Developing a Research Culture: a Case Study from Iceland

Traditions and transitions in teacher education

Contradictions in educational research: a case study from teacher education in Iceland

M. Allyson Macdonald Iceland University of Education [email protected] March 2004

A paper presented at the 32nd NERA Annual Congress Held in Reykjavík, Iceland 11th – 13th March 2004

Research Institute Iceland University of Education M. Allyson Macdonald Contradictions in educational research: NERA, March 2004 a case study from teacher education in Iceland

Reykjavík, Iceland

2 M. Allyson Macdonald Contradictions in educational research: NERA, March 2004 a case study from teacher education in Iceland

OVERVIEW

ABSTRACT...... 2

INTRODUCTION...... 2

THEORETICAL APPROACH...... 3

Research culture...... 3

Activity theory...... 4

SOURCES AND PERSPECTIVES...... 7

THE ACTIVITY SYSTEM...... 7

Analysis of an activity system...... 7

Necessary conditions for using activity theory...... 8

Summary of the IUE activity system...... 8

SOME CONTRADICTIONS...... 10

The context for learning and research...... 10

The mediation of knowledge – what counts as learning and research...... 10

Research status or monthly income as motivating contextual factors...... 10

Objects and outcomes – what counts as research...... 11

Agency and collegiality in the community...... 11

The influence of external context: national policy and competition for resources ...... 12

EMERGING ISSUES ...... 13

Contextual issues...... 13

Strategic issues...... 15

CONCLUSIONS...... 16

REFERENCES...... 18

NOTES...... 21

Contradictions in educational research: a case study from teacher education in Iceland

M. Allyson Macdonald March 2004

ABSTRACT

Cultural-historical activity theory will be used to identify primary and more particularly secondary contradictions in the evolving research culture in a teacher education university. Contradictions will be explored in components of the activity system such as the roles in which university staff engage, the rules by which research is carried out and the mediating tools used in research. The analysis will consider changes over the last four to five years within the Icelandic context. Three issues are identified as being important to the evolution of the culture: the nature of the support given to academic staff within the university environment, the value attributed to research in education by academic staff, policy-makers and the government, and the influence of the increasingly competitive environment for research in Iceland, both internally and externally.

INTRODUCTION

For many working in teacher education the right or the responsibility to carry out research is still in its infancy as teacher education programs are upgraded to university status. The evolution of the research culture within some institutions of teacher education have been explored recently in a multinational project on Transitions and Traditions in Teacher Education. Among the purposes listed by Acker (2000: 143) are:  To describe and compare effects on faculty of institutional transitions in teacher education from 1940 to the present …..  To detail these transitions through case studies of selected institutions  To trace the policy trajectory of the development of a research culture in each site. The 2003 (3/4) issue of the Journal of Research in Teacher Education published by Umeå University presents a set of papers from the project.a This paper considers the contradictions that have arisen in the evolution of the research culture within an institution largely devoted to teacher education and within the context of changing research environments in the Icelandic university sector. The case study is built on developments at the Iceland University of Education (IUE) since 1998. In January 1998 four institutions working in education and development underwent a merger following the new law, only one of which, the University College of Education (UCE) had previously operated at university level.

Considerable emphasis has been placed on research development within the IUE since 1998, to some extent the consequence of internal policy and to some extent the result of changes in the external environment for research in Iceland. The management of research and attempts to motivate staff and relate quality of research to funding allocations have been receiving increasing attention within universities in different parts of the world (Pratt, Margaritis and Coy 1999, Harman 2000, Strathern 2000) and Iceland is no exception (M. Allyson Macdonald 2002). The paper draws on a wide range of documentary evidence, but also builds on the reflections of the author who has been both audience and player in the slowly unfolding sociocultural drama of how research is developing at the IUE. Many of the ideas here have been discussed in a variety of settings over the last few years and their meaning has been constructed in cultural situations. The theoretical approach is introduced in the next section. A concept of culture is delineated, drawing on ideas from sociocultural perspectives and activity theory (see for example Minnis and John-Steiner 2001). The sources of information and recent lived experiences available to the author are then listed. Characteristics of the activity system are discussed briefly according to a scheme used by Jonassen and Rohrer-Murphy (1999). Contradictions that emerge through the lens of activity theory are explored and then issues to be addressed in the evolving culture at the IUE are identified. The paper finishes with a short discussion and some conclusions.

THEORETICAL APPROACH

Research culture In seeking to describe and understand the evolution of the research culture within the IUE, a definition of culture within the organization is needed. It is tempting to look at the evolution of the research culture at the IUE in terms of organizational theories. Several options are available. For example it would be possible to look at the issue through the work of Senge (1990) on learning organizations. A paper by Ribbens (1997) develops the idea of organizational learning styles where it is proposed that a link between strategy and organizational learning can be based on a two-dimensional framework of the ways in which information is acquired, distributed, interpreted and stored, and the nature of the information itself, one dimension being abstract-concrete and the other random- sequential. Four types of archetypal organizations emerge: abstract-random, abstract- sequential, concrete-random and concrete-sequential, though these may be affected by leadership style and traditions, the demands of the environment and the growth of the organizations. The IUE could be probably characterized as an abstract-random organization with its “highly developed web of informal communications” (Ribbens 1997). Strategy is changeable and individuals can advance strong arguments for new approaches. Ragnarsson (2001) has pointed out how difficult university management is with new groups of academic staff being appointed to middle management, perhaps

