What constitutes high quality higher education pedagogical research
MetadataShow full item record
AbstractOver the last 20 years there has been significant growth in the volume of higher education pedagogical research across disciplines and national contexts, but inherent tensions in defining quality remain. In this paper we present a framework to support understanding of what constitutes internationally excellent research, drawing on a range of conceptual frameworks, international and national performance-based research funding systems, discipline/professional body frameworks, and research council guidance. While acknowledging the contested nature of excellence in higher education pedagogical research, we provide criteria to guide discussion and to support individual and organisational learning. A key premise is that if learning and teaching in higher education are to be enhanced, considerable investment is required in supporting the development of integrated academics where emphasis is on both research and practice to inform pedagogy. Research and evaluation are essential aspects of teaching and need to be embedded within it. The framework is designed to enable colleagues to develop the necessary tools and approaches to support understanding of educational research and adapt these within their disciplinary context.
CitationEvans, C., Kandiko-Howson, C., Forsythe, A. and Edwards, C. (2021) What constitutes high quality higher education pedagogical research? Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 46 (4), pp. 525–546. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2020.1790500
PublisherTaylor & Francis
JournalAssessment and Evaluation in Higher Education
Description© 2021 The Authors. Published by Taylor and Francis. This is an open access article available under a Creative Commons licence. The published version can be accessed at the following link on the publisher’s website: https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2020.1790500
Except where otherwise noted, this item's license is described as https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
Showing items related by title, author, creator and subject.
Book of Abstracts: 2nd Faculty of Science and Engineering (FSE) Research Conference. Theme: Festival of Research (FoR) and Research during the COVID-19 PandemicSuresh, Subashini; Aggoun, Amar; Burnham, Keith (University of Wolverhampton, 2021-03-26)
Is big team research fair in national research assessments? The case of the UK Research Excellence Framework 2021Thelwall, Mike; Kousha, Kayvan; Makita, Meiko; Abdoli, Mahshid; Stuart, Emma; Wilson, Paul; Levitt, Jonathan (Sciendo/National Science Library of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, 2023-02-28)Collaborative research causes problems for research assessments because of the difficulty in fairly crediting its authors. Whilst splitting the rewards for an article amongst its authors has the greatest surface-level fairness, many important evaluations assign full credit to each author, irrespective of team size. The underlying rationales for this are labour reduction and the need to incentivise collaborative work because it is necessary to solve many important societal problems. This article assesses whether full counting changes results compared to fractional counting in the case of the UK’s Research Excellence Framework (REF) 2021. For this assessment, fractional counting reduces the number of journal articles to as little as 10% of the full counting value, depending on the Unit of Assessment (UoA). Despite this large difference, allocating an overall grade point average (GPA) based on full counting or fractional counting give results with a median Pearson correlation within UoAs of 0.98. The largest changes are for Archaeology (r=0.84) and Physics (r=0.88). There is a weak tendency for higher scoring institutions to lose from fractional counting, with the loss being statistically significant in 5 of the 34 UoAs. Thus, whilst the apparent over-weighting of contributions to collaboratively authored outputs does not seem too problematic from a fairness perspective overall, it may be worth examining in the few UoAs in which it makes the most difference.
What is the optimal number of researchers for social science research?Levitt, Jonathan M. (Springer, 2014-10-19)Many studies have found that co-authored research is more highly cited than single author research. This finding is policy relevant as it indicates that encouraging co-authored research will tend to maximise citation impact. Nevertheless, whilst the citation impact of research increase as the number of authors increases in the sciences, the extent to which this occurs in the social sciences is unknown. In response, this study investigates the average citation level of articles with one to four authors published in 1995, 1998, 2001, 2004 and 2007 in 19 social science disciplines. The results suggest that whilst having at least two authors gives a substantial citation impact advantage in all social science disciplines, additional authors are beneficial in some disciplines but not in others.