Research and teaching two sides of same coin

Gareth Jones contributes to the debate over the roles of teaching and research at the University of Otago, arguing that they are far from mutually exclusive - as is often suggested.

Considerable consternation has been expressed in recent articles and letters to the ODT over the relationship between teaching and research within the University of Otago.

The two are being viewed as opposites; research is equated with theory and what academics do, and teaching with the real world of practice.

This is unfortunate since it compartmentalises staff into one category or the other.

Inevitably, of course, some staff are stronger in the one area than in the other, and yet in my view both are essential for the healthy functioning of a high-performing institution.

What is required is an appreciation by all staff of the nature of the institution within which they find themselves, and of the way in which all have to contribute to the good of the whole.

I have no wish to comment specifically on any of the specific situations that have given rise to this debate.

I am not directly involved in any current negotiations and I have no inside knowledge of the details of any current decision-making.

The University of Otago describes itself as a research-led institution with an international reputation for excellence.

In making this claim it aspires to be in the company of the great universities of the world, whether Oxford or Cambridge, Harvard or Princeton, Melbourne or Sydney.

All are known for the quality of their research, but they are also known for the quality of the students they produce, whether theoretical physicists, lawyers, medical practitioners, neuroscientists, surveyors, philosophers, or accountants.

In others words, they are all actively involved in teaching that spans fundamental disciplines with their blue skies research, to areas that have as their dominant focus the preparation of students for practice within a profession.

Inevitably, there are major differences between these areas, and yet all share one common feature and this is their dependence upon an evidence-based foundation.

They have to exemplify the best thinking and practice current today.

Not only this, staff have an obligation to train their students to critically assess and analyse the predominant trends and methods they will be using when qualified.

This applies equally to those students who will become academics and those who will be nurses or physiotherapists.

Universities, in common with all other institutions, live within a rapidly changing environment, one that places immense pressures on them.

For universities these pressures stem from technological advances, government policy, the vagaries of funding, student attitudes and expectations, and the needs of the communities and professions they serve.

In similar fashion their staff also have to be adaptable, and have to be in tune with the complex environments within which they are expected to function.

If universities and their staff are to be characterised by features such as these, university graduates have to be lifelong learners.

While this phrase is frequently used in nonchalant fashion, it enshrines an important truth.

This is that graduates are to be given the tools that will enable them to build on the knowledge they acquire during their student days.

They must know how to keep on learning, where to acquire new information and ideas, and what to make of these new developments.

The world into which I graduated in the 1960s bears little resemblance to the world of 2010 in any of the domains in which I have functioned - medicine, neuroscience, bioethics and even universities themselves.

It is only possible to make sense of these new domains if students acquire an ability to stand back and assess what is good about them but equally what needs to be changed.

This is especially important in the professions where practitioners have to be at the cutting-edge of their discipline, whether the classroom, the clinic, the office, or the hospital laboratory.

This adaptability should initially be nurtured during their student days by introducing them to the world of research and new thinking.

It is unfortunate that research and teaching are all-too-often seen as opposites, the one militating against the other.

However, this competitive model is unhelpful.

It is striking that the universities with the highest reputations in research tend to be very highly regarded for the quality of their teaching.

The two go hand-in-hand far more frequently that most people realise.

This is because the two complement each other, with the one feeding off the other.

Good researchers make good teachers - not always, but often.

The excitement of research spills over into teaching, and it is this excitement that students pick up on and that on occasion proves revolutionary in their lives.

In auditing other universities I have been struck by the way in which those who do not regard themselves as researchers are more than capable of undertaking applied research.

This is closely aligned to their teaching (especially advanced level teaching) and makes use of data emerging from their own ordinary practice as well as that of others.

Does this mean that every teacher has to be an active researcher?

Personally I would like that to be the case, since I'm an inveterate researcher.

But I acknowledge that it is not always the case, and it doesn't always have to be the case.

What is essential is that a research-led university is characterised by research in everything it does - from teaching first-year students through to the way it conducts its administrative tasks.

Backing this up is teaching that is always at the cutting edge of professional practice as much as of new knowledge and new concepts.

The foundation is provided by a strong research-teaching synergy, the aim of which is to enhance teaching quality and student experience.

Excellence in teaching should be as strong a driver as excellence in research; they are different faces of the same coin.

Prof Gareth Jones is director of the Bioethics Centre at the University of Otago, where he was deputy vice-chancellor (academic and international) over the years 2005-09.

He writes in a personal capacity.