Content uploaded by Carol Bond
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Carol Bond on May 20, 2014
Content may be subject to copyright.
The research/teaching relation: A view from the ‘edge’
JANE ROBERTSON1& CAROL BOND2
1Educational Research and Advisory Unit, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New
Zealand (E-mail: jane.robertson@canterbury.ac.nz); 2Higher Education Development
Centre, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand
(E-mail: carol.bond@stonebow.otago.ac.nz)
Abstract. The relation between teaching and research is a defining feature of a modern univer-
sity and of academic identity. Many universities claim a close relation between the two as well
as a strong critical orientation. Yet the gap between claims and practice in higher education
appears to be widening as government and institutional policies increasingly treat research
and teaching as separate entities. Studies of the relation reflect these events. Such studies are
not only contradictory but point to an increasing gap between research and teaching.
What is missing in this complex and contradictory literature surrounding the research/
teaching relation is an understanding of the relation in its local and historical context – a
conceptual archaeology. Using a case study, we trace the development of teaching and research
at the University of Canterbury (Christchurch, New Zealand) over time. We explore founding
discourses, colonial imperatives, Humboldt’s legacy, the influence of philosopher Karl Popper
and more recent events such as national audit and a new tertiary education strategy. We
also look briefly at ways in which, as part of the academic heartland, the relation can be
strengthened within institutions.
Keywords: case study, community of inquiry, higher education, New Zealand, research/
teaching relation, University of Canterbury
Introduction and rationale
A strong relation between research and teaching is generally understood to
be a defining feature of a modern university and of academic identity (Clark
1997). In the late 1990s a brief review of Hattie and Marsh’s (1996) meta-
analysis of studies focusing on the relationship between research and teaching
was published in an internal newsletter at the University of Canterbury
(in Christchurch, New Zealand). The review reported a zero relationship –
teaching and research were found to be only ‘loosely coupled’. The response
from academic staff within the University was immediate, emotional, and
varied. Some staff referred to the research as “total twaddle” whilst others
indicated that they had “advocated [that position] for years” (Robertson
and Bond 2001, p. 8). The incident precipitated a programme of research
#Springer 2005 \
Higher \Education (2005) 50: 509–535
DOI 10.1007/s10734-004-6365-x
510 JANE ROBERTSON AND CAROL BOND
(Robertson 2003; Robertson and Bond 2001) including this case study. The
purpose of the case study is to uncover the ways in which the relation between
research and teaching has been understood at the University of Canterbury
over time, to explore the contextual discourses that may have formed those
understandings, and to look briefly at ways in which the relation might be
strengthened within institutions.
The research/teaching ‘nexus’
The contradictions in the academics’ responses described above are reflected
in the literature on the relation between research and teaching. There have
been numerous quantitative attempts to account for the relation by correlating
teaching effectiveness as measured by student evaluations of teaching and
research productivity as measured by publication counts (see Feldman 1987;
Hattie and Marsh 1996). These studies suggest little or no relationship. Others
(e.g., Fox 1992) position research and teaching as competitors for time and
resource rather than as complementary aspects of scholarly endeavour. In
contrast, qualitative studies focusing on academics’ perceptions and exper-
iences have most often indicated a strong belief in the existence of, and
need for, a symbiotic relationship in which involvement in research enhances
teaching and, to a lesser extent, involvement in teaching stimulates research
(e.g., Jensen 1988; Neumann 1992, 1993; Rowland 1996; Smeby 1998).
Reflecting this complexity, our own research, which focuses on individual
academics’ experiences, shows considerable variation along a continuum
from no relation to an integrated relation (Robertson 2003; Robertson and
Bond 2001).
Research and teaching – competing ideologies?
This variation in academics’ views of the research/teaching relation, in the
research on the topic, and even in the methodologies underlying the research,
is symptomatic of the current global influences that are fragmenting and re-
shaping higher education. The reality is highlighted in comparative research
in higher education (e.g., Altbach 1998; Clark 1995; Geiger 1993; Marginson
and Considine 2000; Slaughter and Leslie 1997). Policy in higher education
has increasingly become “a subset of economic policy” thus perpetuating an
“academic capitalism” (Slaughter 1998, p. 1). The meanings of higher educa-
tion, of academic work, and of the relation between universities’ internal and
external worlds have each been redefined. The liberal university is giving
way to the ‘enterprise’ university (Marginson and Considine 2000; Peters and
Roberts 1999). Ideologically, the traditional emphasis on the production and
transmission of knowledge as a social good has been replaced by the produc-
THE RESEARCH/TEACHING RELATION 511
tion and transmission of knowledge as a market good (Buchbinder 1993)
where knowledge as product, performance and commodity is favoured over
knowledge as insight, appreciation and understanding (Codd 1997). Basic
research is unable to compete with applied research in attracting external
funding. Research and teaching are not only increasingly subject to different
and competing imperatives, they have become competing ideologies (Barnett
2003). Research is drifting from the teaching environ towards the marketplace
and teaching is losing its link with research as a result of changing priorities
and modes of work (Clark 1995; Slaughter and Leslie 1997).
A focus on inquiry
Research that argues for the university as a ‘place’ or ‘community’ of inquiry
offers a different perspective (e.g., Brew 2003; Clark 1995; Robertson 2003;
Rowland 1993, 2000). It reflects contemporary education theory and its
emphasis on the social construction of knowledge through communities of
practice (Lave and Wenger 1991). It adopts a particular interpretation of
inquiry – that together, academics and students constitute a community of
practice in which ‘teaching’ encourages learning through the practice of
research (Bowden and Marton 1998; Brew 2001, 2003; Mourad 1997). This
view is driven by the argument that the current ‘products’ of higher educa-
tion are unprepared for an age of radical uncertainty and supercomplexity
(Barnett 2000). Instead, there is a need for a higher education that allows
the integration of research, teaching, scholarship and learning in a culture of
inquiry (Brew 2003). Already there are reports of practical initiatives that are
intended to encourage a visibly closer relation at all levels (e.g. Jenkins et al.
2003).
Rationale for the case
The research outlined above illustrates the complexity of the discourses
concerned with the relation between research and teaching. Comparative
research provides an extensive empirical basis at a macro level for under-
standing the causes of separation. Much of this research derives from the
“institutional and intellectual center” (Altbach 1998, p. 20) of higher educa-
tion – large research universities and institutes in the northern hemisphere,
and in particular, the USA. It draws on macro-political economic and social
theories (e.g., Marginson and Considine 2000; Slaughter and Leslie 1997),
public policy and materials that exemplify significant historical change or
important developments (e.g., Geiger 1993; Slaughter and Leslie 1997). Its
strength lies in its use of broad ranging cross-national case studies and
analyses (e.g., Clark 1995; Slaughter and Leslie 1997) and one of its main
512 JANE ROBERTSON AND CAROL BOND
contributions is the identification of generic processes and common trends. It
tends to take less account of the local or the marginal (McCulloch and Lowe
2003). Yet such knowledge has the power to “structure the possible field of
action of others” (Foucault 1982, p. 221).
Barnett (1990) argues that the ‘idea’ of higher education is largely buried
in the past. Nevertheless, in positioning current practices, universities not only
ignore but are also largely unaware of their own rich and complex heritage
(Readings 1996). What is missing from the different areas of research
outlined above are in depth studies that provide a greater understanding of the
ways in which the meanings attributed to the relation between research and
teaching are experienced and acted upon within individual institutions and
over time. Using Barnett’s (1990) notion of a ‘conceptual archaeology’, we
map and critique the development of research and teaching and their relation
at the University of Canterbury, from its founding in 1873 until the present
day.
