One of my “iss-ewes” teaching in a division, outside of faculty, and my research area, and in a university preparatory program is the question of research workload. Officially, the word has been 20% of an academic’s workload at my institution was to be devoted to research. (I shall pause for some of you to fall about on the floor with hysterical laughter).

When I became employed permanently, I rather naively thought that this 20% would be a reality, time in which I could pursue my research into television. Sad for me, at that time my division had decided that its academics would only be supported (time wise and financially) if they were researching “teaching and learning”. Although, clearly I was involved in the practice of teaching and learning, I had little interest in researching it. Also, I didn’t see why there was no recognition of the contribution I could make to the division’s research profile with my own work. This was not to mention, that as one of the minority of academics in the area with a research higher degree, I couldn’t quite make sense of the division’s refusal to recognise that it might be helpful for preparatory students (who we were teaching write and research academically) could see someone modelling that behaviour. Let me say, that I was not the only one in this “boat” as it were. There were few of us who had come into teaching the preparatory program who had PhDs in other disciplines. As we began to express our frustration both at the mythical 20% research workload, and at the ridiculousness of constricting research support to some areas and not others, things have slowly begun to shift and become more flexible. This is good. The 20% still doesn’t exist, and “downtime” in our non-teaching term is also a mirage, however, we have been allowed to return to our disciplines, albeit with the condition that we do “some kind” of research into teaching and learning.

With this background in mind, two of my colleagues and I have begun a project looking at the role of the contemporary academic, particularly in preparatory/ enabling programs. We have all come from elsewhere, we have all taught in undergraduate courses in our own disciplines, and for various reasons have found ourselves teaching in a preparatory program. Questioning assumptions as to how our work as academics (teachers and researchers) is viewed by ourselves, our colleagues, and others further afield is the overall aim of the project. At the moment, the “project” consists of a paper in process. I have spent the morning reading and writing about the practice critical reflection in adult education. Contrary to my assumption about research in teaching and learning, it is surprisingly interesting, and much of it, particularly writing by Stephen Brookfield, resonates with many of our sometimes skeptical views. The main issue we are trying to pull apart ( I shall refrain from using the “d” word) is the theme of transformation. In our program, transformation, through developing self-awareness and reflective journalling, is a key element, one that it is assumed all students will successfully engage in. Forward ho, to a changed life through education! It is explicitly scaffolded into the curriculum. However, what of those students who resist the notion of “transformation?” – touchy, feely as it can sometimes be. And what of the teachers who are teaching this curriculum who are slightly uncomfortable with telling students “thou shalt transform and this is how thou shalt do it?”. That is what we are really interested in. For it’s my view that education certainly has a transformational potential, but surely we can’t insist or guarantee that it will happen. And then, what of those of us teaching it with slight reservations? Does this tension also transform us or our teaching of the curriculum in any way? – good or bad? How do we balance this in our teaching practice?

As you can see at the moment we have a lot of questions and not many answers. It’s only the beginning. If you have any thoughts they would be most appreciated.