5 M. Allyson Macdonald Contradictions in educational research: NERA, March 2004 a case study from teacher education in Iceland at two- or three-year intervals, each group bringing with it individuals with new priorities. Add to that the international experiences and graduate training on different sides of the Atlantic Ocean of many IUE staff and we have all the potential for a conflict in cultures. In accordance with Ratner (2000) we are looking for a construction of the emerging research culture that is coherent and comprehensive, which defines the essential nature of the cultural phenomena and which should enable kinds of phenomena and their interrelationship to be identified. In a discussion directed at cross-cultural psychologists Ratner proposed that a culture can be defined in terms of cultural-historical activity drawing on the work of Vygotsky and others.b Ratner suggests that we focus our attention on three facets of culture:  cultural phenomena, that can be viewed as socially constructed artifacts but Ratner reminds us that these are not necessarily democratically constructed and that small groups can have a powerful influence on the form that cultural phenomena take.  further, that there are five main kinds of cultural phenomena: - cultural activities, including the ways in which individuals interact with objects, people and oneself, - cultural values, schemas, meanings, concepts, - physical artifacts, which are collectively constructed, - psychological phenomena, including emotions, motivation, imagination, language and personality - agency through which phenomena are constructed and reconstructed and which is influenced by the phenomena listed above.  finally, that these five phenomena are “interdependent and interlocking as well as distinctive. None of them is reducible to others yet neither does any of them stand alone outside the others” (Ratner 2000).

I choose thus to use ideas arising from applications of sociocultural theory, which offers perhaps a more dynamic approach than organisational theory and invites the consideration of the meanings being constructed through activities.

Activity theory Activity theory, developed by adherents to the cultural-historical school, builds on the notion of activity that Leont’ev proposed and which has been extended in different ways (see for example, Engeström, Miettinen and Punamaki 1999, reviewed in Minnis and John-Steiner 2001). The theory provides a philosophical framework rather than a method, though some have developed methodologies for the application of the theory (such as Barab et al. 1999 or Jonassen and Rohrer-Murphy 1999). The assumption is that activity occurs in a socio-historical and socio-cultural context and the activity itself changes as a result of our interactions with the context and our consciousness with regards to those actions.

The theory has been used to good effect to analyse activity in different learning or educational contexts, for example by Edwards (2003) to consider the learning which occurs during practice teaching, by Jonassen and Rohrer-Murphy (1999) in the creation of a constructivist learning environment, by Kim, Chaudhury and Rao (2002) to evaluate an information management system, by Livingstone (2001) in a consideration of adult education in Canada and by Barab et al. (1999) to analyse and evaluate an astronomy course which incorporated a virtual reality. What might the activity of educational research be? What is its purpose? At what levels can we analyse the activity? We can look to Mortimore (2000) who has suggested that educational research has four tasks: to conceptualize, observe and record events and processes to do with learning, to analyze such observations, to publish accounts of research, drawing on existing theory, and to further educational improvement. Key features of the activity theory model are shown in Figure 1 where we can construe that Mortimore’s “tasks” as being the object of different research activities.  Research activities are designed to lead to an outcome.  Subjects or agents carry out activities on objects or tasks.  Research takes place within a community that has distinct social and cultural features.  Research activities take place according to a set of rules.  There is a division of labour within the research community, where individuals have different roles.  Instruments/tools are used to mediate research activities.

Figure 1 The components of the model used in activity theory

Mediating tools

CONTEXT OUTCOME

Subject Object or task

Rules Community Roles

An activity system has a purpose which leads to an outcome, and is based in a context. Depending on the case it is possible to emphasise different parts of the

7 M. Allyson Macdonald Contradictions in educational research: NERA, March 2004 a case study from teacher education in Iceland system, such as the subject-mediating tool-object triad, where the focus might be on the tools themselves (choice of research method) and their mediating function, or the subject-community-object triad, where the influence of the community might be the focal point. In the case of research culture, it has proved valuable to consider the ways in which the tools-rules-roles triad mediate the research activity (Macdonald 2003). It is also necessary to remember that activities are made up of actions, which in turn are made up of operations. There can also be several layers of activity from the actual act of carrying out research, such as planning, taking, transcribing and analysing an interview, to the management of research at a national level, for example by policy-making or budget-making. None of the components should ever be considered in isolation nor deemed stable in time or place; an activity system is always dynamic. Part of the power of the theory lies in the consideration of the way that the subject changes the task, and the way that other parts of the system influence the nature of the change. Perhaps even more important though is to consider the primary contradictions, found within individual components of the system, and the secondary contradictions which arise between different components (Engeström 1993, quoted by Barab et al..:7). Educational research activity is often a hybrid of several research traditions. It will also be useful therefore to consider some of the sociocultural perspectives proposed by Lattuca (2002) in her analysis of academic work and learning interdisciplinarity. In this regard she has found it useful to consider person and context, mediated actions and mediational means, and apprenticeship and legitimate peripheral participation, drawing for example on the work of Wertsch (1991) and Lave (1997, quoted in Lattuca). Finally Lim (2002) has pointed out that activity theory focuses on the activities mediated in the immediate environment and that it is useful and necessary to place these activities in a broader context, which can operate at several levels. Thus the list of questions over the last year or so about the IUE research culture have included:  What cultural values and meanings are attached to this research?  What psychological phenomena, including emotions, motivation, imagination, language and personality, characterize the work of researchers at the IUE?  Through what agency are phenomena constructed and reconstructed?  What contribution has context made to the evolution of the culture?  What notions of apprenticeship and participation in learning communities are emerging? In this paper I am looking more particularly at the main issues emerging as the research culture develops and the contradictions within and between the components of the activity system. It is in a consideration of the contradictions that the dynamics of the system emerge and points of conflict become opportunities for transformation.