The case study
The data for the case study are drawn from archives housed in the Macmillan
Brown Library (University of Canterbury), un-catalogued documents stored
by the University, and other acknowledged sources. Our analysis draws
on Gadamer’s (1989) philosophical and Bakhtin’s critical hermeneutics
(Gardiner 1992). We introduce the case with a brief orientation to the Univer-
sity of Canterbury and its founding discourses. Four distinct phases, defined
by changes in institutional practices and activities with regard to research,
teaching, and their inter-relation were evident in the data. Each phase is
described and located more generally in its wider context. Of necessity, given
our focus on depth rather than breadth, we emphasise the local and national
over the global.
The University of Canterbury – an orientation
New Zealand is a small country consisting of two main islands with a popula-
tion of four million people. It is located 1200 miles from Australia, its
nearest neighbour, and 13,000 miles from the United Kingdom to which it
continues to be affiliated as part of the British Commonwealth. It has eight
universities ranging in size from Auckland University with approximately
23,000 students to Lincoln University with 4,500 students. The univer-
sities provide a range of undergraduate and graduate programmes including
the research doctorate. In 2003 the University of Canterbury is home to
approximately 12,000 students and 490 academic staff. It serves the city
THE RESEARCH/TEACHING RELATION 513
of Christchurch (population 316,000) and the wider Canterbury province,
though its Engineering schools attract students from across the country. Until
recently its student population was largely mono-cultural but the University
is now a recognised destination for international students.
Founding discourses
As with others established in British colonies worldwide, universities in New
Zealand have emerged from and are participants in the long and complex
tradition of Western higher education. They share, in various measures, the
attitudes, values and practices of British, European and American universities
(Marginson and Considine 2000). They owe much to the ideas of Cardinal
Newman, and the legacy of Humboldt and the German research university.
The founding discourses of the University of Canterbury have their roots
in England (Marginson and Considine 2000), and specifically in the formation
of the Canterbury Association in 1848. The Association was founded to set
up a Church of England settlement in Canterbury, to oversee the selection
of colonists and the purchase of land. Led by Edward Gibbon Wakefield,
it had strong links with the English ‘establishment’. Of its 53 members,
30 were graduates of Oxford University and 17 of Cambridge University
(Gardner et al. 1973). The city of Christchurch was named to commemorate
the role of the Oxford men who had contributed to Wakefield’s plan for the
settlement. Wakefield’s policies of “systematic colonisation” (Harrop 1939,
p. 186) included the setting aside of considerable sums from the proceeds
of land sales for church and educational endowment. The Oxford influence
is particularly evident in the original collegiate structure of Christ’s College
which was part of the plan. It was to be a two tiered institution. The lower
tier or secondary school was established. The upper tier or university was
delayed due to the economic stresses and workloads in the new settlement
(Harrop 1939).
Parallel events overseas should be noted. At the time that Canterbury
College was being set up in the Oxford style, the Universities of Oxford and
Cambridge were subject to reform (Clark 1995). The new civic ‘redbrick’
universities being established in England adopted the Scottish system of
specialisation based on departments and the development of ‘advanced
thinkers’. Similarly, universities in the USA were making a revolutionary
shift (Clark 1995) in allegiance from the English and Scottish systems to
the Humboldtian ‘ideal’ as many of the leaders of American universities had
previously visited and studied in Germany (Lucas 1994).
In New Zealand, the Scottish-settled province of Otago was first to estab-
lish a University in 1869 and to propose that it become the University of New
Zealand. However the notion of a single, monopolising university did not fit
514 JANE ROBERTSON AND CAROL BOND
well with the then disjointed system of provincial government. Nor was it
likely to meet the needs of a scattered, and geographically isolated society.
By way of compromise, the University of New Zealand was established as
a separate institution in 1870 in Wellington. The University was modelled
on the University of London (Harrop 1939) with its affiliated colleges. As
laid down in the New Zealand Education Act of 1874, it was to be strictly
an examining body, and its funds were to be devoted to the appointment of
examiners, the conduct of examinations, the establishment of scholarships,
and the conferring of degrees.
In 1871, the newly constituted University of New Zealand invited institu-
tions of higher education to apply for affiliation. The Canterbury Collegiate
Union sought affiliation and, in 1873 was transformed into Canterbury
College. Unlike the University of Otago, Canterbury College did not seek the
title of ‘university’; this occurred only with the demise of the University of
New Zealand in 1962. Subsequently university colleges were also established
in Auckland (1883) and Wellington (1898).
The first phase (1870–1945) – a focus on teaching
A “liberal education” or a nineteenth century performative agenda?
The aim of the newly established Canterbury College was to provide “a liberal
and regular course of Education” (Gardner et al. 1973, p. 40). Its main vehicle
was the Bachelor of Arts degree – a general qualification emphasising breadth
rather than depth (Parton 1979). Students were expected to study the arts
and sciences by taking both Latin and mathematics. Given its antecedents,
Canterbury College, of necessity, adopted Newman’s idea of the university.
Educationally, research was not of interest. Teaching, with a concern for
mastering a body of knowledge, was emphasised.
To illustrate the benefits of this liberal education with its emphasis on
the unity of knowledge, Gardner et al. point to the breadth and humanity
exhibited in the letters of Canterbury graduate and famous nuclear physicist,
Earnest Rutherford:
In them, the ‘two cultures’ flourish happily together. It is not fanciful
to suggest that his years at Canterbury College equipped him in non-
scientific ways that helped to make him a better scientist (Gardner et al.
1973, p. 169).
John Macmillan Brown, first Professor of classics and English at Canterbury
College, provides evidence of the pervasive discourse of the time:
The aim of the university lecturer ... is to stir into active life the higher
faculties, the imagination, the reasoning, the powers of comparison, and
THE RESEARCH/TEACHING RELATION 515
most of all the power that grasps a subject in its entirety, systematises
and transfers it into a living part of the mind (in Gardner et al. 1973,
p. 103).
The introduction of Newman’s idea of a university was tempered by the prac-
tical realities of the new settlement and several factors combined to make
conditions less than ideal. The 1877 New Zealand Education Act provided
for universal elementary education. Subsequently public high schools were
established in many parts of the colony, and primary and secondary education
flourished. The role of Canterbury College was performative. The Bachelor
of Arts qualification was expected to respond to the increased demand for the
education of primary and secondary teachers who could turn a hand to almost
any subject. These early years of the College were marked by a strong sense
of service to the economic and social priorities of the local community. The
colony required well educated teachers and the College responded with a BA
degree designed to meet the needs of local students. Many of these intending
and practising teachers enrolled in the College’s evening classes (Atkinson
1969; Gardner et al. 1973). John Macmillan Brown observed:
Nor must it be forgotten that at first all my students and, later, all but
a few, chiefly junior scholars, were engaged in teaching or other work
all day. My lectures had to be either early in the morning or after six or
seven in the evening, or on Saturday (in Hight and Candy 1927, p. 35).
In the new settlement, “university education in the widest and best sense of
the term was regarded as a luxury” (Harrop 1939, p. 193). This perception
was reinforced by the composition of the governing body of New Zealand
who were “to only a small extent men of university standing” and who “saw
little reason why [other members of the community] should be given greater
opportunity” (p. 193).
Governance and control
Despite recommendations of the Royal Commission of 1878, that each of
the colleges should have ample independence including “the conduct of
examinations by persons resident in the colony” (Harrop 1939, p. 192), the
University of New Zealand continued to exert control. The College’s liberal
arts programme was circumscribed by the examination syllabus set down by
the University so there was little freedom to develop curricula. Professors of
the colleges had little or no share in their governance. Examinations were
external to the constituent colleges and the country, in that, in all but a few
cases, the examiners were scholars of repute in Great Britain (Beaglehole
1937). This question of external examinations was to be a contested area for
516 JANE ROBERTSON AND CAROL BOND
five decades. It was only in 1925 that the Senate of the University of New
Zealand agreed that examinations at pass grade be conducted by professors
who taught the subject. Nevertheless, advanced and honours degrees in some
arts and sciences, engineering and Bachelor of Music continued to be subject
to external examination in the UK until the second World War and beyond.
