Advertisement

Research in Higher Education

, Volume 50, Issue 3, pp 248–267 | Cite as

Strategies and Intervening Factors Influencing Student Social Interaction and Experiential Learning in an Interdisciplinary Research Team

  • Laura Ryser
  • Greg Halseth
  • Deborah Thien
Article

Abstract

Faculty have long incorporated students into interdisciplinary research projects to meet increasingly common demands for collaborative research by federal funding agencies. Despite the critical role of experiential learning in building student research skills and capacity, few have explored social interaction mechanisms used to facilitate student experiential learning in an interdisciplinary research team. Drawing upon the New Rural Economy project as a case study, interviews with 13 students from eight Canadian universities were conducted to explore these social interaction mechanisms. While findings revealed an array of social interaction mechanisms used to develop student learning networks, the quality of these mechanisms were mixed; thereby influencing the utilization of these networks for guidance and feedback. As faculty organize social interaction mechanisms, they should consider factors such as previous experience, student and faculty relationships, finances, language, gender, ethnicity, and other issues, that will have an impact on student engagement with experiential learning.

Keywords

Canada Student training Interdisciplinary research Social cohesion Social capital 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank Kyle Kusch, Hélène Deverennes, Margaret Lacourciere, Katia Marzell, Nancy Delury, and Victoria Bell for their invaluable assistance with this study’s research activities.

