Presentation:

Liberal arts students and faculty engage in learning and research across a wide variety of fields, disciplines, pedagogical styles, and research traditions. The perspective of a liberal arts college at a technological university such as Georgia Tech underscores many of the opportunities and challenges that confront researchers in the humanities and social sciences. This perspective also highlights the importance of adjusting our educational institutions and practices to accommodate the increasing priority being given to involving undergraduate students in the research process.

The presentation by Sue V. Rosser, Dean of Georgia Tech’s Ivan Allen College of Liberal Arts, began with an overview of the Georgia Tech. Its students were described as very competent (average SATs of 1337) and focused on engineering, computer science, and the natural sciences (80 percent of the undergraduates). Only 6 percent of the students are liberal arts majors, but 58 percent of those are female, compared with 30 percent for the entire campus.

An important aspect of any university regarding its structure and context for undergraduate research is the level of faculty research activity. At Georgia Tech that emphasis is quite strong, and is reflected in both the general support for undergraduate research and in the challenge for faculty of allocating time and effort for this purpose.

The presentation turned next to the academic justifications for undergraduate involvement in research. Students can learn more about their professors’ interests and areas of expertise, they can apply the information they learn in lectures to actual practice, and they can engage in hands-on learning under the supervision of a faculty mentor. In addition, this is a useful way for students to prepare for graduate or professional school or to clarify their career goals.

Another aspect of undergraduate research that was offered by the presenter was the context for this activity within the institutional structure of the university, and how it relates to other initiatives such as internships, study abroad, and honors college programs. An emphasis on undergraduate research can be from the top-down, such as through an initiative by the campus leadership, or bottom-up as faculty and students promote the effort, and it can be organized at the school, college, or institutional level.

A related question addressed the structural supports in an institution for this process, particularly the incentives to support undergraduate research. These can come from the institutional level, from private donors, from individual faculty grants, or in non-monetary form through course credit and other academic mechanisms. A question was raised about when it is appropriate to pay for or grant credit for undergraduate research, or when to do both.

Other topics covered in the presentation concerned who initiates an undergraduate research project (student or professor?), and the challenges in helping students and other faculty to understand the meaning and practice of research across various academic fields (especially science/engineering and humanities/social sciences).

Discussion:

Much of the discussion at this session on the climate for research focused on how undergraduate research support is affected by incentives or disincentives in the tenure and promotion process. It was generally agreed that universities have not yet found a reliable way to assess a professor’s contributions toward the advancement of knowledge by mentoring undergraduate researchers, nor is it easily assessed by the tools routinely used to evaluate teaching performance and effectiveness.

A lively discussion involved the dissemination of findings from undergraduate research, and the benefits that can and should accrue to the sponsoring professor. It was agreed that such research requires a public face, in the form of outlets such as peer-reviewed journals (perhaps reviewed and published by the students, but preferably reviewed and published in the same journals in which faculty publish). Some argued strongly against student research journals, claiming that they unnecessarily suggest a lower standard. Whatever the outlet, however, it was agreed that the sponsoring professor should receive recognition; some argued that sponsorship of an undergraduate research project which produces a publication in a standard peer-reviewed journal should count as a publication for that professor’s promotion and tenure.

The problem of appropriate rewards for faculty efforts in undergraduate research may lead universities to find other mentors. The point was also made that institutions should avoid using graduate students or adjunct faculty as sponsors of undergraduate research.

There was a consensus that research, even at the undergraduate level, should be driven more by curiosity and a desire to learn than by a narrow calculation of steps toward a particular occupational objective. It was also widely agreed that students should initiate their research projects, based on their own interests and career plans.

Another discussion revolved around the appropriate model for student participation in research. Some argued that without incentives or compensation, the most that could be expected of many students is to work in a laboratory, perhaps in a merely menial role, and absorb some of the research practices of faculty and graduate students. Others found such a model to be insufficiently challenging. More common ground was found on whether course credit and stipend should be linked, with most describing their university’s policy as discouraging students from receiving both. It was agreed that, in practice, it can be very difficult to distinguish an internship from a research experience, and that decisions on such matters probably are best left to faculty or schools.

Some participants reported that natural scientists at their universities are skeptical of the use of the word “research” by faculty or students in the liberal arts. Some have had meetings or workshops to introduce humanities research to others on campus, in the hope of changing the climate regarding non-science/engineering research. “Creative work” can sometimes be a synonym for research, depending on the field or discipline. The group felt that appropriate diversity in considering “research” requires an emphasis on rigorous and focused creativity, whether in scientific or non-scientific realms. Similarly, it is important that the institutional body that allocates research funds—whether to faculty or to undergraduate students--include members with sufficient expertise to assess research and creative activities across the university’s array of fields and disciplines. An important by-product of promoting a wider perspective on research is the recognition that many disciplines actually converge in the study and analysis of many questions.

Several observations were made that illustrate the challenge in coordinating several other university functions with undergraduate research. It was also noted that institutions have difficulty in assessing and recognizing student efforts when they are outside their field of study, yet participating in research in an outside field is to be strongly encouraged.

In summary, at the end of the session there was a strong expression of need for more study on various universities’ systems for providing credit or pay for undergraduate researchers --including how these systems affect the behavior of students, faculty, and the institutions-- as well as a need for more understanding of how faculty can be properly compensated for the time and effort they devote to undergraduate research.

Recommendations:

• Research should be defined broadly enough to include areas of creative and reflective endeavor undertaken with rigor and focus to generate knowledge. It must include entering a public conversation about the knowledge.
• Undergraduate research needs to include transmission of what constitutes research and creativity and its methodologies in diverse disciplines.
• Undergraduate research needs to be integrated into and supported by all levels of the institutional structure, with particular attention to its codification and validation with reward and incentives structures, including tenure and promotion.
• Institutions should avoid using graduate students or adjunct faculty as sponsors of undergraduate research, in order to allow them to learn professional practices such as research and communication skills from experienced faculty.
• More study is needed on how universities and colleges provide undergraduates with academic credit or pay for research activities.

Resources/References:

Websites:

1. Strategic Plan of Georgia Tech http://www.gatech.edu/president/strategic-plan.html
2. Georgia Tech’s Degree Programs http://www.iac.gatech.edu/students/degpro.html
3. The Liberal Arts College of Georgia Tech http://www.iac.gatech.edu/schools/index.htm
4. Georgia Tech’s Institutional Research and Planning http://www.irp.gatech.edu/03_FB_PDF/fb_2003.html
5. Institute-wide Research Opportunities at Georgia Tech http://www.undergradresearch.gatech.edu/institute-wide.htm
6. Undergraduate Research Opportunities at Georgia Tech http://www.iac.gatech.edu/students/research.html
7. Office of Research and Creative Activities at Brigham Young University http://orca.byu.edu
8. Office of Undergraduate Research and Creative Activities at the University of California, Santa Barbara http://www.ltsc.ucsb.edu/urca/
9. Office of Undergraduate Research and Creative Activities at Michigan State University http://www.urca.msu.edu/
10. Office of Undergraduate Research and Creative Activities at Stony Brook University http://www.sunysb.edu/ureca/