By the early 1900s, academic working conditions and adequate funding
at the University of New Zealand became an issue nationally. The rela-
tionship between the University and its affiliated colleges was uneasy. In
1910, 13 members of the teaching staff at the Victoria College of Wellington
(now Victoria, University of Wellington) presented a petition to Parliament
requesting an inquiry into the condition of university administration and
education in New Zealand. In 1911, the New Zealand University Reform
Association published the petitioners’ arguments in a pamphlet. Reflecting
the belief in the centrality of the modern university to national culture and
identity, the authors claimed:
Probably no single institution is capable of so far reaching effects on
national life as a University. According to modern notions, the duty of
a University is not merely to provide a culture which is a luxury for the
few, but through the professions and the teachers to mark its impress on
the whole mass of the community and to infuse into every department
of national life an ever-increasing sense of the value of scientific ideals
and scientific method and training, in their application to every form of
human activity (New Zealand University Reform Association 1911, pp.
5–6).
The authors also argued that the existing degree system did not encourage
original work. There were few scholarships available, the libraries were of
poor quality and laboratory facilities were insufficient or non-existent. In all,
the authors considered it “a university atmosphere quite unsympathetic to
investigation” (New Zealand University Reform Association 1911, p. 107)
and held up as a laudable alternative the research/teaching synthesis of
Humboldt’s University of Berlin.
In 1924 the Minister of Education announced the establishment of a
second Royal Commission on University Education in New Zealand and the
following year saw the publication of its Report (Reichel 1925). Included in
the scope of the Commission was the requirement to inquire into and report
on the provision that should be made in New Zealand for university teaching
and research, the desirability of the system of affiliation to the University of
New Zealand, and the issue of external examination.
The Commissioners recognised the significance of research in the function
of the university. They considered that “teacher and student in a university
THE RESEARCH/TEACHING RELATION 517
should be engaged jointly in a voyage of discovery in search of truth” and
they observed that:
the conditions under which New Zealand was colonised and developed
ensured the selection of a population animated by a love of adventure
and of investigation ... one would therefore expect that the spirit of
inquiry and research would flourish in and would be encouraged among
such a community (Reichel 1925, p. 76).
However their findings revealed a somewhat different state of affairs. Under
the evening lecture system they claimed too many students were engaged
in earning a livelihood and interested only in gaining the final examination.
They described the system of external examination with its rigid, imposed
syllabus as iniquitous and as militating against any research ethos. Teachers
spent too much time consumed in lectures, examinations and the correction
of essays. Working conditions were poor, the academic staff low paid and
classes large, with the result that there were few opportunities to conduct
research and publish. Amongst other recommendations the report stated that
“the University should be reconstituted as a federal teaching university with
constituent colleges enjoying a large measure of autonomy in regard to
curriculum and examinations” and that candidates for professorships should
be familiar with methods of research and be able to demonstrate evidence of
research involvement (Reichel 1925, p. 88).
These recommendations were to be curtailed as the University became
subject to further Government control through its finances. Colleges were
required to submit annual financial statements to Government. Harrop (1939)
reports that the University’s growing scholarship fund, built up from reserves
in the past, was used as an argument to stem “the flow ... of Government
assistance” (p. 198). Thus monies that could have contributed to research
were redirected elsewhere. Moreover, as a result of worldwide depression,
Government grants and other sources of revenue diminished and the colleges
including Canterbury were forced to reduce expenditure and cut salaries
(Harrop 1939). Unlike the northern hemisphere, there was little or no private
funding available for research and public funding of higher education was
limited and intermittent.
The second phase (1945–1946) – conditions for a discourse of inquiry
It was not until 1945 that the concerns outlined above were taken up on
a wider scale. Brief as it is, this second phase constitutes a watershed
in the history of the development of research and teaching at Canterbury
College. We draw on three particular sources of evidence. First, a group of
518 JANE ROBERTSON AND CAROL BOND
teachers in the University of New Zealand published a provocative state-
ment titled Research and the University (Allan et al. 1945). At the same
time, the Chancellor of the University of New Zealand issued a Question-
naire on research practices (University of Canterbury 1945) to the heads
of departments of all the Colleges, inquiring about departmental and local
community research in the period 1933–1945. Topics included: the avail-
ability of funding for research; the time available to undertake research
activity; the quality of research facilities in comparison with overseas univer-
sities; other perceived barriers to engaging in research; and, ways in which
research might be increased or improved in the department. Respondents at
Canterbury College included heads of departments and other staff members
in accountancy, biology, botany, chemistry, economics, education, English,
geology, history and political science, mathematics, mechanical engineering,
modern languages, philosophy and physics. Lastly, the Canterbury University
College Students’ Association (CUCSA) published a report entitled Univer-
sity Reform (Canterbury University College Students Association 1946). The
data from these sources include repeated calls for a different mindset with
regard to research, the establishment of a University Press to aid publication,
scholarships to enable postgraduate research, a change to the examination
system to allow greater control of the syllabus, additional staffing (academic,
technical and clerical), improved accommodation, increased funding for
equipment and travel, and contact with other researchers in New Zealand and
overseas.
Karl Popper and a (missing) culture of inquiry
Research and the University (Allan et al. 1945) was essentially a manifesto
setting out the requirements of the University if it were to become a research
institution. Of its six authors, four were from Canterbury College, one from
the University of Otago and one from Auckland University College. The initi-
ative was driven by the Viennese philosopher Karl Popper who was a lecturer
at Canterbury College for nine years. Coming from the European tradition of
academic research Popper was dismayed at the absence of such a tradition
in New Zealand. Indeed, after one year he told a friend that he would have
to conceal his research activities because his colleague, Sutherland, frowned
upon them (Hacohen 2000, p. 339). In modelling and promoting the research
function of the University Popper created “an impact on the academic life of
the College ...greater than that of any other person before or since” (Gardner
et al. 1973, p. 262).
Research and the University opened with a quotation from Flexner’s
(1931) Universities American English German in which the authors claimed
that research and teaching should be “conceived as hovering on the borders of
THE RESEARCH/TEACHING RELATION 519
the unknown, conducted, even in the realm of the already ascertained, in the
spirit of doubt and enquiry” (from Flexner 1931, p. 242, italics our emphasis).
Popper and his colleagues went on to assert: “we regard research and teaching
not as separate functions of a University teacher but as complementary parts
of a single entity” (Allan et al. 1945, p. 2). The commonly held view that the
University is primarily a teaching institution should be abandoned. Rather the
University should be looked upon as an institution in which “the spirit of free
enquiry is preserved and cultivated” (p. 2).
In order to remedy the situation as it exists in New Zealand a complete
change of attitude is required. It must be recognised that a specialist
might achieve much greater educational result by teaching his speciality
than by spreading his teaching over what is traditionally considered the
balanced content of his subject. The view that it is the task of the Univer-
sity to hand to the students a definite body of examinable knowledge
must be discarded (Allan et al. 1945, p. 3).
These academics advocated a new unity of research and teaching, following
Humboldt. Likewise, the CUCSA report supported the essential complement-
arity of research and teaching, considered that far too little research was being
done in the University and recommended the development of research schools
attached to the University. Responses to the questionnaire also indicated the
need for the fostering of a different mindset, research tradition or culture in
New Zealand. There was a call for research to be “considered as an integral
part of department work, enabling better teaching, stimulation of students,
freshening of the mind, preservation of self-respect and contact with overseas
workers” (Department of Biology).
