Introduction/Context

Higher education research and innovation play a crucial role across Europe in supporting social cohesion, economic growth and global competitiveness. Irish Institutes of Technology (IOT) are transitioning to Technology Universities (TU) through a series of forced mergers aimed at the consolidation and realignment of the sector. Creating a TU climate of research active faculty and an embedded culture of research is crucial to the stabilisation of each TU, to ensure continued success in attracting institutional and research funding, for the professional development of faculty and the creation of innovative teaching-learning environments. Therefore, there is a need to shed light on the experiences of faculty as they meet the organisation demands of active engagement in research and research related activities in their new Technology Universities.  This transition is similar to that experienced by other European institutions and colleges who have been challenged to engage in increased research activity, the identification of research structures, and the development of the skills and competencies required of researchers (EUROPEAN COMMISSION, 2011, Pinheiro, Geschwind and Aarrevaara, 2016; Vartiainen, 2017; Zeeman and Benneworth, 2017; EUA, 2019; Aasen, 2020).

This research aims to explore the nature of personal engagement/disengagement by faculty in research work in Technology Universities in Ireland.

The objectives of which are to:

• Explore the influence of personal experiences and work contexts on engagement and disengagement in research activity.
• Identify elements and components that underpin scholarly partnerships and research collaborations.
• Map the incentive, content and interactions dimensions of collaboration opportunities for research partnerships.
• Develop a conceptual model of an evolving identity from a traditional professional teaching role to one balanced across teaching, research and innovation.

Theoretical Frameworks (Literature)

There are two overarching conceptual theoretical frameworks from which this research project is derived.

i) Personal engagement, identity self-states and perspective transformation.

Psychological conditions of personal engagement at work represents an internal state of being, comprised of three psychological domains (meaningfulness, safety, availability) that determine whether individuals bring their preferred selves to their role as a professional working within a discipline and that of their role as a researcher/lecturer within the organisation (Kahn, 1990, 1991; Shuck, 2011;  May, 2004; Tuckey et al, 2012; Lave & Wenger, 1991;  May, Gilson and Harter, 2004; Saks, 2006). Role engagement may prompt a changed perspective as individuals identify and challenge underlying assumptions, prompting changed perspectives leading to new roles and actions (Mezirow, 1991). These processes may also lead to a change in habits of mind (Cranton, 2006) leading to new worldviews, new perspectives and an evolving identity. The importance of and interrelation of notions of identify, concept, emotion and agency has been established (Beauchamp & Thomas, 2009; Behijard et al 2004; Rodgers & Scott, 2008; Hamman, Gosselin, Romano and Bunuan, 2010;). Identity self-states draws on ‘motivational self-systems’ that incorporate ‘possible’ and ‘ideal’ selves’ theory (Markus and Nurius, 1986) and self-discrepancy theory. Exploring these processes will inform how scholarly partnerships impact on an evolving professional identity and agency (Cranton, 2006; Boylan, Coldwell, Maxwell & Jordan, 2018; Graham Cagney, 2020). 

ii) Learning partnerships, interdisciplinary and cross-functional collaboration and social        network relationships.

Learning partnerships (Magolda Baxter and King, 2004), trans-disciplinary and cross-functional collaboration (Stokols, 2006; Pohl and Hirsch Hadorn, 2007) and social network relationships (Santonen and Ritala, 2014) relate to objectives 2 and 3. The study draws on the impact of scholarly professional awards focused on research and individual’s advocacy to exchange in research (Pope et al., 2017; Cordie, Cagney and Adelino, 2020). 

This exploratory mixed methods study uses a sequential explanatory design (Creswell and Clark, 2011) and is divided into two phases. Phase one [quantitative], data mining will be conducted from Government publications, academic publications, organisational reports, faculty individual professional profiles and websites. This data will be used to map and identify the multidisciplinary and diverse population of researchers and their research activities within each Technological University (TU). Social network analysis and visualisation of networks will establish the relationships and connections of identified researchers to fully explore the researcher’s network and collaborations and identify additional potential faculty for the population of interest. The information will lead to a potential population of interest database. Phase two [qualitative] will comprise of pilot interviews with selected faculty followed by semi-structured interviews from the wider TU faculty base. Purposeful sampling (from the developed database) will be used to select participants for interview; this may be supplemented with snowball sampling if the original sample size does not reach its target. Thirty interviews will be completed and will be representative of the Technology University designate clusters. Participants will be contacted (following ethical approval) with an invitation by email to participate. They will then self-select and either agree/not agree to be interviewed. These interviews will take place via Zoom/Skype, depending on participant preference. Participants will be interviewed for approximately 1 hour using a semi-structured interview guide. Assuming informed consent of the participants (following ethics protocols) the interviews will be digitally recorded. To triangulate the interviews, documents that would lend insight into the focus of this study will be solicited, but only as the participant feels comfortable. After the interview is completed, and the data transcribed by the researcher, the participant will be contacted for member checking via email. They will be invited to review their transcript and engage in a follow-up interview if clarification or deeper inquiry is required/beneficial. A follow-up interview will take place only as needed and if agreed by the participant. The anticipated duration of participation for an individual subject will be one interview session of an hour. Consistent with qualitative methodology the data will be analysed by the researchers with respect to the research questions using a constant comparative method to construct categories or themes that capture recurring patterns. Final analysis and synthesis of the data will lead to one if not more academic papers from the study and proposed next steps.