References

  1. Asmar, C. (1999). Is there a gendered agenda in academia? The research experience of female and male PhD graduates in Australian universities. Higher Education, 38(3), 255–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aspland, T., Edwards, H., O’Leary, J., & Ryan, Y. (1999). Tracking new directions in the evaluation of postgraduate supervision. Innovative Higher Education, 24(2), 127–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Austin, A. (2002). Preparing the next generation of faculty: Graduate school as socialization to the academic career. The Journal of Higher Education, 73(1), 94–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Babbie, E. (1979). The practice of social research (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company, Inc.Google Scholar
  5. Brew, A., & Peseta, T. (2004). Changing postgraduate supervision practice: A programme to encourage learning through reflection and feedback. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 41(1), 5–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bryman, A., & Teevan, J. (2005). Social research methods. Don Mills, ON: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Buchbinder, S., Alt, P., Eskow, K., Forbes, W., Hester, E., Struck, M., et al. (2005). Creating learning prisms with an interdisciplinary case study workshop. Innovative Higher Education, 29(4), 257–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Burnard, P. (1991). Experiential learning in action. Aldershot: Avebury Academic Publishing Group.Google Scholar
  9. Cech, T., & Rubin, G. (2004). Nurturing interdisciplinary research. Nature Structural & Molecular Biology, 11(12), 1166–1169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Eisenhardt, K. (1995). Building Theories from Case Study Research. In G. Huber & A. Van de Ven (Eds.), Longitudinal field research methods: Studying processes of organizational change (pp. 65–90). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  11. Gilroy, G. (2005). Student Training in SSHRC-funded Research: Final report, Prepared for Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. Ottawa: Goss Gilroy Inc. Management Consultants.Google Scholar
  12. Goodlad, S. (1998). Research opportunities for undergraduates. Studies in Higher Education, 23(3), 349–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Graybill, J., Dooling, S., Shandas, V., Withey, J., Greve, A., & Simon, G. (2006). A rough guide to interdisciplinarity: Graduate student perspectives. BioScience, 56(9), 757–763.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Harman, K. (2002). The research training experiences of doctoral students linked to Australian Cooperative Research Centres. Higher Education, 44(3–4), 469–492.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Healey, M. (2005). Linking research and teaching to benefit student learning. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 29(2), 183–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Johnston, S., & McCormack, C. (1997). Developing research potential through a structured mentoring program: Issues arising. Higher Education, 33(3), 251–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Jones, P., & Macdonald, N. (2007). Getting it wrong first time: Building an interdisciplinary research relationship. Area, 39(4), 490–498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Katz, J., & Martin, B. (1997). What is research collaboration? Research Policy, 26(1), 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kezar, A. (2005). Redesigning for collaboration within higher education institutions: An exploration into the developmental process. Research in Higher Education, 46(7), 831–860.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kinkead, J. (2003). Learning through inquiry: An overview of undergraduate research. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 93, 5–17. (Spring).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kolb, D. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, Inc.Google Scholar
  22. Kravetz, K. (2004). Undergraduates and community-based research: Benefits, challenges and opportunities. Comm-Org Papers, Retrieved February 21, 2005 from http://comm-org.utoledo.edu/papers.htm.
  23. Lindsay, R., Breen, R., & Jenkins, A. (2002). Academic research and teaching quality: The views of undergraduate and postgraduate students. Studies in Higher Education, 27(3), 309–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lovitts, B. (2005). Being a good course-taker is not enough: A theoretical perspective on the transition to independent research. Studies in Higher Education, 30(2), 137–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. McCormack, C. (2004). Tensions between student and institutional conceptions of postgraduate research. Studies in Higher Education, 29(3), 319–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Panelli, R., & Welch, R. (2005). Teaching research through field studies: A cumulative opportunity for teaching methodology to human geography undergraduates. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 29(2), 255–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Patton, M. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  28. Pearson, M., & Brew, A. (2002). Research training and supervision development. Studies in Higher Education, 27(2), 135–150.Google Scholar
  29. Qin, J., Lancaster, F., & Allen, B. (1997). Types and level of collaboration in interdisciplinary research in the sciences. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 48(10), 893–916.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Reimer, B. (2002). A sample frame for rural Canada: Design and evaluation. Regional Studies, 36(8), 845–859.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Reimer, B. (2006). The rural context of community development in Canada. Journal of Rural and Community Development, 1(2), 155–175.Google Scholar
  32. Riege, A. (2005). Three-dozen knowledge-sharing barriers managers must consider. Journal of Knowledge Management, 9(3), 18–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Russell, S., Hancock, M., & McCullough, J. (2007). Benefits of undergraduate research experiences. Science, 316(5824), 548–549.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Schuetze, H., & Slowey, M. (2002). Participation and exclusion: A comparative analysis of non-traditional students and lifelong learners in higher education. Higher Education, 44(3–4), 309–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Schuller, T. (2001). The complementary roles of human and social capital. ISUMA, 2(1), 18–24.Google Scholar
  36. Twale, D., Schaller, M., Hunley, S., & Polanski, P. (2002). Creating collaborative community in multidisciplinary settings. Innovative Higher Education, 27(2), 113–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Uiterkamp, A., & Vlek, C. (2007). Practice and outcomes of multidisciplinary research for environmental sustainability. Journal of Social Issues, 63(1), 175–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Umbach, P., & Wawrzynski, M. (2005). Faculty do matter: The role of college faculty in student learning and engagement. Research in Higher Education, 46(2), 153–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Van Den Berg, M., & Hofman, W. (2005). Student success in university education: A multi-measurement study of the impact of student and faculty factors on study progress. Higher Education, 50(3), 413–446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Wear, D. (1999). Challenges to interdisciplinary discourse. Ecosystems, 2(4), 299–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Weber, P., & Sleeper, B. (2003). Enriching student experiences: Multidisciplinary exercises in service-learning. Teaching Business Ethics, 7(4), 417–435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Yegedis, B., Weinbach, R., & Morrison-Rodriguez, B. (1999). Research methods for social workers (3rd ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.Google Scholar
  43. Younglove-Webb, J., Gray, B., Abdalla, C., & Thurow, A. (1999). The dynamics of multidisciplinary research teams in academia. Review of Higher Education, 22(4), 425–439.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Rural and Small Town Studies ProgramUniversity of Northern British ColumbiaPrince GeorgeCanada
  2. 2.Canada Research Chair, Rural and Small Town StudiesUniversity of Northern British ColumbiaPrince GeorgeCanada
  3. 3.Department of GeographyCalifornia State University, Long BeachLong BeachUSA

Personalised recommendations