Structural barriers to inquiry
Research and the University included a direct attack on the examination
system as administered by the University of New Zealand. The examination
system was also focus of criticism in the data from the questionnaire. Concern
was expressed at:
the hampering effect of the unrealistic bounds of a set syllabus and
a uniform national examination system. This is a prime barrier to the
development of a research tradition, and indeed of real university educa-
tion. It makes for an artificial division between teaching and research.
It engenders cram school habits and attitudes instead of a living interest
in problems, a training in tackling them and a sense of responsibility
on making pronouncements about them (Department of Economics
1945).
520 JANE ROBERTSON AND CAROL BOND
In a similar vein, a senior lecturer in English complained that the current
syllabus turns the university teacher into “a re-hasher, an animated text-
book”, while an acting professor of physics asserted that “we are committed
to a tradition of spoon feeding in this country and students expect to be
coached for examinations”. The system, conducted by examiners in Britain,
was perceived to stifle teaching freedom and encourage coaching and cram-
ming at the expense of understanding and scholarship. The authors of
Research and the University concluded that “the educational task of the
University must be taken much more seriously than its role in grading
students” (Allan et al. 1945, p. 4).
Another concern was the nature of academic workload. The head of the
Department of Chemistry reported that practically no research work was
carried out by academic staff in the period 1933–1945. This theme was
repeated again and again throughout the responses to the questionnaire.
Factors constraining research activity were remarkably similar across depart-
ments, the major barrier being static staffing levels at a time of rapidly
increasing student numbers. For example, “Botany student numbers increased
from 51 in 1939 to 156 in 1945. Accommodation, equipment and staff
remained practically the same” (Department of Botany). Heavy teaching,
examining and administration loads left little time for research. “There
is little doubt that, as at present staffed, the Science Departments in the
New Zealand University Colleges, have such a heavy burden of teaching,
examining and general administration, that no excuse need be made if they
did those duties alone” (Department of Physics). A professor of mechanical
engineering reported that “my own teaching hours amount to 26 hours per
week”. The Department of Economics perceived “a strong tendency in the
past to regard the New Zealand Colleges as purely teaching institutions whose
main function was to see students through their examinations”.
The absence of funding for research projects was another concern. “Funds
have been unobtainable in the past for research projects in this Department
within the College” (Department of History and Political Science). Library
facilities at Canterbury College were described as “pathetically inadequate”
(Department of Economics). These observations were supported by Popper,
who commented that the Canterbury College library was about the size of his
father’s! (Hacohen 2000). Complaints regarding lack of space were unsur-
prising. The entire university was still housed at its original (1873) central
city site.
The present laboratories are overcrowded and there is no further space
either for private rooms for additional staff, or for more than the pre-
war number of research students. As soon as men return from the
services, wishing to do M.Sc. work, the position will be desperately
acute (Department of Chemistry).
THE RESEARCH/TEACHING RELATION 521
Isolation both from colleagues in universities overseas and within New
Zealand itself was another factor that affected research activity. A professor in
the Department of Chemistry pointed out that “the stimulus of contact with
other research workers in similar fields is most fruitful and often essential,
but owing to our isolation is usually missing”. Travelling by sea from New
Zealand was long and often uncomfortable at the best of times and opportuni-
ties would have been severely curtailed in wartime. Popper himself observed
that “you have no idea how physical distance, something rather abstract,
becomes profoundly and terribly concrete here in New Zealand. One lives
a sort of pseudolife, outside the world” (Hacohen 2000, p. 342). Even within
New Zealand it seems that inter-institutional contact was limited and that
academics experienced a similar sense of isolation from ‘kiwi’ colleagues.
Redefining research
The flurry of activity at this time led to moves to redefine research, culmin-
ating with a recommendation in the Canterbury College Council Minutes
that:
The University should affirm and pursue the principle ... that for the
developing of research, staffing must be sufficiently liberal, in all depart-
ments, to allow teachers the necessary freedom to engage in it. Research
itself must be liberally defined, so that it can be seen as the instrument
of all departments of knowledge and teaching (University of Canterbury,
Council Minutes 1945–1949).
The nature of research had already been raised in the questionnaire data:
My first difficulty is in the definition of research. Some people regard
it as exploration beyond the frontier of existing knowledge, others as
the application of existing knowledge and methods to new fields or in
new ways, still others as new approaches to or presentation of existing
knowledge (Professor of Economics)
The call for a more liberal definition of research was supported by Professor I.
A. Gordon. In his column in the New Zealand Listener (a weekly publication
commenting on current events) he defined research as:
the application of critical intelligence and independent judgement to
any problem that is capable of systematic study. ... In the humanities,
research often produces not so much new facts as a new synthesis, a new
interpretation and an original point of view (Gordon 1946, p. 12).
522 JANE ROBERTSON AND CAROL BOND
Setting the scene for the third phase
The activities of this second phase bring into sharp relief the discourses of
the past four decades and illustrate the interweaving of local and global influ-
ences. The flurry of activity at Canterbury in regard to research parallels that
in universities in the northern hemisphere. It is easily explained from a macro-
perspective. As a result of the second World War, and particularly in the USA,
research became integral to national interests and funding sources shifted
from the private to public sector particularly in defence, technology and
medicine (Geiger 1993; Lucas 1994). Scientific research attracted substantial
funding which in turn raised the existing profile of research as an academic
enterprise. Research that had been driven primarily by academic interests
became federally funded, contractual and programmatic. The privileging
of research occurred particularly at the expense of undergraduate teaching
(Geiger 1993). These shifts signal the beginnings of the discourse of research
as ‘product’, and Clark’s (1995) research ‘drift’ and teaching ‘drift’.
Such compelling external forces certainly played a part in influencing
events at Canterbury College. However, unlike universities in the northern
hemisphere, Canterbury lacked an existing research base on which to develop
the necessary infrastructure. As with other colleges in the University of New
Zealand, it had little involvement in wartime research initiatives. Unlike
North American universities, it was unable to take advantage of Geiger’s
(1993, p. 32) post-war “seller’s market for research”. The data suggest that
the increased activity was more likely influenced by the decades of unrest, the
inappropriate conditions under which teaching was expected to be conducted,
the part played by Karl Popper and his colleagues, and an increase in funding.
In the early part of the twentieth century the shift towards a German model
of scientific inquiry was reinforced in the USA and elsewhere by refugees
fleeing from Europe (Lucas 1994). Karl Popper’s sojourn in Christchurch
was part of this flow. In the event, despite the passionate plea for research and
teaching to be regarded as a coherent entity, it was instead interpreted by the
University as the addition of research to the academic agenda – research was
to be encouraged but teaching and research were treated as separate functions.
The third phase (1946–1990) – a change of culture
The years 1946–1990 mark a change of culture. During this time Canter-
bury came of age. In 1962 the University of New Zealand was disbanded
and Canterbury College became a University in its own right. Departmental
Annual Reports from 1956 until their demise in the 1970s (they were
re-instituted in 1998) provide a valuable source of data for this period. Depart-
ments were required to report on the disposition of work between members
of staff in the department, any staff changes and their effects, scholarships
THE RESEARCH/TEACHING RELATION 523
or other awards obtained by students, future plans for the department and
general comments plus a summary of research and scholarship undertaken
during the year. They were not required to report explicitly on the inter-
relation of research and teaching, something which is now required in faculty
profiling and in applications for promotion. Although some of the concerns
voiced in 1946 remained, especially in relation to lack of space, on the whole
the tenor of the reports was positive and forward-looking.