Phase 1 of the study (completed) mapped TU faculty research activity to identify a viable cohort for purposive sampling from the population of interest. An initial exploration of Phase 2 will be presented at the EERA-ECR Conference. It examines how and why research, researching and researchers are of importance. The scope and direction for research and research related activities and the influence institutions have on i) the research carried out and ii) the researchers who conduct it. It further examines the professional learning and development of faculty researchers themselves as they navigate and balance their roles within higher education. It will provide an understanding of faculty researchers as they engage, contribute, develop and hone their skills as successful researchers and its impact on teaching activities. Results from the entire study when both phases are completed will establish a pattern of activity that illustrates formal and informal faculty research activity. Knowledge will be shared to enhance current understandings of the patterns of personal engagement in research, and how scholarly partnerships and collaborations are formed and maintained. The qualitative data in particular will shed light on how these scholarly partnerships and research collaborations (SPaRC) influence faculty research and teaching agendas and contribute to an evolving faculty identity balanced across teaching, research and innovation. Results will also contribute to practice by identifying the enablers and barriers to research related challenges and expectations faced by the organisations committed to the emergent TU framework. Finally, results from the finished study will aid emerging TUs in evaluating the impact their professional research development initiates are making to support their academic staff. The research will contribute to the research development literature, policy and inform professional learning and development for researchers. National and European research opportunities will be sought to bring this study to a wider ‘next stage’.

Aasen, P. (2020) ‘Is the Norwegian experience relevant for the changing education landscape in Ireland?’, in THEA Colloquium Innovation through Partnership, 19th November. Beauchamp, C. and Thomas, L. (2009) ‘Understanding teacher identity: An overview of issues in the literature and implications for teacher education’, Cambridge Journal of Education, 39(2), pp. 175–189. doi: 10.1080/03057640902902252. Cranton, P. (2006) ‘Understanding and Promoting Transformative Learning: A Guide for Educators of Adults’, Canadian Journal of University Continuing Education, 35(2). doi: 10.21225/d5z59x. EUA (2019) EUA BRIEFING University Mergers in Europe. Belgium. Available at: http://www.university-mergers.eu/. Illeris, K. (2014) ‘Transformative Learning and Identity’, Journal of Transformative Education, 12, pp. 148–163. doi: 10.1177/1541344614548423. Kahn, W. A. (1990) ‘Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work’, Academy of Management Journal, 33(4), pp. 692–724. doi: 10.5465/256287. Magolda Baxter, M. B. and King, P. M. (2004) Learning Partnerships: Theory and Models of Practice to Educate for Self-authorship. Stylus Pub. Markus, H. and Nurius, P. (1986) ‘Possible Selves’, American Psychologist, 41(9), pp. 954–969. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.41.9.954. Mezirow, J. (1991) Transformative Dimensions of Adult Learning. San Francisco, CA, US: Jossey-Bass. Pinheiro, R., Geschwind, L. and Aarrevaara, T. (2016) ‘Mergers in higher education’, European Journal of Higher Education, 6(1), pp. 2–6. doi: 10.1080/21568235.2015.1099455. Pohl, C. and Hadorn, G. H. (2007) Principles for Designing Transdisciplinary Research. Oekom. RIEC (2019) Definition and Organisation of Research at WIT. Waterford. Available at: https://www.wit.ie/research/our_research/research-policies-procedures#practice. Saks, A. M. (2006) ‘Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement’, Journal of Managerial Psychology, 21(7), pp. 600–619. doi: 10.1108/02683940610690169. Santonen, T. and Ritala, P. (2014) ‘Social network analysis of the ISPIM innovation management community in 2009-2011’, International Journal of Innovation Management, 18(1). doi: 10.1142/S1363919614500108. Stokols, D. (2006) ‘Toward a science of transdisciplinary action research’, American Journal of Community Psychology, 38(1–2), pp. 63–77. doi: 10.1007/s10464-006-9060-5. Vartiainen, P. (2017) ‘Campus-based tensions in the structural development of a newly merged university: the case of the University of Eastern Finland’, Tertiary Education and Management. Routledge, 23(1), pp. 53–68. doi: 10.1080/13583883.2016.1205123. Vidgen, R., Henneberg, S. and Naudé, P. (2007) ‘What sort of community is the European conference on information systems? A social network analysis 1993-2005’, European Journal of Information Systems, 16(1), pp. 5–19. doi: 10.1057/palgrave.ejis.3000661. Zeeman, N. and Benneworth, P. (2017) ‘Globalisation, mergers and “inadvertent multi-campus universities”: reflections from Wales’, Tertiary Education and Management. Routledge, 23(1), pp. 41–52. doi: 10.1080/13583883.2016.1243256.