SOURCES AND PERSPECTIVES

The writer of this paper is the director of the Research Institute at the IUE and has been in that position since 1999. It could be said that I have been a participant observer in activities concerning research and the IUE since 1997.c Much of my academic experience is in the area of evaluation and I have tried to keep an academic eye on events while taking part in them so that the events have become part of a “lived experience” and can be used to provide both a personal and a professional perspective of the changes in teacher education and university research in Iceland. I am of course indebted to all my colleagues for the wide range of discussions we have undertaken over the last few years.d Published documentary sources for this study include laws concerning research in Iceland, reports on the status of research published by the Research Council, reports on trends in research in the Nordic countries and Europe and laws on universities in Iceland. A wide range of unpublished administrative documents are available to me, including minutes of meetings, committee reports, reports from staff about their research activities and numerical data from the assessment of staff, plus all the short notes I have kept in notebooks about meetings which I attend. Also available are a range of documents from the IUE including annual reports and statements of vision and strategy. Most of these documents have reached my desk because of the activities listed in the endnote e or I have taken part in their construction. The range of activities itself is an indication of the evolution of the research culture in Iceland, with increased assessment of institutions and individuals and changes in research policy-making setting their mark on research activity.

THE ACTIVITY SYSTEM

Analysis of an activity system Jonassen and Rohrer-Murphy (1999) have formalised the analysis of an activity system into six steps which have been adapted for the sake of the present research in the following way: 1. a consideration of the purpose of the research activity and the motives with which the research is carried out. 2. an analysis of the subjects, the community and the object of the research activity. 3. a description of the activity of research i.e. the activity as a whole, the actions which make up the activity and the operations which lead to an action. 4. a consideration of the mediators of the activity: the tools, the rules and the division of labour. 5. the internal context with regard to the subjects and the external context as regards the community.

6. the dynamics of the system, the interrelationships, the degree of formality and the changes with time. Steps 1-3 were considered in detail in a working paper (in English) prepared in the summer of 2003 and available from the author. Step 4 was the subject of a paper (in Icelandic) in November 2003 at the first conference of the Icelandic Association for Educational Research that will be published shortly in the conference proceedings. This paper considered the primary contradictions which emerged in the considerations of the tools, rules and roles within the system. It is in steps 5 and 6 that key features of the evolving research culture emerge. Here we can begin to explore the secondary contradictions within the system and look for areas that need attention or where new developments may take place, as suggested by Engeström (1993, quoted by Barab et al..:7).

Necessary conditions for using activity theory Jonassen and Rohrer-Murphy (1999: 68-69) have suggested that the following conditions should be satisfied when activity theory is used as an analytical tool.  The activity system should have been in existence long enough in order to understand activities which occur within the system and changes in the activities.  Activities within the system are comparable to activities in other systems.  It is necessary to understand patterns and trends within the system before individual aspects are considered.  A variety of data and opinions exist and the researcher should be willing to understand the system from different viewpoints. It is my opinion that these conditions have been met in this analysis.

Summary of the IUE activity system The outcomes for research and the value attached to them have not changed much over since the merger in 1998. We find all types of scholarly activity within the IUE if we follow the categories introduced Boyer (1990). There are those who have an interest in discovery, in research for its own sake, and find value in the contribution they can make to knowledge in their areas of specialization; those who place high value on integration and application and who achieve this by working within schools, in the workplace and other social settings and who still feel constrained by the need to document their work; and those who prioritize their teaching showing little interest in research activity. There may have been some movement between the groups as features of the new culture have emerged, with its pressures of accountability and the chance of an increased income. The distribution of research points at the IUE is skewed towards reports and talks rather than peer-reviewed work. The clearest set of rules to emerge during this time is the assessment scheme. It is apparent though that there is a certain conflict of interest here for many, who are both skilled at working in schools and find it intensely rewarding. A few have chosen

10 M. Allyson Macdonald Contradictions in educational research: NERA, March 2004 a case study from teacher education in Iceland to continue doing this, in some cases receiving financial incentives directly. Others are taking steps towards a more research-oriented career, at least in part because of the expectations implicit in the scheme. The nature of the tools and artifacts used to mediate research in a formal way has not changed much, though there are new opportunities such as an electronic journal and increasing use of home-pages, as well as increasing demand for publication in printed peer-reviewed journals. Some new large research groups provide ways of mediating research. More informal means are available, through personal advice and discussion forums, and are being used. The weakest link is probably still discussion and feedback during implementation. The principal of the IUE, through his management style, has introduced a means of mediating activities through staff days once a semester. Two days in particular have given staff the chance to reflect on evaluation of their distance teaching and on the strengthening of research, the latter providing staff and the RI with a major opportunity to reflect on where research was and where it was going. Several communities of practice are emerging in the form of clusters being formed around large research projects or research themes of interest to senior professors or large groups. There are as yet several aspects of these clusters that will require further meaning making, for example the ethics of co-authorship and relationships between staff and students. Some members of staff have felt slighted because of the attention being paid to other members, but some of the territoriality or even jealousy exhibited shortly after the merger seems to have waned, though it would still be fair to say that staff of the three smaller institutions involved in the merger had to do more adapting than those of the University College of Education Concealed in this summary are a myriad of contradictions or potential points of conflict:  Are research and/or teaching considered as activities which build on the transmission of knowledge or an interaction and the co-construction of meaning?  To what extent has the IUE moved from a culture of practice to one of research?  Is there uniformity or diversity in the learning experiences leading to research?  To what extent does the culture developing in courses offered in undergraduate and graduate studies reflect research methods and an appreciation of research?  What effect does the move towards quality management in university and civil service environments affect the research culture?  How does an increased emphasis on competition for research resources manifest itself in the research culture? Understanding and addressing these questions will lead to further developments in the research culture. Some of these contradictions are discussed briefly here.