Funding, space and the growth of research activity
In November 1946 the Research Committee of the University of New
Zealand was established. Its role was to administer £10,000 of which Canter-
bury’s share was just over a quarter (Gardner et al. 1973). At much the
same time, the first discussions about the possibility of a new university
site were taking place. If Canterbury was to become a ‘research’ univer-
sity, as the lobbying of 1945/1946 proposed, then increased funding and
improved and expanded accommodation needed to go hand in hand. In the
event, the School of Engineering was the first to take up residence at the
new, vastly more extensive site in Ilam (a suburb of Christchurch) in 1961,
followed by the Faculty of Science in 1966 and the Arts Faculty in the early
1970s.
Research activity gained momentum. Departments commented on the
growing number of research students. Laboratories were established,
enabling staff and graduate students to work on joint projects. A field
station, providing accommodation and laboratory space for 24, was built at
Kaikoura (north of Christchurch). Research seminars for staff and students
were promoted. In 1967 the Department of English, following a temporary
pre-Ilam move, concluded that “the improvement in physical surroundings
has had a marked effect on the life of the department ... the immediate growth
in research activity in 1967 was ... one of the most heartening results of the
move”.
As well as these developments, the annual reports indicated a much
increased incidence of ‘refresher leave’, often at institutions overseas, and
a greatly expanded list of publications. In 1974 the Association of University
Teachers called for increased research funding:
All universities in New Zealand operate under Acts which include
reference to their duty to advance, maintain and disseminate knowl-
edge through teaching and research. University teachers, through their
research, are able to contribute to national development, to keep their
teaching function fresh, and to extend the boundaries of human knowl-
edge (University of Canterbury 1974, pp. 4–5).
524 JANE ROBERTSON AND CAROL BOND
Four years later the Chancellor of the University of Canterbury was appealing
for continued investment in university research.
Why you may ask, why universities? Why not special research institutes,
leaving the university to get on with teaching? But what sort of teaching
would it be without the refreshment, excitement, stimulation and inspir-
ation that come from working at the frontiers of knowledge and, from
time to time, crossing them ...without that study and research university
teaching would become dull and sterile (University of Canterbury 1978,
p. 3).
New staff appointments made it possible for lecturers to specialise to a greater
extent than previously and thus to link their teaching more closely to their
research. In 1956 the Head of the Department of Education reported: “As a
long term policy I intend to increase the degree of specialisation in teaching
... the literature of the subject is now so considerable that acceptance of
increased specialisation is necessary in order to maintain and raise standards
of teaching”. Similarly in 1961, the Department of Classics reported that,
with the addition of a new staff member, there would be “a more pronounced
move towards specialisation in teaching”.
Research growth ‘in context’
By the 1950s research at Canterbury College was an accepted feature of
academic practice. Taking a local perspective, Gardner et al. (1973, p. 398)
attribute the “really explosive development of research activity” starting
around 1965 to the changed size and atmosphere of the institution. The
change of culture was accompanied by a realisation of the need for a focus on
depth rather than breadth of knowledge and specialists rather than general-
ists, the establishment of supporting structures such as a research committee
(and funding), adequate facilities for research, and discourses that focus on
research at department level.
The growth in research activity at Canterbury in the 1960s resembles,
on a smaller scale, the expansion of research in universities in the northern
hemisphere that began two decades earlier. Yet, in the northern hemisphere
post-war assumptions about research differed considerably from those in New
Zealand. While the University of Canterbury, and its national counterparts,
concentrated on the establishment of the infrastructure and physical resources
required for doing research, research universities in the northern hemisphere
were developing coalitions with industry and the military, and with industry
and medicine, that were driven by government policies (e.g., Bowden 1996;
Slaughter 1998). During the Cold War, such coalitions created the conditions
THE RESEARCH/TEACHING RELATION 525
for the stabilisation of basic research, yet they were non-existent at the time
in New Zealand.
Nevertheless, the ‘idea’ underpinning higher education at Canterbury
shows evidence of a shift from Newman’s teaching university with its focus
on the liberal arts, towards a modern ‘research’ university. During this phase,
the data indicate that the research/teaching relation assumed a unidirectional
and hierarchical flow from research to teaching to learning – research was the
preserve of the academic and teaching was informed by research. Structurally
research and teaching are treated separately – the data suggest that whatever
the relation, it is implicit and reflects ‘no relation’ or a ‘weak’ relation in
terms of Robertson’s (2003) continuum.
The fourth phase (post 1990) – a ‘close’ relation between research and
teaching
By 1990 the research/teaching relation at Canterbury was inextricably
embedded legally, economically, and politically in the national context of
higher education. Claims of a ‘close’ and/or ‘strong’ relation are made
repeatedly. For instance, with reference to the New Zealand Education Act
(1989), the University’s Charter (1991, p. 1) states that: “a well recognised
characteristic of a university is that its research and teaching are closely inter-
dependent, and most of its teaching is conducted by people who actively
advance knowledge”. In the same source, the University undertakes to
“observe in recruiting academic staff the principle that teaching is inseparable
from research”. This commitment to a close relation between research and
teaching is reaffirmed in the outgoing Vice Chancellor’s Report (University
of Canterbury 1997) and that of the incoming Vice-Chancellor (University
of Canterbury 1998). The nature of the relation was reiterated in response to
Audit requirements: “for Canterbury a strong relationship between teaching
and research has always been a primary element of its culture” (University of
Canterbury 2000, p. 1, italics our emphasis).
National and international influences
In the 1980s the global restructuring of higher education saw some of
the greatest changes to the nature of academic work than at any time in
the previous century (Marginson and Considine 2000: Slaughter and Leslie
1997). Such changes were slower to reach New Zealand. Until 1990, a univer-
sity in New Zealand was considered the only institution in which research
and teaching were related. It was also the only degree granting institution.
However, the nineties marked a decade of radical economic restructuring.
Higher education became an increasingly open market in which the polytech-
nics and colleges of education sought and achieved degree-granting status and
526 JANE ROBERTSON AND CAROL BOND
began to develop research agendas. Previously unfamiliar issues of quality
and accountability took centre stage. The institutional discourses about the
research/teaching relation are underpinned more explicitly by the University’s
response to legislation, and national and international agendas. The external
environment drives the University’s programme and unlike previous phases
the context is now highly competitive.
In 1996 the first national academic audit of New Zealand universities was
undertaken by the New Zealand Universities Academic Audit Unit (AAU).
The AAU report on the University of Canterbury (1997) highlighted the
market driven environment to which the university was struggling to adapt.
On the relationship between research and teaching the AAU panel:
formed a very positive view of the way in which research informs
teaching at Canterbury University. Examples include lecture content
changing annually in terms of the lecturer’s research; undergradu-
ates reading review articles; and teaching in research areas quickly
moving new ideas down through the undergraduate levels (New Zealand
Universities Academic Audit Unit 1997, p. 25).
Despite receiving what was perceived to be such positive feedback on the
research/teaching relationship, the University of Canterbury feared for the
future of the research/teaching link. Concern was expressed that research
monies coming into the university might be separated from teaching monies.
If research were to become ‘output tagged’ it could seriously affect funding
for humanities research. From the mid nineties onwards departments were
increasingly exhorted to make more visible the links between research and
teaching. From the Dean of Arts:
It is currently more important than it has ever been that university staff
are seen to not only be involved in research but regularly to publish
the results. Research underpins university teaching and governments
must be persuaded of the essential nexus between the two (University
of Canterbury 1998a, p. 15).
And, in the report of a review of the History Department:
The complex inter-relatedness of teaching and research in universities
is obviously important in this debate – we must ensure that at every
turn the research input to ALL teaching is highlighted and documented
(University of Canterbury 1998b).
