Research in the field of education is most beneficial if it is practitioner-oriented. Currently, there is a gap between research and practice, which results in much research not being utilized in an impactful way. Traditional scholars recommend researchers focus more on problems of relevance to policymakers and practitioners, while also communicating the results from such research in more accessible ways. Another approach to closing the gap may be in the practitioner-as-researcher model, in which researchers study problems of practice in their local setting in collaboration with other practitioners (Bensimon, Polkinghorne, Bauman, & Vallejo, 2004).
In the more traditional approach, researchers study a problem and then practitioners read and try to use the results. This distances researchers from those in the field and can limit the experience of practitioners and those most impacted by the problem being studied. This approach can be exclusionary as opposed to inclusive as stakeholder voices are left out of the research. Thus, Bensimon et al (2004) claim the problem lies in the method of generating knowledge through traditional research as opposed to the dissemination of results or problems studied. In contrast, the practitioner-as-researcher model (akin to participatory action research) strives to put those impact by the problem at the center of the research to empower them through collaborative knowledge development. Following this approach to research, individuals study problems in their own organizations to bring about organizational change.
My current research aligns with the practitioner-as-research model with the primary goal of creating a systematic process for practitioners in my organization to bring about change to improve how we achieve our mission. While students are the most important stakeholders, they typically do not have the insider knowledge of how our college operates that would enable them to drive the research needed to improve support services and curriculum. They do, however, provide a lot of feedback. That feedback is used to drive innovations within the college through our PROPEL model of organizational learning (and the focus of my current research).
In addition to students, stakeholder groups actively engaged in my research include faculty and staff. These parties, students, faculty, and staff, are engaged in numerous ways. All stakeholders are regularly surveyed to identify areas for improvement across the college. Faculty and staff also participate in focus groups. Based on these data, PROPEL teams, consisting of faculty and staff, focus on studying one area for improvement and proposing a solution. This enables the college to take action on numerous areas for improvement simultaneously (beyond ongoing improvement efforts embedded in typical jobs within a college), and the changes are developed by those who have regular interactions with students. This brings the practitioners into the research process as they design an innovation to address the problem, outline a plan for evaluating their innovation to determine if it is effective, and support implementation of the innovation once approved by college leadership.
As I reflect on the practitioner-as-research approach (Bensimon et al, 2004) and my research plans thus far, I recognize that students could have a more participatory role. Although our students are typically working adults with little time for engaging outside of coursework, a small sample of students could be included to provide input as PROPEL teams develop innovations. Moving forward, I will consider ways in which I could include a diverse group of students such as by creating an advisory council or identifying student representatives who would be willing to commit even a little time to reviewing innovation ideas before they are fully developed by PROPEL teams. This approach would empower students, faculty, and staff to improve areas they believe could be better.
My hope is that the PROPEL model has become systematic and facilitates employee learning, research, and innovation development. Implemented earlier this year, the process seems engrained in our culture, but a lack of employee participation or change in leadership support could disrupt its sustainability. One way to improve the longevity of this model is to moderate the number of participants each year so the available employees don’t all contribute in the first year. I could limit the model to three teams instead of four or five per year. An added benefit of this moderation is a measured approach to nonessential innovations. It is more realistic to dedicate resources for three innovations per year rather than five. Additionally, I could seek for inclusion of the PROPEL model in institutional documents such as the strategic plan or college policies. You can stay up-to-date on progress of PROPEL by staying tuned to this blog, especially the ongoing series focused entirely on PROPEL.
Reference
Bensimon, E., Polkinghorne, D., Bauman, G. & Vallejo, E. (2004). Doing research that makes a difference. Journal of Higher Education, 75(1), 104-126.