SOME CONTRADICTIONS

The context for learning and research Today we find ourselves in a new building, the learning centre, opened in 2002 which in its own way tells us something of the type of education which was envisaged for IUE in the mid 1990s (Sigurjon Mýrdal et al., 1995). Here we find the library led by staff who have been here for over 30 years and who have supported and led the library and learning centre through several transitions, including a merger of several colleges in 1998. Occupying one of the corners is the teaching resource centre, which has finally found a congenial home after several years of itinerant activity. The computer support services are here, undreamt of 50 years ago. The materials centre for students is active and always busy. The technological support for academic staff is here. There is an emphasis on e-learning and e-research, and on on-campus and off- campus/distance learning. The lecture theatres house lectures held for large groups of students and conference guests. Undergraduate and graduate students attend classes here by day, seek assistance from the materials centre and study here in the evenings. The oral defence of master’s projects takes place in the calm security of a meeting room off the library. Both students and staff are older and have more diverse backgrounds.

The mediation of knowledge – what counts as learning and research We could ask: what view of knowledge underlies the range of activities which take place within this learning centre? Brown and McCartney (1998) have suggested that it is useful to consider the relationship between teaching and research by placing learning in the foreground and in particular, the extent to which learning can be considered deep or surface learning. It is their view that an emphasis on deep learning will be found where there is a willingness to encourage students to understand and appreciate research knowledge. In research conducted in Britain, Breen and Lindsay (1999) found in a study on motivation that university students who were intrinsically motivated, enjoyed their courses and found them satisfying knew about research conducted by their teachers, had a positive view of research and wanted to participate in it. Students who had entered university because of peer or family pressure were negative towards research. Students who only wanted good grades or had come to university for its social life and to obtain a qualification had little interest in research. It would be interesting to research this further with students in teacher education. What are their views of knowledge or research and what influence do they have on their teachers who must also conduct research.

Research status or monthly income as motivating contextual factors A bonus system had been in place in the University College of Education before the merger for exceptional research or administration. In the merged university the bonus

12 M. Allyson Macdonald Contradictions in educational research: NERA, March 2004 a case study from teacher education in Iceland is limited to research only and about 25% of staff can expect to receive a bonus but unlike earlier years the submission rate of reports from staff is now over 90% since salaries now depend on the total number of points. In addition staff can receive a monthly addition to their research-related salary in amounts of 5%, 10%, 15% or 20% more, according to their mean level of productivity the preceding three calendar years. This proviso is included so that the benefits of significant productivity can be felt over a longer period, and recent research receives a higher weighting than earlier research. More immediate financial returns are however possible through taking on extra teaching and some academics choose to do this at the expense of their research activities.

Objects and outcomes – what counts as research The new assessment scheme has meant that increasingly academics are using a variety the opportunities to disseminate their activities, either through talks or articles. The assessment scheme is though also being seen by some as an incentive to publish reports on work being done in schools and development projects. The group of staff that sees service as a reason for scholarly activity is used to working face-to-face, where activities are mediated through personal contacts and development activities with teachers, and some in the group are finding it difficult to begin recording this work so that it can be made more accessible to others, as well as providing, and often provoking, an opportunity to reflect on the experience We should also note that despite the financial incentives of the assessment scheme, the traditions inherent in the different organizations that have come to make up the IUE have a momentum of their own. The assessment scheme has not yet proved a strong enough rule (nor tool) to change teachers´ views entirely. This may be related in part to the fact that assistant and associate professors are paid according to their total number of points. It matters though to all kinds of teacher education and to those working with the disabled that there are strong associations with the workplace. Faculty are not willing to give up connections that are fruitful in order to engage in activities that are less meaningful for their work with students and for their own satisfaction or inspiration. Staff may not get a research point for giving a talk in a local school, but most do it anyway, because they stay in touch with schools. If they do it often enough the evaluation committee will give them a point for service!

Agency and collegiality in the community As is to be expected one finds the full-range of personalities within the IUE staff. They carry out their duties in a multitude of ways, some more innovative and challenging than others, others adopting more traditional approaches. Some take part in committee work on research policy, publishing of journals or the evaluation of grant applications. Some have been active in the setting up of research groups.