These warnings reflected national events. The publication of the Govern-
ment’s White Paper on Tertiary Education (New Zealand Ministry of Educa-
THE RESEARCH/TEACHING RELATION 527
tion 1998) signalled the apparent beginning of a separating out of research
and teaching funding with a proportion of research funding to be allocated
through a contestable pool. The White Paper was followed in 1999 by a
proposal from the Tertiary Education Minister that there should be just two
or three well-funded research universities in New Zealand (instead of the
then seven) which would focus primarily on research work leaving the others
to focus on teaching. All the universities protested vociferously. Somewhat
paradoxically, and despite scholarly disagreement about the nature or even
the existence of such a link, one of the themes of the second national auditing
cycle conducted by the AAU was the ‘Teaching/Research Nexus’. The AAU
rationalised its inclusion on the basis that its existence was enshrined in legis-
lation and as such it required auditing. “Institutions must therefore specify the
expected effect of the link between teaching and research and the AAU audits
the institution’s processes for achieving this link and the effectiveness of these
processes” (New Zealand Universities Academic Audit Unit 1999, p. 14).
Such an explicit focus on the relationship between research and teaching
provoked a flurry of activity in all the New Zealand universities. A joint
working party was formed at Canterbury consisting of representatives from
the University’s Research Committee and the newly formed Teaching and
Learning Committee. This group was charged with preparing a report on the
nature of the research/teaching link at Canterbury and key findings were to be
included in Canterbury’s Audit 2000 Portfolio. The report (Spronken-Smith
et al. 2000) outlined the university’s obligations and commitments to the
integration of research and teaching, discussed mechanisms for monitoring
policy, considered current practice as well as factors constraining a close
relationship and suggested ways in which the link might be strengthened.
The year 2000 saw another significant change in tertiary education in
New Zealand. The new Labour government established the Tertiary Educa-
tion Advisory Commission (TEAC) to devise a long-term strategic direction
for the tertiary education system. Between 1980 and 1999, real funding for
universities fell by 36%. There was also a substantial deterioration in the
ratio of academic staff to students over the same two decades. “These trends
raise serious questions about the capacity of New Zealand’s tertiary system
to protect the desired level of quality in relation to teaching and research”
(TEAC 2001, p. 12).
In their submission to TEAC on issues set out in the Commission’s
terms of reference, the Association of University Staff (AUS) pointed out
that “the interaction of scholarship, research and teaching form the ‘signa-
ture’ by which university-appropriate activities may be differentiated from
other tertiary activities” (Association of University Staff 2000, p. 1). A key
objective of TEAC’s strategic direction was the enabling of life-long learning
528 JANE ROBERTSON AND CAROL BOND
for a knowledge society. Such a society emphasises the knowledge content of
goods and services, the centrality of research and learning, the importance of
critical reflection and debate about knowledge and its use, and recognition of
the role of intellect and research as drivers of economic growth (TEAC 2000).
The issue is highlighted in the following quotation in which the relationship
between research and teaching and the provision of postgraduate education is
directly addressed.
The provision of postgraduate education requires a significant level
of research intensity and that most of those involved in teaching
such programmes should be active researchers ... the requirement for
research (particularly the ‘scholarship of discovery’) and teaching to be
linked at the undergraduate level is less compelling. While postgraduate
study involves in-depth investigation and specialisation, undergraduate
education is concerned primarily with transmitting the basic knowledge
and general skills that form the foundation of a particular discipline ...
hence, the primary requirement of those responsible for teaching at this
level is a comprehensive and current knowledge of the relevant discipline
and the skills to communicate this knowledge in an effective manner
(Tertiary Education Advisory Commission 2001a, p. 109).
The Commission recommended that the Education Act 1989 should be
amended to require that undergraduate degrees be taught by people with a
comprehensive and current knowledge of their discipline and the skills to
communicate this knowledge. The Government rejected this recommenda-
tion. In the meantime, however, the introduction of Performance-Based
Research Funding, which allocates resources according to the quality of the
research produced in each institution rather than on the basis of student
enrolments, looks set to aggravate rather than ameliorate the tension between
research and teaching.
Reflecting on the past – looking to the future
As with every university, the case study provides a picture of an institution
that has a unique identity embedded in its local geography, its history, and its
people (Clark 1998; Lucas 1994). The hermeneutic task is to learn from the
events but at the same time respect their historical autonomy. Our focus on
the local illustrates the social construction of institutional knowledge and the
process and power of institutional myth making. The case study has explan-
atory power in that it provides some understanding of the influences that
framed research and teaching at Canterbury; that favoured certain construc-
THE RESEARCH/TEACHING RELATION 529
tions and excluded others. Furthermore, despite the evidence of significant
change it is also possible to identify recurring themes.
Barnett (2003) notes that the Oxbridge tradition was largely a teaching
tradition. Unsurprisingly it was the conditions for teaching that were of
greatest concern in the early years at the University of Canterbury. However
the teaching ideal was constrained by multiple layers of governance, lack
of finance, and the pressures inherent in needs of the local community.
Academics were marginalised by the separation of key aspects of their work.
They were also situated quite literally at the ‘edge’ in terms of distance from
the academic ‘heartland’ in the northern hemisphere (see Altbach 1998).
Evidence suggests that these conditions supported and reinforced a form
of instruction that militated against the development of reason, the use of
imagination, and inquiry. As conditions changed and research became estab-
lished, research and teaching were acknowledged as co-dependent – teaching
was informed by research – research as knowledge was transmitted. Access
to the ‘heartland’ was made easier through the use of technology and acces-
sible air travel. By the last phase, research at Canterbury had become – “the
dominant project of university life” (Barnett 2003, p. 147). This morphing
of research and teaching and their relation reflects international social, polit-
ical, and economic changes in higher education (e.g., Geiger 1993; Lucas
1994). Yet, particularly in the early years, the local conditions controlled the
temporal aspects of change. As Canterbury shifts metaphorically from the
periphery towards the centre global ideologies become more evident.
The effect of the relation between governance and academic aspects
of teaching and research is also of significance. The governance ‘at a
distance’ in the early years constituted a form of academic imperialism that
fragmented and disabled academic work. Although the mechanism differs,
fragmentation between Government, university, and academics continues to
be evident. Drawing on cases studies of Australian universities, Marginson
and Considine (2000) observe that change strategies focus on organization
and finance rather than teaching, learning and research. Management works
around academic cultures rather than through them. They argue that despite
an institution’s success and the strength of its academic culture “the tension
between academic and managerial perspectives is endemic”. Such tension
“absorbs energy, reduces the scope for organisational coherence” (p. 238)
and reduces the possibilities for change.
In separate studies, Clark (1998), and Marginson and Considine (2000),
identify several ‘elements’ common to universities that have achieved signifi-
cant change. One of the elements is a “stimulated academic heartland”
(Marginson and Considine 2000, p. 239). At its core is a strengthened relation
between research and teaching – an institutional focus on learning as inquiry.
530 JANE ROBERTSON AND CAROL BOND
In this climate, academic cultures are respected, their diversity is acknowl-
edged (Barnett 2003; Marginson and Considine 2000) and change occurs by
working with them rather than around them.
This notion of a university as an institution of learning (Bowden and
Marton 1998; Brew 2001) is not new. Yet how might it be achieved in prac-
tice? We drew attention previously to the increasing separation of research
and teaching and the ways in which these discourses comprise competing
ideologies. Quoting the Pro Vice Chancellor at the University of Sydney,
Jenkins et al. (2003) suggest that the ‘nexus’ must be re-engineered or
purposefully constructed. They offer multiple, specific strategies for bringing
research and teaching into closer alignment at the level of the curriculum, the
department, the institution and with regard to the national and international
administration of research and teaching. They point out that, in particular,
policy making at institutional level has the power to ‘shape’ research/teaching
relations.
