demystifying research in academic advising handout.pdfdemystifying research in academic advising...

Demystifying Research in Academic Advising

Presenters: Wendy Troxel Shannon Lynn Burton Sarah Champlin‐Scharff Incoming Director NACADA Board of Directors Incoming Research Committee Chair Center for Excellence & Research NACADA Research Committee Member Director of Administration in Academic Advising & Student Success Associate University Ombudsperson Department of the History of Science College of Education Research Integrity Coordinator Harvard University Kansas State University Michigan State University [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

Overview Advisors are in a unique and strategic position to view all aspects of education, including student transitions, course planning, career readiness, as well as important developmental stages of maturity. Observance of these complex processes informs the practice of advising continually, and with a little structure, could be studied systematically to add to the growing body of knowledge related to advising.

The goal of this webinar is to help advising practitioners gain confidence in conducting research that is integrated into the everyday work of advising. The session will cover three critical areas of scholarly inquiry: the identification of a focused study through articulation of purpose and research questions, the relationship between ethical standards for professional practice with those of institutional research boards (IRB) and research integrity, and the ways in which advisors and academic administrators can use existing and original scholarly inquiry to inform practice. Presenters Wendy Troxel (Incoming Director, Center for Excellence and Research in Academic Advising and Student Success), Shannon Lynn Burton (NACADA Board of Directors and Research Committee member), and Sarah Champlin‐Scharff (Incoming NACADA Research Committee Chair) discuss these three areas from the lens of the faculty, ethics officers, and advising practitioners. They will also discuss ways to identify and connect with colleagues (and students!) to form collaborative research teams.

Pre‐Webcast Activity Suggestions Read: Burton, S. (2015, December). Evolution of a scholar. Academic Advising Today, 38(4). Retrieved from http://www.nacada.ksu.edu/Resources/Academic‐Advising‐Today/View‐Articles/Evolution‐of‐a‐Scholar.aspx

NACADA Core Values http://www.nacada.ksu.edu/Resources/Clearinghouse/View‐Articles/Core‐values‐of‐academic‐advising.aspx

Title



References and Recommended Resources Champlin‐Scharff, S. (2010). Advising with understanding: Considering hermeneutic theory in academic advising. NACADA Journal, 30(1) 59‐65. Champlin‐Scharff, S. (2010). A field guide to epistemology in academic advising. In P. L. Hagen, T. L. Kuhn, & G. M. Padak (Eds.), Scholarly Inquiry in Academic Advising (pp. 29‐35). Manhattan, KS: National Academic Advising Association. Denzin, N. K. & Lincoln, Y. S. (2001). The American tradition in qualitative research. London: Sage. Kezar, A. (2000). Higher education research at the millennium: Still trees without fruit. Research in Higher Education, 23(4), 443‐65. Ferguson, K. (2012, June.) Embrace the remix. TEDGlobal. Available at https://www.ted.com/talks/kirby_ferguson_embrace_the_remix?language=en Smith, J., & Troxel, W. (2008, December 15). Infusing research into practice: Multiple pathways to conducting research in advising. NACADA Webinar Series #21. Available at http://www.nacada.ksu.edu/Events‐Programs/Events/Web‐Events/Digital‐Recordings/Recordings‐on‐YouTube.aspx NACADA Research Committee ‐ http://www.nacada.ksu.edu/About‐Us/NACADA‐Leadership/Administrative‐Division/Research‐Committee.aspx

1. Research Agenda ‐ http://www.nacada.ksu.edu/Resources/Research‐Related/ResearchAgenda.aspx 2. Research Facebook Page: NACADA Nerds ‐ https://www.facebook.com/groups/nacadaresearch/ 3. Research Grants and Awards ‐ http://www.nacada.ksu.edu/Resources/Research‐Related/ResearchGrant.aspx 4. Research Symposium and Intl Research Seminar ‐ http://www.nacada.ksu.edu/Events‐Programs/Events/Research‐

Symposium.aspx NACADA Clearinghouse ‐ http://www.nacada.ksu.edu/Resources/Clearinghouse.aspx NACADA READS ‐ http://www.nacada.ksu.edu/Events‐Programs/NACADA‐Reads.aspx CAS Standards ‐ http://www.nacada.ksu.edu/Resources/Clearinghouse/View‐Articles/CAS‐Advising‐Standards.aspx Presentation and publication outlets (audience and purpose) Your local, regional, and national professional organizations (including disciplinary and pedagogical networks)

Office of Research Integrity (ORI) https://ori.hhs.gov/ Responsible Conduct of Research Trainings (institutional) Research Ethics Educational Resources:

Indiana University, Poynter Center, http://poynter.indiana.edu/teaching‐research‐ethics/workshop‐details/ University of California, San Diego, http://ethics.ucsd.edu/ Michigan State University Research Integrity Guidelines, http://grad.msu.edu/publications/docs/integrityresearch.pdf

National Academy of Sciences, National Academic of Engineering & Institute of Medicine (2009). On Being A Scientist: A Guide to Responsible Conduct in Research, (3rd ed)

5/13/2016

1


The goal of this webinar is to help advising practitioners gain confidence in conducting research that is integrated into the everyday work of advising. The session will cover three critical areas of scholarly inquiry: the identification of a focused study through articulation of purpose and research questions, the

relationship between ethical standards for professional practice with those of institutional research boards (IRB) and research integrity, and the ways in which advisors and academic administrators can use existing and original scholarly

inquiry to inform practice.

