researcher is to separate out the variation in the ways the phenomenon is experienced, map the relationships between the different elements in these ways and in the meanings/interpretations which are consequent upon what is noticed/experienced. This is referred to in phenomenography as mapping the structural and referential relationships of the different dimensions in the ways in which a particular phenomenon is experienced. Phenomenography thus provides both an approach to analysing data and a theory for analysing the structure of the experiences of the phenomena which are being researched (Marton & Booth, 1997).

Figure 1 presents the structural and referential dimensions of conceptions of research found within the data. Four qualitatively different conceptions of research labeled the domino, the trading, the layer and the journey conceptions delineate the ways in which this concept is understood by academic researchers. It will be noticed that what is being described here is what researchers experience research as being. It does not describe the ways researchers go about doing it.

Based on the same data set, Figure 2 presents the structural and referential dimensions of the five qualitatively different ways the concept of scholarship is understood. They are labeled the quality, preparation, creating, integrating and confusion conceptions respectively. The reading, creating and integrating conceptions of scholarship share a basic orientation to the object of study with increasing complexity of conception as one moves from reading to creating to integrating each one incorporating the activities foregrounded in the previous less complex one. For example, the creating conception includes the idea of reading but adds the addition of new knowledge; the integrating conception includes reading and new knowledge but adds dissemination. On the other hand the quality conception is quite distinct. In relating to the way things are done rather than what is done, it is holistic in that it can be applied to the other three conceptions. In emphasising clarity it is in some ways diametrically opposed to the research conception. This latter conception demonstrates the not inconsiderable confusion surrounding the concept of scholarship.

This section draws on conceptions of both research and scholarship to discuss implications for teaching. The conceptions suggest that researchers have different foci of attention. The domino conception of research foregrounds the linking of separate elements in the effort to solve problems or answer questions. Activities foregrounded in the trading conception are writing or reading what others have written and exchanging ideas through networks. In the layer conception the activity in the foreground is the uncovering of meaning, or understanding aspects of reality within data. Through the telling of a personal story or life journey, the journey conception of research foregrounds the personal growth and development of the researcher. With regard to conceptions of scholarship, in the quality conception the emphasis is on rigour as an aspect of professionalism. The other conceptions of scholarship foreground the background reading or preparation, the discovery of new knowledge and its dissemination including teaching. In the fifth conception there is a recognition, noted above in relation to the literature, that the concept of scholarship is a confused one! Drawing from these conceptions their implications in relation to the undergraduate curriculum is important in the context of trying to bring research and teaching closer together, and in preparing students for a super-complex, uncertain and unpredictable future.

In some ways, current teaching practice already models a domino conception. So often in higher education problems are presented as if they are self contained and clearly bounded. The separation of student learning experiences into separate lectures emphasising discrete items of content can be viewed as an example of this. Yet it is also is a feature of the current popular trend towards problem-based learning. The domino conception of research reminds us that problems are connected; that one solution leads to other questions. Solving one problem may illuminate or raise a range of other problems. The undergraduate curriculum may be viewed in this perspective as opening up a series of interconnected problems and issues.

Focusing on the pragmatic, the domino conception of research emphasises the role of the higher education curriculum as a process of developing the strategies, tools, techniques, knowledge and experience that are needed. Similarly, the preparation and creation conceptions of scholarship draw attention to the importance of background reading as a necessary prerequisite to the development of new knowledge. These are vital elements of undergraduate education in the context of preparing students to solve a range of interconnected, frequently unforeseen, problems which are going to continue especially when the student leaves university. In the context of uncertainty and super-complexity (Barnett 1997b), this is important.