Our case study illustrates the importance for Canterbury of academic
autonomy. The idea of independence and autonomy can also be applied
to departments and centres within universities. Increasingly, commentators
are pointing to the importance of valuing and encouraging the diversity of
academic cultures within institutions thus heralding a move from a focus on
the universal to the specific (e.g., Barnett 2003; Marginson and Considine
2000). Taking this tack, the task for universities is not simply a strength-
ening the link between research and teaching but recognising the need
for different strategies for different situations. The words independence,
autonomy, diversity have a familiar ring. They have been part of the student
learning literature for several decades.
Our research (Robertson and Bond 2001), which focuses on individual
academics’ experience at Canterbury, indicates three ways in which the
relationship between research and teaching is currently enacted – through
the transmission of research findings, through the modelling of a research
approach to learning and by engaging students as active participants in the
inquiry process. All three approaches are important and all are necessary.
Presently, and particularly in the sciences, it would seem that undergraduate
teaching relies heavily on transmission. Students are treated as peripheral
participants (Lave and Wenger 1991) for much of their undergraduate experi-
ence. However modelling plays an important transitional role between ‘telling
about’ and having students ‘participate in’. It offers students a glimpse of the
research culture of the community prior to their own engagement in disci-
plinary inquiry. In terms of legitimate peripheral participation, it provides
students with an “observational lookout post” (Lave and Wenger 1991, p. 95).
THE RESEARCH/TEACHING RELATION 531
These modelling processes need to be made more explicit for students within
the curriculum, and for staff within the culture of the institution.
A growing body of literature indicates that students’ understandings of
research in particular and academic work in general, even at postgraduate
level, may be poor (Jenkins et al. 1998; Willis and Harper 1999; Zamorski
2002). If the research/teaching relationship is to constitute one of the core
values of higher education then we must all seek to understand and commu-
nicate its special nature. Students need to understand explicitly what it is
to learn in a research environment. They need to be exposed early in their
university careers to the ‘other’ (research) side of university activity so that it
ceases to be other. For example, at University College, London, all year one
students complete a first term assignment in which they interview a member
of the academic staff about his/her research (Jenkins et al. 2003).
Mourad (1997) proposes post-disciplinary research programmes as places
of instruction as well as research: programmes in which teaching at all
levels occurs through and in the course of research where the distinction
between the two is blurred; and curricula, that instead of being based on
codified knowledge, are determined largely by the direction of the inquiry.
In such programmes, research, teaching and learning form a dynamic, flex-
ible and integrated whole. Similarly, Clark (1995, 1997) advocates an inquiry
model of education in which the dichotomisation of research and teaching is
rejected in favour of research-based teaching and learning. Given the reality
of massification, Mourad (1997) and Clark’s (1997) proposals could point to
a greater separation of undergraduate and postgraduate teaching, along the
lines of the North American model. However, Mourad explicitly includes
undergraduate education as part of his proposal. Likewise the Boyer Commis-
sion (1999) calls for radical reconstruction (rather than cosmetic surgery)
that includes turning the prevailing undergraduate culture of receivers into
a culture of inquirers.
Ultimately, the scholarship and excitement of higher education can only
be understood by active participation in the inquiry process. Students at all
levels can and should be legitimate participants in inquiry. Specifically, they
should be encouraged to become familiar and work with the disciplinary tools
of knowledge creation; to adopt a critical stance apropos knowledge and
to observe and participate in the processes of knowledge creation through
discussion, problem-based learning approaches, laboratory work, field work
and individual and group research projects.
These ideas are not new. They were advocated by Humbolt in the nine-
teenth century, and Popper and his colleagues in 1945. Yet our case suggests
we cannot hope to advocate for inquiry in the absence of a supporting culture
of inquiry and critical reflection. Even more fundamentally, if the process of
532 JANE ROBERTSON AND CAROL BOND
inquiry itself is narrowly or poorly understood then fostering inquiry becomes
a dubious undertaking. For change to occur, universities urgently need to
examine the way in which their discourses support the status quo – the ways
in which their views of knowledge influence their practices. As academics
we need to challenge these dominant discourses which, in their emphasis on
accountability and performativity are further fragmenting research, teaching
and learning. We need to engage as critical beings, embracing both critical
reflection and action (Barnett 1997). As part of this process we must stop
merely asserting a close relation between research and teaching and start
exploring carefully the nature of the relation as it exists and as it might exist
in universities of the future. Only in this way can the advantages of working
and studying in an institution that celebrates “the spirit of doubt and enquiry”
(Allan et al. 1945) be clearly demonstrated and defended.
Acknowledgements
The authors thank the two anonymous reviewers, and Professors Keith
Ballard and Chris Heath for their extremely helpful insights and suggestions.
References
Allan, R., Eccles, J., Forder, H., Packer, J., Parton, H. and Popper, K. (1945). Research and
the University. Christchurch: University of Canterbury.
Altbach, P. (1998). Comparative Higher Education: Knowledge, the University, and Develop-
ment. London: Ablex Publishing Corporation.
Association of University Staff (2000). ‘AUT staff choices’, Education Review, February 4,
p. 1.
Association of University Staff (2000). Submission to the Tertiary Education Advisory
Commission on Issues Set Out in the Commission’s Terms of Reference. Wellington: AUS.
Atkinson, T. (1969). Professional Education at Canterbury University College 1883–1953.
Unpublished M.A. Thesis, University of Canterbury, Christchurch.
Barnett, R. (1990). The Idea of Higher Education. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Barnett, R. (1997). Higher Education. A Critical Business. Buckingham: Open University
Press.
Barnett, R. (2000). Realising the University in an Age of Supercomplexity. Buckingham: Open
University Press.
Barnett, R. (2003). Beyond All Reason. Living with Ideology in the University. Buckingham:
Open University Press.
Barnett, R. and Griffin, A. (eds.) (1997). The End of Knowledge in Higher Education. London:
Cassell.
Beaglehole, J.C. (1937). The University of New Zealand: An Historical Study. Wellington:
New Zealand Council for Educational Research.
Bond, C. (2000). The Development of Students’ Experiences of Learning in Higher Education.
Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, Griffith University, Queensland.
THE RESEARCH/TEACHING RELATION 533
Bowden, V. (1996). ‘Too few academic eggs’, in Shattock, M. (ed.), The Creation of a
University System. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 80–94.
Bowden, J. and Marton, F. (1998). The University of Learning: Beyond Quality and
Competence in Higher Education. London: Kogan Page.
Boyer Commission (1999). Reinventing Undergraduate Education: A Blueprint for America’s
Research Universities. Stony Brook, New York: Carnegie Foundation for the Advance-
ment of Teaching.
Brew, A. (2001). The Nature of Research: Inquiry in Academic Contexts. London: Rout-
ledge/Falmer.
Brew, A. (2003). ‘Teaching and research: New relationships and their implications for
inquiry-based teaching and learning in higher education’, Higher Education Research and
Development 22(1), 3–18.
Buchbinder, H. (1993). ‘The market oriented university and the changing role of knowledge’,
Higher Education 26, 331–347.
Canterbury University College Students’ Association (1946). University Reform: A Report by
a Committee of the Canterbury University College Students’ Association. Christchurch:
CUCSA.
Clark, B. (1995). Places of Inquiry: Research and Advanced Education in Modern Univer-
sities. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Clark, B. (1997). ‘The modern integration of research activities with teaching and learning’,
Journal of Higher Education 68(3), 241–255.
Clark, B. (1998). Creating Entrepreneurial Universities: Organizational Pathways of Trans-
formation. Oxford: Pergamon.
Codd, J. (1997). ‘Knowledge, qualifications and higher education: A critical view’, in Olssen,
M. and Matthews, K.M. (eds.), Education Policy in New Zealand: The 1990s and Beyond.
Palmerston North: The Dunmore Press, pp. 130–144.
Feldman, K. (1987). ‘Research productivity and scholarly accomplishment of college teachers
as related to their instructional effectiveness’, Research in Higher Education 26(3), 227–
291.
