In 1994 Victoria University instigated an innovative scheme to inculcate a research culture within the institution and to expose personnel to a range of skills and methodologies pertinent to their individual research interests. This paper briefly outlines this program and details the progress of one group under this scheme and how they coped with a range of unexpected twists which arose during their period of research.

Introduction

In 1992 Victoria University emerged as a new tertiary institution. This was the result of wide sweeping government directives for reorganisation and consolidation which the post-secondary sector underwent in the late 1980s and early 1990s.

As a new entity situated in the western suburbs of Melbourne, the university administration faced the daunting problem of fostering a research culture for staff already employed, as well as for those entering into this expanding educational sector. It was to this end that the Collaborative Research Group Scheme was devised.

Collaborative Research Group (CRG) Scheme

The Research Scheme was implemented in 1994 and was supported by a grant from the Commonwealth Staff Development Fund. The basic concept of the program involved the establishment of small groups of academic staff, either relatively or totally inexperienced in research, to work under the guidance of a mentor who could encourage discussion and exploration of alternative research methods. General membership was on a volunteer basis but individual grants to each group covered the replacement costs of the mentor for the routine meetings. They also provided the opportunity for the employment of a research assistant if required, and the delivery of workshops/lectures pertinent to particular skill enhancement. These funds therefore enabled the pursuit of emerging interests within each group under stated guidelines as expenditure was at their own discretion.

The three main thrusts of the CRG Scheme involved:

1994 saw the establishment of 10 CRG groups involving 120 academic staff, a large involvement for the outlay of relatively insignificant monies. The diverse range of investigations undertaken and the enthusiasm it engendered, resulted in additional funding being injected into the scheme in 1995. That year saw a continuation of existing groups and the creation of eight new ones. The initial number of staff involved expanded to incorporate 243 in 1995, a rather impressive growth in participation rates, particularly as these incorporated personnel across faculties/departments and campuses (CRG 1995:1). Table 1 summarises this growth.

An Individual Case Study of One CRG

As a new member of the university I was not au fait with its structure and organisational patterns. The arrival on my desk for an expression of interest in the 1995 CRG Scheme which closed in three days resulted in a flurry of telephone calls to a number of unknown people working in the English as a Second Language field, asking them if they would be interested in being involved in an application for funding around a common interest.

A group was finally achieved: seven female members from four different areas of delivery spread across two campuses with a male Professor as mentor.

The initial six months involved the refinement of the research question itself, the delineation of the various aspects to investigate, exploring alternative means of methodology, and the construction of the initial questionnaire to be administered.

The final research question stated: First Year International Female Non-English Speaking Background (NESB) Students' Experience of Academic Writing in One Faculty. The six focused questions of investigation were:

It should be noted that the objective of the research was not to analyse the students' writing per se but rather the strategies and tasks they had previously experienced and those they were now required to perform within this Australian university.

Concurrently the CRG group was attempting to find a cohort of subjects of sufficient size to ensure that enough data would be available to provide a broad base for the investigation. Initial inquiries through the university's International Office indicated a potential group of 38 female, first year undergraduate overseas students in one Faculty. The CRG group decided to concentrate on this particular cluster rather than broaden the catchment across several Faculties as it would enable greater depth of investigation.

This decision, coupled with other factors, resulted in the first serious impediment to the overall research plan. According to university regulations permission for the proposal had to be sought through the Ethics Committee and the relevant Deans of the Facilities and Heads of Department of all CRG members and that of the study group itself. In addition the CRG group was prohibited from directly approaching students but had to rely on blind letters forwarded through Student Administration. Essential personnel in both these areas were overseas at critical times and the circuitous route for student contact elongated the whole process. Letters were finally dispatched as first semester examinations and the subsequent holiday break were about to commence, a time not conducive to high returns.

The situation was further complicated because the original projected cohort of 38 had shrunk to 15 by the time final enrolment was completed. Seeing our cohort being steadily eroded did not bolster members' morale but considerable energy had already been expended on gathering background information such as documenting the range of writing demands students were expected to undertake across the different subject areas. This had been extremely time consuming and although the faculty concerned provided very positive support, many of the actual lecturers were sessional and difficult to contact. Table 2 summarises the variety of type and length of assessment tasks required during the semester. An examination of this Table clearly demonstrated to us the uneven weighting of marks in some areas, a point of concern for the CRG but it also highlighted the potential value for improved delivery resulting from our research. As an offshoot of this, members felt compelled to re-examine their own practices and subsequently made alterations accordingly.