Some prefer routines and procedures; others show flexibility in their approach, perhaps even verging on the laissez faire. With time individual traits and strengths become more well known, with the inevitable type-casting of those who work well in groups or are deemed to be good leaders, and those who, for some reason or another, are not welcomed into group situations or seldom given special assignments. For some this has been interpreted as exclusion or bullying, but on the whole the IUE is considered to be a “good” workplace, with a largely sympathetic administration, easy access to administrators and a comfortable collegiality in most areas. Some senior academic staff have been critical of the support given to less experienced researchers perhaps at the expense of those more experienced. Their criticism has served as a timely reminder that there are a wide range of abilities within the IUE and that perhaps some are receiving more attention than others. Collegiality is a much-considered topic in modern day universities and while much is made of cooperative projects and research times, ordinary old-fashioned personality conflicts sometimes cause even the best of intentions to go awry. This comes at a time when bureaucratisation of management processes is considered to be excessive by many researchers. Here it would be well to remember Ratner’s point that although cultural phenomena are socially constructed, they are not necessarily democratically constructed and that small groups can have a powerful influence on the form that cultural phenomena take. Power can be used in many ways, and under the new laws for university governance, university principals have considerably more power than ten or fifteen years ago. The encouragement of a collaborative culture can be difficult when unilateral decisions must sometimes be made. The present principal seeks consensus but does not shirk when a final decision is needed. He relies on his senior management board, but also seeks advice elsewhere. Face-to-face interviews have now been introduced for the hiring of academic staff. Until recently final decisions were made on the basis of a recommendation from the selections and appointments committee. Earlier the level of education of applicants has been often been an over-riding factor; now questions of collegiality are brought into the reckoning. Questions are being asked: When should cultural phenomena be reconstructed, and why? When should new deans and directors be appointed, and by whom? How should course leaders be selected? Research resources are scarce. On what terms should these be competed for? Equal shares or winner takes all? Who should serve on committees that have the task of evaluating their peers and allocating assignments or funds? While these issues may be acute when teaching assignments are doled out, they are never more acute than in the decisions concerning research.

The influence of external context: national policy and competition for resources Research policy in Iceland underwent a significant change in early 2003 when a national science and technology policy-making council was formed, chaired by the

14 M. Allyson Macdonald Contradictions in educational research: NERA, March 2004 a case study from teacher education in Iceland prime minister. In all there are 16-18 council members including four cabinet ministers, and representatives appointed by the ministers, the universities and private industry. The council is split into a science and a technology committee, which meet without cabinet ministers, both separately and together. These two committees are to present policy ideas to the whole council in the autumn. In the nine-member science committee there is, by chance and not design, one person from the humanities, one from the social sciences, and seven from the natural, life or health sciences and/or have technology related backgrounds. In present council and committee discussions, education is often considered to be nothing more than “good” teaching and a means of producing future scientists, preferably for the natural and health sciences. The council’s predecessor however initiated the evaluation of educational research. The period since the mid-1990s can be characterized by new laws regarding universities in Iceland, and since the merger in1998 by new and revised regulations concerning the management of the IUE. None of this happens overnight and any number of individuals or committees has had a part in these deliberations. It is not my intention here to trace such deliberations, which in and of themselves could constitute a separate study, expect to say that the new approaches to management of universities is based on decentralization or devolution of power coupled with stringent quality and budgetary control. At the same time that universities are free to change and develop their courses and degrees, they are bound by contracts to limit the number of students to those for which government is willing to pay. Traditional relationships between funds for research and teaching are to be separated. One of the main thrusts of the new policy for strengthening research in science and technology in Iceland is to split the funds which have traditionally gone to the universities into two: one block allocation which will guarantee basic running costs such that those competing for grants have a base from which to work and a variable allocation which could depend on research performance of universities in three areas – as measured by their success in receiving research grants, by their scientific publications and by the number of research students graduating from the university. Various combinations of these approaches have been tried in countries such as Britain and Australia (Harman 2000). How will this evolve here in Iceland? To what extent will marginalised research areas find ways of securing resources in the new competitive environment? Will it be a case of the survival of the fittest?

EMERGING ISSUES F

Contextual issues To understand the research culture evolving within the IUE we need to consider not only what is happening to individual researchers and their interactions but also the social, cultural and historical contexts of these interactions. Four unique social institutions were merged into one in 1998, in three of which staff had not been required to carry out research and one of which had operated as a university with a research responsibility since 1971. The professional activity of

15 M. Allyson Macdonald Contradictions in educational research: NERA, March 2004 a case study from teacher education in Iceland staff as assessed by the new assessment scheme in 2001 showed that although there had not been a research responsibility in three of the institutions there was considerable development work in progress, with several staff in master’s or doctoral programs at the time of the merger in the pre-school organization, and the one member of staff with a doctorate in the sports science college. All four of the colleges came into the IUE with a long history and set of traditions. It seems clear though that the culture that existed in the University College of Education prior to 1998 has been the dominant culture in the Iceland University of Education. In part this can be attributed to the naming process that is not apparent to readers of this article, where only English names have been used. During the preparation of the merger there was considerable discussion about what the new university should be called. In the end the name by which the University College had been known in Icelandic was assigned to the entire new institution. This has been particularly difficult perhaps for the development therapists who work in and train students for a variety of social settings, few characterized by teaching, which is in the title of the literal translation of the name, Kennaraháskóli Íslands, where kennari means teacher and háskóli means university. Despite the complications of the choice of name, the University College also had a pre-eminent position in 1998 by virtue of its size and history of research. Several features were in place, including the existence of the Research Institute, a research fund, a research-oriented library, sabbatical leave, a peer-reviewed journal, a series of public lectures and a national conference, and a graduate program leading to a Master’s degree. The culture in place today has all these attributes, many of which are strained to the limit, in part because of the merger but also because of rapid changes in the number of students and hence the number of staff, the result of government financing policies agreed to in a contract signed on 31st December 1999. To some extent the institutional origins of staff still form the dominant context for mediation of ideas but in a recent series of discussions with groups of staff organized by the principal using SWOT analysisg it was clear that staff consider the diversity of experience within the IUE to be a considerable strength of the context in which they are working and offers opportunities that were not necessarily available a few years ago. Multidisciplinary opportunities may be novel at mainstream and traditional universities but institutions of teacher education have enjoyed though perhaps not exploited this attribute for many years. What can the evolution of the research culture learn from work done elsewhere? What does the culture within teacher education have to offer others? Lacutta (2002) has pointed out the importance of interpersonal relationships on learning. Many such relationships existed pre-merger and continue to exist, and some new are starting to emerge. An opportunity lies in new teaching arrangements allowing staff to get to know one another and providing nuclei for research clusters. Not all relationships will endure, perhaps because of personality conflicts, but if the existing opportunities are used as a means of transformative

16 M. Allyson Macdonald Contradictions in educational research: NERA, March 2004 a case study from teacher education in Iceland learning, the research culture will be that much richer. We agree with Lacutta (2002) that we should consider the evolution of the culture as “work in progress”. What have also been important though are changes in society. The social and educational context is undergoing change itself and is more varied than before with a wider range of interests and experiences among the staff. In 1996 the administration of primary and lower secondary schools was transferred from the central government to local authorities, leading to new types of interaction for those concerned with schooling and education, and from which have arisen a number of evaluation studies. In 1999 a new national curriculum was introduced for pre-schools (until age 6), primary and lower secondary (grades 1-10) and upper secondary schools, leading to revisions of courses being offered to students, and creating new needs for research, innovation and development. Finally opportunities for learning have multiplied rapidly in recent years, with more tertiary education available, more leisure options available, new forms of distance learning being introduced and adult educations centres being established around the country. These changes have all created pressures on higher education, and the need for research to understand learning at all levels, including a much closer look at learning in the workplace. The interests of researchers are starting to reflect these changes and appointments are being made to new positions in 2003 covering new areas of knowledge, including communication and interaction, adult learning, and the relationship of ICT and media studies. There is a greater need to know about and understand a wide variety of social constructs. Information can be transmitted through the Internet but what does it mean? Decentralization of educational administration, both at university and pre-university level, may be creating a need for knowledge of all matters educational.

Strategic issues The strategy for research at the IUE identified three issues that must be addressed in the near future (Vísindaráð 2004). Research at the IUE is inextricably linked to various aspects of university life. Issues affecting staff are key to the IUE fulfilling its legal obligations as the centre for educational research in Iceland. These include the delegation of work and administrative responsibilities, salary agreements, the right to a sabbatical, project grants, reward systems and support services, all of which depend on the distribution of financial resources. Tools used by the IUE administration in order to motivate and reward staff for carrying out research are the application of the new assessment system and consequent grants to the more productive researchers. How can the IUE ensure the well being of researchers, their interest in research and their capability, both fiscal and psychological, to carry out research? Researchers at the IUE enjoy academic freedom despite its obligations to carry out and educate students to carry our research in educational areas such as teaching, training, development and caring or nurturing. Educational research itself is not

17 M. Allyson Macdonald Contradictions in educational research: NERA, March 2004 a case study from teacher education in Iceland necessarily a priority for the academy or for government. There is at the same time also a need to develop stronger links with the professional areas served by the IUE, and to increase the student understanding of and an appreciation for the value of educational research. How can the value of educational research be raised both within and outside the IUE while meeting the expectations of a wide range of potential and existing stakeholders? Changes in education and society have led to increasing numbers of students wishing to enjoy a university education and to more institutions offering such an opportunity. These changes have opened a debate on the role of research in universities in Iceland and the means to finance research. Concomitantly and unsurprisingly the new national policy for research relies on the adage that competition for research resources leads to quality of product. A competitive process in considered as non-problematic. The scarcity (apparent or otherwise) of resources will provide the backdrop to developments in university funding. How can the IUE function in this competitive research environment, fulfil its mandate to carry out educational research and maintain a collegial atmosphere?

CONCLUSIONS

In conclusion what are the defining attributes of the culture emerging at the IUE and what will be important in the near future? I would pick out the following two points. The way in which the IUE is being managed is providing opportunities for the social construction of new ideas. Several formal and informal means exist for interaction between different players, in different roles, and it is my belief that we are unwittingly becoming a community of learners, sharing and challenging one another’s ideas but most often with respect and often with humour. Ratner (1999) reminded us that not all social constructs are formed democratically. There are at least two sides to this in the IUE, on the one hand benevolent dictatorship, on the other a culture built on consensus. The assessment scheme is having a significant, though sometimes ambiguous role on the way that researchers view their work. It is worthwhile noting that the scheme could be seen as encouraging collaboration and cooperative practices, and that if government plans to centralize assessment of all university staff this will benefit the institution financially too. The merger of 1998 has widened the horizon for all of those working at the IUE. New ideas are shared, new challenges met, shared understandings are forming the basis of new work. There is an air of self-confidence and optimism among the staff, so clearly shown at meetings in the spring, and there is a belief that not only do they have the means of making a contribution to society but also there exists a moral obligation to do so. The culture does not exist for its own sake. Where will it take us next?

But I end on a cautionary note. The competition for research funds is fiercer than ever, especially as new graduates with research-based degrees enter the fray. What sort of relationships can be established between staff and students once they become peers and colleagues? When will legitimate peripheral participation become full participation? What emotions will come into play to achieve this? New approaches to funding can have both expected and unexpected effects. Elements of suspicion of academic integrity have arisen in other countries leading a breakdown of collegiality and conflicts among academics, and academics are dividing papers into parts to increase the number of publications. In Britain it was felt that the RAE did not encourage or recognise multi-disciplinary work (Harman 2000). The approach used in the RAE has not favoured newer universities that have often put considerable energy into building up research capacity. There are suggestions that the assessment approaches have been to the detriment of teaching. There have been effects on institutional and researcher behaviour, and for some this is a cause for concern. Harman says “For example, it is widely claimed in both countries that academics are being encouraged to publish in academic journals rather than in practitioner publications, thus possibly lessening their impact on practice and professional work” He goes on to say “Both mechanisms sit uncomfortably with many institutions where basic research and publication in refereed journals is not central to their institutional mission...... and ... there is a belief that the assessment methods cater less well for applied research and particular kinds of collaborative work with industry” (p. 122, 123). It would seem that the value of research to the practice of education would be particularly vulnerable unless the IUE can develop within its culture ways of rewarding a wide spectrum of knowledge and discovery, integration and application in its scholarly activities (Boyer, 1990).

REFERENCES

Acker, S. (2000) Traditions and transitions in teacher education: the development of a research project. Historical studies in education 12 (1/2): 143-154.

Barab, Sasha A., Michael Barnett, Lisa Yamagat-Lynch, Kurt Squire og Thomas Keating (1999). Using activity theory to understand the contradictions characterizing a technology-rich introductory astronomy course. A paper presented at the 1999 Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association.

Boyer, E.L. (1990). Scholarship reconsidered. Priorities of the professoriate. The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.

Breen, Rosanna og Roger Lindsay (1998). Academic research and student motivation. Studies in Higher Education, 24, 1, 75-93.

Brown, Reva Berman og Sean McCartney (1998). The link between research and teaching: its purpose and implications. Innovations in Education and Training International, 35, 2, 117-129.

Harman, Grant (2000). Allocating research infrastructure grants in post-binary higher education systems: British and Australian approaches. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 22(2), p.111-126.

Jóhannsdóttir, Gýða (2002). The Conceptions on the Upgrading of the Education of the Icelandic Elementary School Teachers to University Level in 1971. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. The Danish University of Education.

Jonassen, David H. og Lucia Rohrer-Murphy (1999). Activity theory as a framework for designing constructivist learning environments. Educational Technology, Research and Development, 47, 1, 61-79.

Kim, Yong Jin, Abhijit Chaudhury og H. Raghav Rao (2002). A knowledge management perspective to evaluation of enterprise information portals. Knowledge and Process Management, 9, 2, 57-71.

Lattuca, Lisa R. (2002). Learning interdisciplinarity: Sociocultural perspectives on academic work. The Journal of Higher Education, 73(6), 711-739.

Lim, Cher Ping (2002). A theoretical framework for the study of ICT in schools: a proposal. British Journal of Educational Technology, 33(4), 411-421.

Livingstone, David W. (2001). Worker control as the missing link: relations between paid/unpaid work and work-related learning. Journal of Workplace Learning, 13, 7/8, 308-317.

Macdonald, M. Allyson (2002). „Jafnan er hálfsögð saga, ef einn segir frá“: Um stöðu rannsókna við KHÍ og eflingu þeirra. Netla http://netla.khi.is/greinar/2002/011/index.htm

Macdonald, M. Allyson (2003). „Engin er rós án þyrna“: Hlutverk, reglur og verkfæri í þróun rannsókna. Talk presented at a conference held by the Icelandic Educational Research Association, November 2003.

Minnis, Michele and Vera P. John-Steiner (2001). Are we ready for a single, integrated theory? Essay review of Perspectives on Activity Theory. Edited by Yrjö Engeström, Reijo Miettinen and Raija-Leena Punamäki. Human Development, 44, 296-310.

Mortimore, Peter (2000). Does educational research matter? British Education Research Journal, 26 (1), 5-24.

Sigurjón Mýrdal, Karl Jeppesen, Kolbrún Sigurðardóttir, Kristín Indriðadóttir and Torfi Hjartarson (1995). Ein samvirk kennslumiðstöð. Lokaskýrsla starfshóps um húsrýmisþörf vegna bókasafns, gagnasmiðju, kennslumiðstöðvar og fjarkennslu í KHÍ (& UHÍ). Kennaraháskóli Íslands, Júní 1995

Pratt, Michael, Dimitri Margaritis og David Coy (1999). Developing a research culture in a university faculty. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 21, 1, 43-55.

Ragnarsson, Guðmundur (2001). Oral presentation at a meeting of administrative staff of universities in Iceland.

Ratner, Carl (2000). Outline of a coherent, comprehensive concept of culture. Cross- Cultural Psychology Bulletin, 34(1 & 2), 5-11.

Ribbens, Barbara A. (1997). Organizational learning styles: Categorizing strategic dispositions from learning. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 5(1), 59-73.

Richardson, Virginia (Ed.) (2001). Handbook of Research on Teaching (4th ed.) Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.

Senge, Peter (1990). The Fifth Discipline. The Art and Practice of the Learning Organisation. New York: Currency Doubleday.

Strathern, Marilyn (2000). The tyranny of transparency. British Educational Research Journal, 26, 3, 309-321.

Wertsch, James V. (1991). Voices of the Mind. A Sociocultural Approach to Mediated Action. London: Harvester Wheatsheaf.

Vísindaráð (2004). Stefnumörkun um rannsóknir. Kennaraháskóli Íslands.