Flexner, A. (1931). Universities American English German. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Foucault, M. (1982). ‘The subject and power’, in Dreyfus, H. and Rainbow, P. (eds.), Michael
Foucault: Beyond Structuralism and Hermeneutics. Brighton: The Harvester Press, pp.
208–226.
Fox, M. (1992). ‘Research, teaching, and publication productivity: Mutuality versus competi-
tion in academia’, Sociology of Education 65, 293–305.
Gadamer, H.G. (1989). Truth and Method (2nd edn.) (J. Weinsheimer and D. Marshall, Trans.).
New York: Continuum.
Gardiner, M. (1992). The Dialogics of Critique: M.M. Bakhtin and the Theory of Ideology.
London: Routledge.
Gardner, W., Beardsley, E. and Carter, T. (1973). A History of the University of Canterbury
1873–1973. Christchurch: University of Canterbury.
Geiger, R. (1993). Research and Relevant Knowledge. American Research Universities Since
World War 11. New York: Oxford University Press.
Gordon, I.A. (1946, May). ‘The University at the crossroads’, The New Zealand Listener
14(359), 12–13.
Hacohen, M. (2000). Karl Popper – The Formative Years, 1902–1945. Cambridge University
Press.
534 JANE ROBERTSON AND CAROL BOND
Harrop, A. (1939). ‘The University in New Zealand’, in Bradby, E. (ed.), The Univer-
sity Outside Europe. Essays on the Development of University Institutions in Fourteen
Countries. London: Oxford University Press, pp. 185–206.
Hattie, J. and Marsh, H. (1996). ‘The relationship between research and teaching: A meta-
analysis’, Review of Educational Research 66(4), 507–542.
Hight, J. and Candy, A. (1927). A Short History of the Canterbury College (University of
New Zealand) with a Register of Graduates and Associates of the College. Christchurch:
Whitcombe & Tombs.
Jenkins, A., Blackman, T., Lindsay, R. and Paton-Saltzberg, R. (1998). ‘Teaching and
research: Student perspectives and policy implications’, Studies in Higher Education
23(2), 127–141.
Jenkins, A., Breen, R., Lindsay, R. with Brew, A. (2003). Reshaping Teaching in Higher
Education. London: Kogan Page.
Jensen, J. (1988). ‘Research and teaching in the universities of Denmark: Does such an
interplay really exist?’ Higher Education 17, 1–26.
Lave, J. and Wenger, E. (1991). Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lucas, C. (1994). American Higher Education. A History. New York: St. Martin’s Griffin.
Marginson, S. and Considine, M. (2000). The Enterprise University. Power, Governance and
Reinvention in Australia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
McCulloch, G. and Lowe, R. (2003). ‘Introduction: centre and periphery – networks, space,
and geography in the history of education’, History of Education 32(5), 457–459.
Mourad, R. (1997). Postmodern Philosophical Critique and the Pursuit of Knowledge in
Higher Education. Westport, Connecticut: Bergin & Garvey.
Neumann, R. (1992). ‘Perceptions of the teaching-research nexus: a framework for analysis’,
Higher Education 23, 159–171.
Newman, J. (1960). The Idea of a University (Rinehart Edition, 102). New York: Holt,
Rinehart and Winston.
New Zealand Government (1877). Education Act.
New Zealand Government (1989). Education Act.
New Zealand Government (1990). Education Amendment Act.
New Zealand Ministry of Education (1998). Tertiary Education in New Zealand: Policy Direc-
tions for the 21st Century: White Paper: Tertiary Education Review. Wellington: Ministry
of Education on behalf of the Government of New Zealand.
New Zealand Universities Academic Audit Unit (1997). Report on the University of Canter-
bury. Wellington: New Zealand Vice-Chancellors’ Committee.
New Zealand Universities Academic Audit Unit (1999). Audit Considerations for Some
Academic Activities. Wellington: AAU.
New Zealand University Reform Association (1911). University Reform in New Zealand.
Wellington: Whitcombe & Tombs.
Parton, H. (1979). The University of New Zealand. Auckland University Press.
Peters, M. and Roberts, P. (1999). University Futures and the Politics of Reform in New
Zealand. Palmerston North: The Dunmore Press.
Readings, B. (1996). The University in Ruins. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University
Press.
Reichel, H. (1925). Report of Royal Commission on University Education in New Zealand.
Wellington: Government Printer.
Robertson, J. (2001). The Relation between Research and Teaching: Forging Partnerships in
a Community of Inquiry. Paper presented at the 24th HERDSA Conference, Newcastle.
THE RESEARCH/TEACHING RELATION 535
Robertson, J. (2003). Research and Teaching in a Community of Inquiry. Unpublished Ph.D.
Thesis, University of Canterbury, Christchurch.
Robertson, J. and Bond, C. (2001). ‘Experiences of the relation between teaching and research:
What do academics value?’ Higher Education Research and Development 20(1), 5–19.
Rowland, S. (1993). The Enquiring Tutor. Basingstoke: Falmer Press.
Rowland, S. (1996). ‘Relationships between teaching and research’, Teaching in Higher
Education 1(1), 7–20.
Rowland, S. (2000). The Enquiring University Teacher. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Slaughter, S. and Leslie, L. (1997). Academic Capitalism. Politics, Policies, and the Entrepre-
neurial University. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
Slaughter, S. (1998). Academic Capitalism: Moving toward Market in the Sciences, the
Arts, and Professional Schools. Presented at the Survive to Thrive conference, Temple
University, http://astro.temple.edu/∼meziani/templetoday/Slaughter.html.
Smeby, J.C. (1998). ‘Knowledge production and knowledge transmission. The interaction
between research and teaching at universities’, Teaching in Higher Education 3(1), 5–20.
Spronken-Smith, R., Jennings, J., Robertson, J., Mein Smith, P., Vincent, G. and Wake,
G. (2000). The Research-teaching Link at Canterbury. Christchurch: University of
Canterbury.
Tertiary Education Advisory Commission (2000). Shaping a Shared Vision. Wellington.
Tertiary Education Advisory Commission (2001). Shaping the System. Wellington.
Tertiary Education Advisory Commission (2001a). Shaping the Funding Framework.
Wellington.
The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching (2000). Category definitions.
http://www.carnegiefoundation.org/Classification/CIHE2000/defNotes/Definitions.htm.
University of Canterbury (1945). Questionnaire on Research Practices. Macmillan Brown
Library 1121. Christchurch: UC.
University of Canterbury (January 1945–December 1949). Council Minutes, Book 12. Christ-
church: UC.
University of Canterbury (1974, 5 July). ‘AUT report shows NZ well behind Britain and
Australia’, Chronicle 9(4). Christchurch: UC.
University of Canterbury (1978, 5 May). ‘Chancellor appeals for continued investment’,
Chronicle 13(3). Christchurch: UC.
University of Canterbury (1991). The Charter of the University of Canterbury. Christchurch:
UC.
University of Canterbury (1997). Annual Report. Christchurch: UC.
University of Canterbury (1998). Annual Report. Christchurch: UC.
University of Canterbury (1998a, August). Review of the Department of History. Christchurch:
UC.
University of Canterbury (1998b, July). Arts Faculty Newsletter. Christchurch: UC.
University of Canterbury (2000). Audit 2000 Portfolio. Christchurch: UC.
Willis, D. and Harper, J. (1999, July). Putting the Worms Back in the Can: Encouraging
Diversity in the Teaching Research Nexus. Paper presented at the Higher Education
Research and Development Society of Australasia Conference, Melbourne, Australia.
Zamorski, B. (2002). ‘Research-led teaching and learning in higher education: A case’,
Teaching in Higher Education 7(4), 411–427.