One of the greatest challenges that higher education teaching and learning has to face is the challenge of changing students' conceptions of the phenomena of their study (Dahlgren 1997). The layer conception, by stressing the search for interpretations, underlines the importance of students learning not to take things at face value; searching for the underlying meanings in phenomena and changing conceptions dependent on what is found. This suggests that courses should be much more explicit about the need to take a deep approach and about how to achieve it. Teaching students to learn always to examine the context, the significance and possible interpretations of phenomena and be prepared to revise interpretations when the process of looking again reveals an alternative explanation is vital. The increased emphasis on teaching which advances active learning and encourages students to be critical creative thinkers, again with the capacity to go on learning after their university days are over is a step towards this. Indeed, Biggs (1996) argues that the most significant impact on teaching practice in higher education over the past thirty years or so, has been the move shift to viewing learning as a process of construction; as being about creating knowledge rather than simply absorbing it.

If the trading conception of research were used as a model for university teaching and learning, emphasis would be placed on the social aspects of academic work because this conception draws attention to the role of academic communities of practice. The building up of networks of students, perhaps engaged in a variety of forms of collaboration, would be consistent with this. This would occur within faculties and departments but might also develop outside the particular university in which a student is enrolled.

In the trading conception there is an emphasis on the outcomes or products and the exchange of these in a kind of academic market place. An emphasis on this conception of research would value summative assessment and the production of published or publishable work. Recognition and reward coming from student peers would also be indicated. This may indicate a role for student conferences and networks (perhaps taking a global and/or electronic form) as well as student publications, journals and opportunities to engage in debates with people in a variety of locations. Another aspect of the social dimension of research is highlighted in the integration conception of scholarship which includes the idea of teaching as an aspect of dissemination. If new knowledge is to be disseminated, students may become teachers for parts of their university life, perhaps teaching more junior colleagues and disseminating their work in a variety of ways. At the very least dissemination has to be seen as part of the curriculum process for both teachers and students.

The journey conception presents perhaps the greatest challenge to higher education curricula. In some university systems, e.g. the UK and USA, where students are generally resident away from home, university has traditionally been viewed as a process of personal as well as academic development. More recently, moves to include within undergraduate curricula the development of personal and academic skills and attributes, have recognised the need to do more than leave this process to the ad hoc living arrangements of students. However, the journey conception suggests going further to an emphasis on the integration of the personal and professional. This would mean placing greater emphasis on the personal relevance of the subject of study to the student; the primary goal being the development of self-knowledge or an exploration their existential life issues. For the journey conception suggests that through the process of inquiry students' individual growth and personal development would become an integral part of their university study.

Some moves in this direction are already being made. For example, the move to resource-based, more varied and more flexible teaching and learning, including greater choice for students, flexibility of course offering, flexibility of place and time to suit their needs and interests and so on. Limited choice is afforded through modular programs. Greater choice is afforded through individually designed learning contracts. An increased use of reflective portfolios and the development of personal and professional skills also indicates a move in this direction.

However, what is suggested by the idea of the journey conception of research, is far more radical. In the context of critical questioning of the distinction between objective and subjective, the journey conception suggests a way to reconceptualise academic work and relationships between teachers and students. Focusing on the personal as an integral part of the academic requires that the context of teaching and learning be characterised by relationships of trust. It points to an emphasis on the processes of learning; in contrast to an emphasis on the products of that learning. This means assessment might be focused on formative pieces of work, examinations being rare. It may mean a re-evaluation of the role of grades and marks which legitimate the exercise of power by academics vis à vis their students. It may also mean breaking down the distinction between teaching and learning as both teachers and students come to explicitly explore the issues which confront them and discuss these in a non-threatening, trusting environment. This is the vision of higher education in the future to which Barnett (1997b) alluded.

