1. "Supervisors’ views of the
Undergraduate Research Opportunities Programme: Why bother?“
Dr Paul M Seldon1 & Dr Martyn Kingsbury
Postgraduate Development Unit 1, Education Development Unit
Background The Undergraduate Research Opportunities Programme
(UROP) at Imperial College offers around 500 placements to Imperial
students and those from elsewhere in the UK and Europe. UROP students
complete research placements with established research groups, typically
for 6-12 weeks over the summer vacation.
While there is pressure on universities to demonstrate a functional
teaching and research nexus (1), in a research intensive STEM focussed
institution, where undergraduate study is well connected to, and informed
by research, this is not problematic. Why then do students and staff put
time and effort into summer research projects that garner no academic
credit?
Research has shown Students’ abilities to investigate and critically
evaluate knowledge are developed by research and inquiry practices (2)
and can lead to personal and professional gains (3), however supervisor
motivations for involvement in UROP are less well characterised.
Methods In order to examine perceived motivations we interviewed four
experienced UROP supervisors from different departments using semistructured interviews. Interviews were recorded, transcribed verbatim
and stored in an anonymised form. The transcripts were then
thematically analysed focussing on the motivating factors.
Selected Quotes
When asked about UROP outcomes Hannah talks about using data
obtained to apply for further funding than might then lead to publication.
"Possibly because it’s more high risk… if something, usually to get seed
funds then for grant applications, so usually they’re not that developed
and… the first UROP student - it was possibly three years ago? - now we
do the publication." (Hannah)
Victoria highlights student involvement in generation of teaching materials
and assisting in project data analysis. "So that... particular one (UROP
Project) was a curriculum development one and there’s a link to it on my
website. It says (details removed), on the teaching page on my website...
Last summer I had students who wrote a way to simplify analysis of
images, so I had a postdoc who had thousands of images to analyse. This
undergraduate student wrote some code to make it more automatic."
(Victoria)
In another part of the interview Hannah talks about the nature of research
and the value of perseverance in research. "The key criteria is how
stubborn they are... Do they give up or continue? …Especially because
they don’t get the easy projects, like for a masters student there it’s well
defined. Here it’s really, we try entirely new things, so obviously at the
beginning... it’s very boring because it doesn’t work, so they have to learn
to simply continue, and maybe it indeed doesn’t work but, you know, we
often have to have the proof, so that’s for me the quality." (Hannah)
For Jill enabling the students to develop their research to the point of
presentation enables both learning and a completion to the project.
"What I usually try and do with them is always allow them to present the
work as a poster... So they almost always... present their research at either
at national or international meeting and I’m always surprised how much
they get out of doing that...and I think it really makes a difference to them
because they can come in, they can do whatever they’re doing but then
they get a completion…to the placement... and they always say that they
had no idea how much it takes to, to get to that stage." (Jill)
While Marcus discusses outputs such as the generation of code and
methodology reports he also alludes to research progression in the face of
limited time. "…the…most important output was this report, outlining the
methodologies, and also there was some code that she wrote as well,
which I’ve got sort of stored away, for later use... Certainly it’s an area that
I want to, get back into at some point. For me it’s just a question of time
for these things. It’s getting the time to do it." (Marcus)
Transcript analysis revealed a range of motivations that were categorised
into four main thematic areas with perceived or desired benefit for (i) the
student, (ii) the research group, (iii) the research and (iv) the supervisor.
Typically those whose motivations were student focussed mentioned that
the UROP students often showed great interest, motivation or enthusiasm
for research and wanted to reward and encourage this. Also there was a
recognition that UROP involvement potentially provided students with
strategic advantage and professional skills. Research group motivations
focused around development of the group and individuals within it.
Research motivations could be classed as developing current research
projects or undertaking more speculative investigations aimed at
establishing preliminary data. Finally the supervisors were motivated by
the desire to learn and teach within their disciplinary interest.
Perceived Motivations of Principal Investigators From Interviews (n=4)
Identified motivations were classified by dimension and theme.
Motivations relating to selected quotes are shown in the corresponding
colour.
Dimension Individual
Principal
Theme
Student
Love of teaching,
reward
development
Teaching
Group
(UROP student) Investigator
Developmental
Research
Proof of concept Supervision
praxis
development
Advancement
Career focus
Win-Win
Finishing Up
(Functional /
Fellows' skill
development
Strategic role)
Research
Project/subject
Inspiration and
Knowledge
interest,
illumination,
Motivated, keen
Risk and novelty Research
Learning
expansion
something new
Student Focus
External to UG
Teaching praxis study,
Specialist
Mentoring
opportunity
Research and
Bright individuals Giving back
roles
Teaching academic Research as
Teaching
and research skills teaching
research
dual role of PI
methodology
Practice
Understanding of Funding strategies, Quality
Adopted
Adaptation
nature of
Continuing
assessment,
practice,
research
provision
Development
Changing
into PhD
dynamic
projects
Conclusion: Motivations were multiple and tended to be interrelated such
that supervisors valued the programme because the perceived benefits far
outstripped the cost of participating. Outcomes varied with project but
represented authentic academic engagement.
References:
1. Committee on Higher Education (1963) Higher Education: The Robbins
Report London: Her Majesty's Stationary Office
2. Brew, A. (2006) Research and teaching: Beyond the divide. London:
Palgrave Macmillan.
3. Hunter, A-B., Laursen, SL. & Seymour, E. (2006) Becoming a scientist: The
role of undergraduate research in students' cognitive, personal and
professional development. Science Education 10(1): 36-74.