TLRP’s future provision for capacity building

A NIACE response to the consultation by the  ESRC (Economic and Social Research Council).

Published: June 2003

_______________________________________________

NIACE's Response...

NIACE welcomes the Teaching and Learning Research Programme TLRP’s continued focus on capacity building and in particular the wish to

NIACE has a number of concerns, however.

1. The lack of obvious connection between DfES research and the TLRP programme. The DfES has a major interest in improving policy and practice through research and this aspect could be more evident. DfES observer status on the proposed capacity building Board would be helpful.
2. The limited focus on practitioner-based research. The intention is to improve this aspect but only if resources allow. This aspect should not be an ‘optional extra’ but should be central to the programme, recognising that in post-complusory education this is how most research takes place. We want to see it of better quality and given greater emphasis. ‘When resources allow’ is not helpful.
3. Research in this area needs to be about the enhancement of practice as well as about knowledge creation and this needs to be recognised.
4. The use of large and small scale longitudinal studies need more mention since this approach to understanding the way in which learning connects to the adult life cycle and vice versa is important.
5. The need to recognise that not all effective researchers in education are good teachers about research, or actually from education, or are represented in TLRP funded projects.
6. The wish to support a consortium approach when inviting expressions of interest from organisations wishing to participate needs to be strengthened.
7. The suggestion of a new journal on capacity building is misplaced. It would be better to put resources into using existing journals, the web site, newsletters and email bulletins.

NIACE does not agree with the TLRP proposal to support practitioner research “where resources allow”. It is possible to support practitioner research as well as professional educational researchers. The National Research and Development Centre on Adult Literacy and Numeracy (NRDC) based at the London Institute of Education is a case in point. Here the intention is to value the experience and role of practitioners, to make ‘ practitioner-based’ research a key part of the NRDC’s work. Research in post-compulsory education has a natural, if disappointing, bias towards HE. The limited number of good applications focused on FE or adult education, for example, indicate the challenge facing the TLRP. NIACE welcomes the proposed ‘significantly greater number of awards’ to be made under the replacement of the Research Training Fellowship but only if resources are available.

The relatively low status of educational research in the Research Assessment Exercise and the dominance of schools and schooling in this agenda means that post compulsory education gets limited support. The TLRP could make a major difference. The document needs to recognise more clearly the methods by which research affects practice in post compulsory education. Research in this area needs to be about the enhancement of practice as well as about knowledge creation. Practitioner-based research and the enhancement of practice should combine together in the TLRP.

NIACE welcomes the priorities as listed on page 7. Long-term quantitative research is important. Over ten years NIACE has conducted studies of participation including large scale annual omnibus surveys which have contributed to national policy on widening participation. Not mentioned in the list are longitudinal studies of learning over life using large or small cohorts. This method is growing as education providers seek to ‘track’ former and recurrent learners. It is the large longitudinal data sets which can offer a glimpse of what makes a difference to adult learners and the way in which learning connects with the rest of the adult lifecycle. NIACE would welcome more mention in the list of the more common research methods, inevitably more qualitative, which takes place in different post compulsory education contexts. It is this kind of work, situated in the day to day context and carried out largely by practitioners, which is nearer to teaching and learning and which probably needs greatest attention. Some greater emphasis on this would mean some enlargement of priority (6) and moving it higher up the order.

NIACE supports the assertion that the TLRP will draw on the ‘very best researchers from education’ but notes that

It would be helpful to recognise here the importance of partnerships between practitioners and researchers. It would also be useful to explain how ‘expertise’ will be identified. Asking practitioners/providers should seem to be important.

NIACE is not represented on the steering committee and is uncomfortable with the suggested membership classes of the proposed Research Capacity Board. NIACE is never normally referred to as an agency receiving government funding. We are an independent advocacy and development organisation in which research is a key part. We suggest that the DfES needs to be in this list and a separate category should include NIACE, a category that includes agencies that are independent, with a research function. It might also include CEDC, NYA and others. If there is to be commitment beyond TLRP funding these agencies as a group will be important.

When expressions of interest are being sought NIACE would want to see a consortium approach (as mentioned in key issue 5) in which educational providers and advocacy agencies were included. As mentioned earlier, those involved in excellent research may not necessarily have the skills or credibility in enhancing capacity among others.

The case for a ‘capacity building journal’ is not made. There are already sufficient journals and the cost of a journal would not add sufficient value. Adopting a communication strategy which ensures that articles are placed in existing journals would be more sensible and reach larger numbers of readers. Similarly, the use of web based articles and email lists is an effective way to reach the target audience. The website will be a key development in an overall communication strategy.

It is quite normal practice for organisations to create their own consortia so that they are planning as a team already. This has the advantage of a richer proposal where partners have chosen who they will work with and already possess operational decisions and agreements. The proposal in this paper is that the TLRP will receive bids and then create the consortium from them. The disadvantage of this approach is that ‘strangers’ are asked to work together with all the difficulties that this may bring. The advantage is that TLRP may create an ideal consortium based on the right ingredients. On balance, requesting proposals from a pre-existing consortium is probably better.

Top of page