Some further directions for the undergraduate curriculum are indicated in the quality conception of scholarship. This emphasises the role of a professional approach to whatever teaching and learning activities are engaged in. The quality conception of scholarship draws attention to the idea of professionalism embodied in an emphasis on giving attention to detail including logic, use of evidence, making sure work is properly referenced, etc. For in the quality conception of scholarship, spelling and grammar are similarly viewed as aspects of professionalism. Respect for others views would be taught as an explicit part of the undergraduate curriculum; not, as is often currently the case, simply when there is an allegation of, or in order to avoid, plagiarism. This conception sees rigour as an aspect of professionalism; not as a rule-bound pursuit of objectivity. This echoes curriculum developments arising out of demands of professional education that when students graduate they are ready to practise in their particular profession. This goes alongside recognition an increased awareness of the need to develop and assess a broad range of abilities and attributes including personal and 'transferable' skills, of the importance of lifelong learning, assessment of experiential learning and learning skills as well as calls for assessment to be 'authentic' (Wiggins 1989) i.e. that it realistically matches the tasks the students are to undertake in their professional lives.

Finally, the personal and professional studies in which the student of the future will thus be engaged, will take place in a context of uncertainty and the blurring of boundaries. Tolerance of ambiguity is a function of the super-complex, uncertain world discussed above. The research conception of scholarship including the confusion between the conceptions of research and scholarship, reminds us that it is a world in which there are no right answers. Different conceptions live side by side. Accepting that is the case and acting within such a context of confusion and ambivalence is an important task facing the higher education of the future.

The suggestions for teaching and learning in higher education made here are based on different aspects of conceptions of research and scholarship. Yet these categories are not a self-consistent set. For example, in the domino conception of research, everything is viewed as separate and this extends to the self of the researcher which is also viewed as separate. Not so in the journey conception where the researcher is personally implicated in their research. If the conceptions are to provide models for university teaching and learning, then decisions have to be taken regarding what are the most important elements. There are some tensions and these have to be acknowledged.

While it is not possible from the data to draw conclusions concerning the relationship of different conceptions of scholarship to disciplinary differences or differences in fields of study, there is evidence to indicate that different conceptions of research are, somewhat surprisingly, not tied to such differences. Indeed, although it was initially anticipated that the conceptions identified would mirror disciplinary differences, one of the major outcomes of the phenomenographic study was that this hypothesis was not supported. For example, in scientific and technical disciplines, all four conceptions of research were present as they also were in the humanities. This is consistent with Becher's (1989) analysis of the culture of academic departments. He demonstrates that individuals' conceptions of research are a function of a complex set of factors of which disciplinary allegiance is only one. A further finding of my investigation was that researchers carrying out similar kinds of research, e.g. laboratory based research, collaborative team based research, individualised investigations, etc., did not necessarily share the same conceptions.

Thus while some of the implications discussed in this paper will clearly be judged to be more applicable than others in different contexts, we should not allow stereotypical notions of the nature of research in different academic domains to restrict what implications are deemed appropriate. Differentiating the conceptions of research and scholarship as I have done in my research provides a language to talk about and clarify ideas and implications in particular contexts. The challenge is to be open to exploring different conceptions of research and scholarship and to examining a full spectrum of implications. For focusing uniquely on one way in which research or scholarship are understood, may limit the possibilities for bringing research and teaching together. Examining the conceptions of research held by academics in a particular context and exploring the range of alternative conceptions opens up possibilities of bringing research and teaching together in new ways.

The changing context and climate of universities and their changed relationship to society, together with concern about the status of teaching vis à vis research provides a rationale for bringing teaching and research closer together. This paper has suggested that a source of ideas for how this can be done is from examining how research and scholarship are understood by experienced academics and then by applying the findings of this analysis to a consideration of the undergraduate curriculum. Implications for future higher education teaching and learning have been spelled out. These have stressed the importance of preparing students to solve unforeseen problems; teaching students strategies for looking at data and information in ways which result in changing conceptions of the phenomena under consideration; encouraging collaborative networks to include opportunities for students to learn through publication and peer review. It has also indicated, as future directions, the integration of issues of personal relevance to students within their academic study and the development of their professionalism.

Dr. Angela Brew

Centre for Teaching and Learning

Carslaw F07

The University of Sydney

NSW 2006

Australia

Phone: +612 9351 4820

Fax: +612 93514331

Email: A.Brew@ctl.usyd.edu.au