23 a This project was initiated by Sandra Acker and her colleagues in Canada, joined later by Gaby Weiner in Umeå who in turn invited Guðrún Kristinsdóttir in Iceland to join the group. Guðrún then invited myself and later G. Börkur Jónasson to take part in the Icelandic work. Sandra Acker and the author discussed some of the issues in this paper during Sandra’s visit to Iceland in September 2002. b It would seem particularly appropriate to use activity theory to look at the culture evolving around research in education since sociocultural theories are currently and usefully being extended and applied to a variety of learning situations. c Prior to 1998 I lived and worked as an educational adviser (1983-1991, 1996-1998) in a rural district in north Iceland and had worked for the Icelandic International Development Agency in Malawi from 1992-96 as a project officer. Earlier I had carried out research and evaluation in science education, worked as a teacher adviser in various settings, and taught university physics in South Africa. d I am indebted to the members of the management committees of the Research Institute since 1999 for all the valuable discussions on the nature, purpose and management of research within the IUE. In particular the work carried out during the preparation of strategy documents in 2000 and late 2003 have contributed to some of the ideas presented in this paper. These colleagues include the chairmen Sigurður Konráðsson and Erlingur Jóhansson, as well as committee members Baldur Hafstað, Baldur Kristjánsson, Gretar Marinósson, Guðrún Kristinsdóttir, Guðrún Stefánsdóttir, Hanna Ragnarsdóttir, Hrefna Sigurjónsdóttir, Jóhanna Einarsdóttir, Julíus Björnsson, Margrét Pála Ólafsdóttir, Ólafur H. Jóhansson, Ragnhildur Bjarnadóttir, Sif Einarsdóttir, Þorsteinn Hjartarson and Þórunn Blöndal. I am also in debt to my colleagues on the management committee of the IUE for vigorous discussions over the last few years. These include the principal Ólafur Proppé, and other managers, including Börkur Hansen, Erlingur Jóhannsson, Guðmundur Ragnarsson, Ingvar Sigurgeirsson, Kristín Indriðadóttir and Svanhildur Kaaber. The working group which prepared the programme for the in-house conference Strengthening research held on 18th March 2002 and the presenters also played their part in the evolution of ideas discussed here, see http://rannsokn.khi.is/starfsdagur18mars/. I have benefitted from interactions with those responsible for the development of the Department of Graduate Studies over the last few years, not least Amalia Björnsdóttir during her term of service as coordinator of the student research programs. I have had the good fortune to direct a large research project over the last two to three years and have been able to use project developments to better understand the research activity system within which we operate. Here I must mention particularly my colleague and project coordinator Þuríður Jóhannsdóttir who always finds ways to challenge my ideas. Last but not least I am grateful for the endless exchange of ideas which I have enjoyed with my colleagues in the Research Institute or those working on its behalf, including the recent editors of the two journals published by the Institute. e My role in some of these activities has been as follows: Evaluation  Member of the committee that supervised a ministry-based evaluation of teacher education in 1997, nominated by the then University College of Education and the University of Akureyri. Part of the assessment addressed research issues.  Chairperson of the working committee supervising an evaluation of educational research in Iceland, which began its work in the summer of 2003. Assessment  Member of the selection and appointments committee after the merger at the IUE in 1998 that gave me an insight into the expectations of the IUE with regard to new faculty.  Member of an advisory group to the central salaries committee (1998-99) that implemented the new assessment scheme for professors in Iceland in which I was privileged to hear the arguments for and against a system based on research productivity, and at the same time gained an overview of the nature and extent of research carried out in academia. I also took part in the actual assessments.  Chairperson of the committee that carried out the baseline assessment of all faculty at the IUE in 2001, which gave me an opportunity to become familiar with the background and professional activities of academic staff.

Supervision and research  Since 1999 supervisor or co-supervisor of 15 to 20 graduate research projects which has given me the chance to understand the very wide range of issues which both interest and vex practitioners in Iceland, and issues facing the growth and culture of the Department of Graduate Studies.  Since 2002 the director of a research project on the use of ICT with 17 participants originally and several more now. In the project we have been addressing a variety of research issues, including design of research and guidelines for co-authorship. Management and policy-making at the IUE  Part-time (spring 1999) and later full-time (since autumn 1999) director of the IUE Research Institute (RI). In this role I am part of the IUE senior management team, give advice on research projects and developments, participate in a wide range of meetings and am privy to the research ideas of many of the academic staff.  In mid 2000 the preparation of strategy document of research with the management committee of the Research Institute at the IUE (Rannsóknarstofnun 2000)  In late 2003 the preparation of a strategy document with the research board at the IUE (Vísindaráð 2004). National research policy  Member of the Research Council of Iceland 2000-2003. This role secured the IUE a voice on educational research as well as ears and eyes with regard to general developments in research in Iceland.  Member of the Scientific and Technological Council of Iceland from April 2003 and of the Scientific sub- committee. f During the last year or so I have been involved in three separate arenas of analysis and discussion on which I find I have drawn particularly in preparing this paper:  Working cooperation with the Research Board at the IUE and the preparation of a policy document for the next three years.  Preparation for an evaluation of educational research, cooperation with the researcher hired for the task and chairing the committee steering the evaluation.  Participation as a representative from universities in Iceland in the now defunct Research Council of Iceland and its successor, the Science and Technology Council.  g SWOT - Strengths and Weaknesses within an organisation, Opportunities and Threats outside the organization.