In this paper, we report on data from our survey of the university Initial Teacher Education (ITE) sector in England, concerning responses to questions about perceptions of workload and research. Our survey collects responses annually (since 2021) from approximately 12% of the cohort, and includes questions on a variety of topics, with Likert scale and text responses. Here, we report on three interconnected areas with potential impacts on the future of teacher education in England, and with pertinent findings for other nations, including research expectations and opportunities, workload, and the extent to which university leaders understand ITE. 

This paper focuses on the work of initial teacher educators. Initial Teacher Education (also sometimes known as pre-service teacher education) and those who work within this sector have been identified as being under-researched (Ellis et al., 2013). Research on teacher educators is limited, likely because most studies in Initial Teacher Education are conducted by ITE academics themselves, who predominantly focus on their students and educational settings rather than examining their own professional experiences. Where research does develop, it tends to take the form of ‘insider research’.

We consider three tensions in the ITE sector:

Workload: there are data to suggest that workloads for individual academics working in this sector are high and, importantly, intense in nature (Clapham et al., 2023; Murray & Kosnik, 2011). The current ITE system in England, like those in other countries, such as Australia and the USA, has high demands in terms of teacher educator workloads and accountability (Cochran-Smith, 2021).

Research: Research insights into Initial Teacher Education and the systems and people that support this vital stage in the profession are of particular importance during a decade long recruitment and retention crisis in teaching (McLean et al., 2024). Morris et al. (2023) report distinct challenges for researchers working in ITE, citing particular circumstances affecting their roles and ‘opportunities for engaging with and conducting research’ (Morris et al., 2023, p. 57).

Expectations: Ellis et al. (2013) found that teacher educators were driven to focus their time on the quality assurance of school partnerships and pastoral support of students and that workload management was generally unsuitable for taking into account the unique requirements of teacher education. Oancea et al. (2021) also found that universities may be reluctant to invest in teacher education research, perhaps through a lack of understanding of the importance and relevance of such research and possibly through a lack of funding available for this work.

To address the gap in our understanding of ITE academic work, we decided it was essential to explore the experiences of those involved in ITE in England through a longitudinal study, taking a pragmatic research approach, that began with an initial survey in the 2021/22 academic year (Wood & Quickfall, 2024) with subsequent surveys each year since. The theoretical framework for this research was based on Spencer's work (2013) on omission, trivialisation and condemnation of teacher educators and their work. From this basis, we developed our own conceptual framework of the current situation in English ITE as a perfect storm, with challenges around time and capacity to undertake research, high workloads and low expectations from some university leaders, making their own research ambitions very difficult to achieve. Issues of omission, trivialisation, and condemnation in the sector and more widely in the government add a further set of challenges to this group in terms of being heard, valued, and included.

We sought to explore the experiences of teacher educators through a longitudinal study, taking a pragmatic research approach, this began with an initial survey in the 2021/22 academic year (Wood & Quickfall, 2024) with subsequent surveys each year since. The surveys collect Likert scale response data and open text questions, so as to allow respondents to share their reflections and experiences. The data presented here includes Likert scale data from the first four years of this five-year longitudinal study, and detailed text-based responses from 2024 and 2025. This pattern of analysis is because, for the 2023/24 survey and onwards, we added a question about research and knowledge exchange activity specifically, following requests from participants. We created a comprehensive questionnaire to gather the perspectives and reflections of teacher educators working in higher education institutions (see Supplementary Materials for the full schedule). The survey focused on the following key themes: ○The ITE environment (workload, leadership roles, relationships). ○Workload challenges. ○Accreditation and Ofsted. ○The future of work in ITE. We designed the questionnaire using our own insider knowledge of the sector in England, drawing upon themes raised through sector networks such as the Universities' Council for the Education of Teachers (UCET). Taking a pragmatic approach, we have adapted the survey over time to reflect requests and feedback from participants. In 2023/24, we added the following question to the workload theme: ‘I have enough time to undertake research, knowledge exchange, and/or scholarship in 2023/24’. Each theme included both Likert scale and open-ended questions, allowing for quantitative data to reflect the whole cohort view, and more detailed subjective insights. The questionnaire included 19 Likert scale questions and eight open text questions. Participants were not required to respond to the open-ended questions, resulting in between 70 and 90 responses to these sections per year, on average, across four years of the survey. The questionnaire was distributed online via a link or QR code, with promotion through social media platforms (X, formerly Twitter) and professional networks, including UCET. The survey is open for four months each year (May to September), with regular reminders posted on social media and in the UCET newsletter, which is circulated among university-based ITE providers.

Our data show that academics working in ITE face high workloads, and importantly, very little time for research, and in some cases, low expectations from their institutions in terms of their research output. There are grave implications for a sector that has no time, energy, or opportunity to carry out research on their own practice and experience. Our recommendations to the sector and more widely are seemingly obvious but could be effective in dissipating the perfect storm the sector finds itself in. Unfortunately, it is unlikely that teacher education in England will see a period without reforms and policy changes, but there are actions available within the university sector. University leadership teams and the Department for Education should address the omission, trivialisation, and condemnation of ITE that Spencer (2013) first identified over 10 years ago, which contributes to the perfect storm as a lack of understanding of the sector. Academics working in ITE should be actively sought out to contribute to changes and developments in their sector at the university and national level, particularly if they are research active in the sector. As a sector, any activities that support colleagues to undertake further study and research should be promoted to dispel the narrative of teacher educators being teachers rather than researchers. As a sector, teacher education will need research champions who can promote the work of researchers in this field to the wider education discipline and policy makers, again to avoid the omission and trivialisation of ITE expertise. Organisations like UCET are promoting research in ITE, and it would be good to see this supported in individual institutions so that academics can engage with opportunities. Even small actions such as making time for academics to discuss research together would make a positive contribution to growing the research culture.

Clapham, A., Richards, R., Lonsdale, K., & La Velle, L. (2023). Scarcely visible? Analysing initial teacher education research and the research excellence framework. London Review of Education, 21(1), 1–12. Cochran-Smith, M. (2021). Rethinking teacher education: The trouble with accountability. Oxford Review of Education, 47(1), 8–24. Ellis, V., Glackin, M., Heighes, D., Norman, M., Nicol, S., Norris, K., Spencer, I., & McNicholl, J. (2013). A difficult realisation: The proletarianisation of higher education-based teacher educators. Journal of Education for Teaching, 39(3), 266–280. Morris, R., Perry, T., Smith, E., & Pilgrim-Brown, J. (2023). Education: The state of the discipline. A survey of education researchers’ work, experiences and identities. British Educational Research Association. Available online: https://www.bera.ac.uk/publication/education-the-state-of-the-discipline-survey-of-education-researchers Murray, J., & Kosnik, C. (2011). Academic work and identities in teacher education. Journal of Education for Teaching, 37(3), 243–246. Oancea, A., Fancourt, N., Robson, J., Thompson, I., Childs, A., & Nuseibeh, N. (2021). Research capacity-building in teacher education. Oxford Review of Education, 47(1), 98–119. Spencer, I. (2013). Doing the ‘Second Shift’: Gendered labour and the symbolic annihilation of teacher educators’ work. Journal of Education for Teaching, 39(3), 301–313. Wood, P., & Quickfall, A. (2024). Was 2021–2022 an Annus Horribilis for teacher educators? Reflections on a survey of teacher educators. British Educational Research Journal, 1–26.