The Research Consortium: Building Research Capacity Through a Community of Practice

• In Event: Filling the Theory-to-Practice Gap: Teaching Educational Research to Teachers in Professional Graduate Programs

Abstract

OBJECTIVES
This case study traces the process of building the Research Consortium (RC), a community of practice (CoP) within a College of Education in the southeastern United States, and outlines the benefits of the RC for building research capacity of institutional stakeholders, including faculty, students, and graduates. Factors that enabled the RC to flourish and barriers to success are discussed. Opportunities to make this faculty-driven organization more sustainable are proposed. Implications for institutions that wish to adopt a similar approach for supporting faculty and student research are provided.

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
The Community of Practice (CoP) framework (Brown & Duguid, 1991; Lave & Wenger, 1991) and the notion of CoP as a learning community is rooted in sociocultural theories (Vygotsky, 1978), and specifically in situated learning theory (Brown, Collins & Duguid, 1989; Lave & Wenger; 1991). Situated learning refers to ways in which learning is “dynamically constructed as we conceive of” (Clancy, 1995, p. 49) the physical and social contexts in which learning takes place. To flourish, CoPs must be situated in learning contexts that include three components: (a) domain ascribes boundaries, establishing common ground or competencies that differentiate members from non-members; (b) community creates social structure that facilitates learning through interactions/relationships; and (c) practice includes a shared repertoire of resources (e.g., documents, ideas, experiences) (Wegner, McDermott, & Snyder, 2002).

Based on these frameworks, we sought to determine whether a faculty-driven, CoP would develop and deliver effective research support in a higher education setting.

METHODS
We employed case study methodology to capture experiences of RC members and investigate whether the CoP could improve researcher support and scholarship.

Data sources were transcripts of semi-structured interviews with RC members, archival data from two needs assessment surveys, and the collective scholarship produced with RC support. Thematic analysis was used to identify key findings from interview transcripts. Secondary data sources were used to contextualized our understanding of the data and to triangulate findings.

FINDINGS
We found that the RC was beneficial not only for faculty and students who received support, but also for research support providers who gained a more nuanced understanding of the existing needs and obstacles in conducting research in the College. Moreover, we found that researchers’ needs were numerous and diverse, such that no single department could meet all faculty- and student-researchers’ needs; whereas the RC offered a more inclusive, diverse support system. However, for the RC to be effective as a CoP, several elements needed to be in place, including support from administration, a shared interest in research, and a sense of community and collegiality.

SCHOLARLY SIGNIFICANCE
Increasingly, research support in higher education is needed, and various academic units within universities are involved in the process. This case study demonstrates that there is a place in the institutional research infrastructure for faculty-driven communities that facilitate tacit knowledge-sharing and stimulate scholarly activities. With the scarcity of empirical evidence on the role of academic CoPs in research support, this study adds to our understanding of situated case-based approaches to knowledge sharing and creation.

Authors

• Olga Koz, Kennesaw State University

• Anissa Lokey-Vega, Kennesaw State University