NACADA: The Global Community for Academic AdvisingCopyright 2016 ~ All Rights Reserved



Presenters

Wendy Troxel, Incoming Director, Center for Excellence and Research in Academic Advising and Student Success, College of Education, Kansas State University

Shannon Lynn Burton, Associate University Ombudsperson and Research Integrity Coordinator, Michigan State University

Sarah Champlin‐Scharff, Director of Administration, Department of the History of Science, Harvard University

Let’s talk about….

5/13/2016

2

Art and Stats?

Patterns and Interrelationships

5/13/2016

3

“Disciplinary Orientation”

• “What does it really mean to KNOW something?”

• “How do you go about ‘knowing more’ and ‘assuming less’ about the effect that you’re having on ……??”

RelativityPatterns of behavior happen in context

RealismThe laws of Nature are predictable

Big words for $200, Alex….

• Ontology: the study of what “is," the nature of existence, constructing and deconstructing what is real, “how things really are” and “how things really work” (Denzinand Lincoln, 2001)

• Epistemology: the study of knowledge, understanding what can be known, the nature of that knowledge, and the limits of our capacity to know; what constitutes knowledge and how is it justified … (Champlin‐Scharff, 2010)

• Methodology: What approaches do we use to “know” that reality?

5/13/2016

4

Research is . . .

• . . . an analytic argument.

NACADA’s View of Research

• “Research is any scholarly inquiry that is systematic, intentional, and collaborative (integrative).”


• “Research is any scholarly inquiry that is systematic, intentional, and collaborative (integrative).”

• “Consuming and producing research is the collective responsibility of all members of the higher education advising community, including advisors, faculty, administrators, and students.”

5/13/2016

5


• Systematic: it’s planned

• Intentional: it’s on purpose

• Collaborative: it’s a team sport

TIME and EXPERTISE

http://www.nacada.ksu.edu/About‐Us/NACADA‐Leadership/Administrative‐Division/Research‐Committee.aspx

TIME and EXPERTISE

5/13/2016

6

Collaboration in Scholarly Inquiry

• Advising colleagues at home and abroad (no matter where “home” is)

– To help articulate complex issues relevant across the advising community

• Researchers who do this all the time

– To develop appropriate research designs and determine evidence‐gathering techniques or to help with the structure of philosophical and analytic writing

Center for Excellence and Research in Academic

Advising and Student Success

Shannon Lynn BurtonMichigan State University

Practitioner Scholar

http://www.nacada.ksu.edu/Resources/Academic‐Advising‐Today/View‐Articles/Evolution‐of‐a‐Scholar.aspx

5/13/2016

7

Practitioner‐Scholar


• grounded in theory and research

• informed by experiential knowledge

• motivated by personal values, political commitments, and ethical conduct

Practitioner‐Scholar• committed to the well‐being of clients and colleagues,

• to learning new ways of being effective,

• and to conceptualizing their work in relation to broader organizational, community, political, and cultural contexts

5/13/2016

8


• reflect on and assess the impact of their work

Walking a tightrope…

Pros– Explore own practice

– Relevant to your needs

– Rapport with participants

– Perspective may lend credibility/authenticity

– Empowering

5/13/2016

9

Cons– Objectivity compromised

– Risk to participants

– Honesty/integrity of work

– Institutional pressures

– Unintended consequences

What is Research Integrity?

• A commitment to intellectual honesty and personal responsibility for ones actions and to a range of practices that characterize responsible research conduct

What is Research Integrity?

• A commitment to intellectual honesty and personal responsibility for ones actions and to a range of practices that characterize responsible research conduct

5/13/2016

10

Research Integrity Professionalism

1. Intellectual honesty

2. Excellence in thinking and doing

3. Collegiality and openness

4. Autonomy and responsibility

5. Self‐regulation

Ethical Principles of Research Integrity

1. Honesty and Fairness in Proposing, Performing & Reporting

2. Accuracy in Representing Contributions

3. Proficiency & Fairness in Peer Review

4. Collegiality in Scientific Interactions & Communications

Ethical Principles of Research Integrity

5. Disclosing Conflicts of Interest

6. Protection of Human Subjects

7. Humane Care of Animals

8. Adherence to Mutual Responsibilities of Mentors & Trainees

5/13/2016

11

NACADA Core Values

CAS Standards (Ethics)

AAP personnel must

• employ ethical decision making in the performance of their duties

• inform users of programs and services of ethical obligations and limitations emanating from codes and laws or from licensure requirements

• recognize and avoid conflicts of interest that could adversely influence their judgment or objectivity and, when unavoidable, recuse themselves from the situation

• perform their duties within the scope of their position, training, expertise, and competence

• make referrals when issues presented exceed the scope of the position

Belmont Report

• Respect for Persons

• Beneficence

• Justice

5/13/2016

12

Research Integrity Spectrum

Research Integrity

Questionable Research Practices

Unacceptable Research Practices

Research Misconduct

Research Misconduct

• Fabrication

• Falsification

• Plagiarism

Why Misconduct?

• Sloppiness in literature review;

• Inadequate knowledge of literature;

• Lack of expertise in research methods;

• Pressure to produce data quickly;

• Time crunch

5/13/2016

13

Maintaining Integrity

• Responsible Conduct of Research Training

• Institutional Review Boards (IRB)

• Utilize Peer Review

• Know the Policies

Summary

“To make a deliberate falsification for personal gain is the last, worst depth to which either scholar or artist can descend

in work or life.”

‐ Dorothy L. Sayers

5/13/2016

14

Academic Advising Research

What is your remix?


All recordings of NACADA materials are copyrighted by the National Academic Advising Association. See http://www.nacada.ksu.edu/copyright.aspx for NACADA’s complete Copyright statement

Questions?

demystifying research in academic advising handout.pdfdemystifying research in academic advising...

Documents