In light of such tantalising glimpses and still with a viable group of 15 subjects, the decision was taken to proceed with the investigation. Initial returns to the letters were not encouraging (1 positive response), so another series was sent (4 replies: 2 positive, 2 negative). With only three positive acknowledgments a third cycle of letters was instigated (no positive responses). The task was not made easier by the mobility of the student group itself. Recorded addresses were found to be inaccurate and several potential interviewees had to be excluded when it was discovered that they had inappropriately responded to enrolment questions and had actually resided in Australia from their early teens.

Progressively our cohort shriveled to a mere 3.

When interviews were conducted a semi-structured format was adopted to ensure continuity of data. Although the actual number was extremely limited the datum gathered from these was informative, particularly in regard to students' previous experiences of writing in their native countries. There were also strong indications of the pressing need for a bridging program to prepare such students for the more intensive and culturally bound rhetorical writing styles demanded in their current courses.

At the review session undertaken by the members of the CRG at the end of 1995 we summarised our skills acquisition throughout the period as:

The appendix contains an excerpt from our Research Diary which demonstrates the growth in knowledge and skills within the group and the complexity of the whole research process itself.

In light of this, the decision was taken to regard 1995 as a pilot program and to continue with our investigation in the following year. This was also in accordance to the fundamental philosophy of the overall CRG Scheme itself. This envisaged an initial phase of research which concentrated on processes, that is on skill and knowledge enhancement. In the subsequent period the objective would be on product, e.g. the publication of articles in journals or presentations at conferences. This was a very important aspect of the whole program because it enabled time and energy for skills acquisition without the additional burden on members of being required to generate immediate demonstrable outcomes, though of course this was never discouraged.

1996 commenced with high hopes and a renewal of energy but with some changes to our structure. Our mentor departed rather unexpectedly on a year long overseas project. One member left on maternity leave while another from the city campus who had been having difficulties coming to meetings because of work commitments, decided to withdraw. That left the group reduced to five with no mentor. As funds were restricted there was no possibility of finding another because we could not meet replacement costs. The decision was made to proceed as a self-directed group with myself as part-time mentor for reporting procedures. Some discussion also arose around the subject of recruiting new participants but in face of a certain reluctance expressed by some members, this was never enacted upon.

It was at this time that a further development placed the whole research project in jeopardy. The university advertised two tenurable positions externally but these were reduced to one when budget cuts descended on the institution. In the subsequent weeks it evolved that one of our CRG members, who currently held one of these positions, was applying, while another member from a different area had put in an application. To further complicate matters the three remaining members were called upon to be on the interview panel. Incest at its most nightmarish. The tensions between the various fronts was so high that the CRG group went into a holding pattern for the next six months not meeting till the situation had been resolved.

At the beginning of semester 2, 1996, the group began meeting again but again with a changed profile. The unsuccessful candidate had accepted a contract overseas and the one who had secured the position was negotiating with other members, with whom she now worked as to her areas of responsibility. Thankfully a fragile collegiate spirit still existed as all were professionals in their approach to work.

Once meetings were begun on a regular basis, discussion revolved around how to overcome the previous difficulties of obtaining access to a number of subjects. It was acknowledged that semester 2 was not ideal time to embark on a renewal of the research program because generally overseas students were more aware of the complexity of university assessment and subsequently felt under greater pressure. Still the CRG group believed that they had some opportunity to explore further, especially adopting a different strategy. Permission was sought from the Ethics Committee to circumvent the need to go through the Student Administration route which had created so many impediments in making actual contact. The proposal was to advertise directly to the student body outlining the desired profile of candidates and offering a small remuneration for the time involved in interviews. This was subsequently approved and advertisements were strategically placed around the university.

The response was extremely poor - a mere two, though one third year male did contact us from another faculty insisting he met the profile exactly.

As a result of the limited number of subjects, increased work demands, new commitments to essential outside studies and with the departure of another member on the Overseas Study Program, the CRG group decided to close their investigations at the end of 1996.

Conclusion

The rather limited overview of this case study should not be taken as a reflection on the whole CRG Scheme, which has had extremely high results. In fact, I would argue that the skills and knowledge enhancement has been very successful for our particular group (see Appendix) and these can be applied in a multitude of ways in our professional careers. On the product side of the equation there has also been progress: one group and two individual conference presentations, as well as two published articles. Rather this case study should be viewed as a cautionary tale of how a range of outside factors can impinge upon "the best laid schemes o' mice an' men".

Bibliography: