By any other name? The impacts of differing assumptions, expectations, and misconceptions in bringing about resistance to student-staff partnership
Keywords:students as partners, terminology, language, partnership, curriculum redesign, geography
Most of the existing literature on student-staff partnership explores the experiences of people who are keen to be involved and who have already bought into the ethos of Students as Partners. We explore the challenges of conducting student-staff partnership in the context of resistance. Specifically, we focus on the interpretations of partnership by students and staff who were attempting to work in partnership for the first time in a medium-sized geography department in the UK The views of participants were captured during a six-month project in which four undergraduate students were employed to work with eight academics to redesign the second-year undergraduate curriculum of one programme. Notwithstanding an introductory briefing and ongoing support, some participants showed indications of resistance. Our findings suggest that different perspectives on partnership influenced participants’ experiences. We argue that assumptions, expectations, and misconceptions around the terminology used to describe Students-as-Partners practice may hinder the process itself, as some people may not buy in to the practice. However, despite the challenges of this project, the experience of being involved in the re-design of the modules has led to reduced resistance and emerging partnership practices throughout the department.
Bovill, C. (2014). An investigation of co-created curricula within higher education in the UK, Ireland and the USA. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 51(1), 15-25. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2013.770264
Bovill, C., & Bulley, C. J. (2011). A model of active student participation in curriculum design: Exploring desirability and possibility. In C. Rust (Ed.), Global theories and local practices: Institutional, disciplinary and cultural variations (pp. 176-188). Oxford: Oxford Brookes University, Oxford Centre for Staff and Learning Development.
Cook-Sather, A. (2014). Student-faculty partnership in explorations of pedagogical practice: A threshold concept in academic development. International Journal for Academic Development, 19(3), 186-198. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360144X.2013.805694
Cook-Sather, A., Bovill, C., & Felten, P. (2014). Engaging students as partners in teaching & learning: A guide for faculty. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Cook-Sather, A. & Felten, P. (2017). Ethics of academic leadership: Guiding learning and
teaching. In F. Su & M. Wood (Eds.), Cosmopolitan perspectives on academic leadership in higher education (pp. 175-191). London: Bloomsbury Academic.
Cook-Sather, A., & Luz, A. (2015). Greater engagement in and responsibility for learning: What happens when students cross the threshold of student–faculty partnership. Higher Education Research & Development, 34(6), 1097-1109. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2014.911263
Cook-Sather, A., Matthews, K. E., Ntem, A., & Leathwick, S. (2018). What we talk about when we talk about Students as Partners. International Journal for Students as Partners, 2(2), 1-9. https://doi.org/10.15173/ijsap.v2i2.3790
Curran, R., & Millard, L. (2016). A partnership approach to developing student capacity to engage and staff capacity to be engaging: Opportunities for academic developers. International Journal for Academic Development, 21(1): 67-78. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360144X.2015.1120212
de Bie, A., Marquis, E., Cook-Sather, A., & Luqueño, L. (2019, in press). Valuing knowledge(s) and cultivating confidence: Contributing to epistemic justice via student-faculty pedagogical partnerships. In J. Hoffman, P.
Blessinger, & M. Makhanya (Eds.), Strategies for fostering inclusive classrooms in higher education: International perspectives on equity and inclusion (Vol 16, pp. 35-48). Bingley, UK: Emerald Publishing Limited.
Doktor, S. (2016, January). 5 ideas to shift learning into a co-created teacher and student partnership [blog post]. Retrieved from http://www.pearsoned.com/education-blog/5-ideas-to-shift-learning-into-a-co-created-teacher-and-student-partnership/
Dunne, E., & Zandstra, R. (2011). Students as change agents: New ways of engaging with learning and teaching in higher education. Bristol, UK: Escalate. https://dera.ioe.ac.uk//14767/7/8242_Redacted.pdf
Felten, P. (2013). Student-faculty partnerships to study teaching and Learning [blog post]. Retrieved from http://www.centerforengagedlearning.org/student-faculty-partnerships-to-study-teaching-and-learning/
Felten, P. (2017). Emotions and partnership. International Journal for Students as Partners, 1(2), 1-5. https://doi.org/10.15173/ijsap.v1i2.3070
Fink, D., & Stoll, L. (1998). Educational change: Easier said than done. In A. Hargreaves, A. Lieberman, M. Fullan, & D. Hopkins (Eds.), International handbook of educational change (pp. 297-321). London, UK: Kluwer Academic.
Healey, M., Flint, A., & Harrington, K. (2014). Engagement through partnership: Students as partners in learning and teaching in higher education. York, UK: Higher Education Academy. Retrieved from https://www.heacademy.ac.uk/knowledge-hub/engagement-through-partnership-students-partners-learning-and-teaching-higher
Healey, M., & Healey, R. L. (2018). ‘It depends’: Exploring the context-dependent nature of students as partners practices and policies. International Journal for Students as Partners, 2(1). https://doi.org/10.15173/ijsap.v2i1.3472
Higher Education Academy (HEA) (2015). Framework for student engagement through partnership. York, UK: Higher Education Academy. Retrieved from: www.heacademy.ac.uk/sites/default/files/downloads/student-enagagement-through-partnership-new.pdf
Ingels, J. E. (2009). Ornamental horticulture: Science, operations, & management. 4th Edition. Clifton Park, NY, USA: Delmar Cengage Learning.
King, C., & Felten, P. (2012). Threshold concepts in educational development: An introduction. Journal of Faculty Development 26(3), 5-7. Retrieved from https://www.ingentaconnect.com/contentone/nfp/jfd/2012/00000026/00000003/art00001#expand/collapse
Luo, B., Matthews, K. E., & Chunduri, P. (in press). “Commitment to collaboration”: What students have to say about the values underpinning partnership practices. International Journal of Students as Partners.
March, T. (1991). Shaping academic culture: Surviving postmodernism. Liberal Education, 77(2), 2-9. Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ430149
Marquis, E., Black, C., & Healey, M. (2017). Responding to the challenges of student-staff partnership: Reflections of participants at an international summer institute. Teaching in Higher Education, 22(6), 720-735. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2017.1289510
Matthews, K. E., Dvorakova, S. L., Mercer-Mapstone, L., Acai, A., Cook-Sather, A., Felten, P., Healey, M., Healey, R.L., & Marquis, E. (2018). Enhancing outcomes and reducing inhibitors to the engagement of students and academics in learning and teaching partnerships: Implications for academic development support. International Journal for Academic Development. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360144X.2018.1545233
Mercer-Mapstone, L., Dvorakova, L. S., Groenendijk, L. J., & Matthews, K. E. (2017). Idealism, conflict, leadership, and labels: Reflections on co-facilitation as partnership practice. Teaching and Learning Together in Higher Education, 1(21): 1-8. Retrieved from https://repository.brynmawr.edu/tlthe/vol1/iss21/8
Mercer-Mapstone, L., Marquis, E., & McConnell, C. (2018). The ‘partnership identity’ in Higher Education: Moving from ‘us’ and ‘them’ to ‘we’ in student-staff partnership. Student Engagement in Higher Education Journal, 2(1), 12-29. https://journals.gre.ac.uk/index.php/raise/article/view/Mercer-Mapstone
Merriam, S.B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. 3rd Edition. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
National Union of Students (NUS) (2015). A manifesto for partnership: Retrieved from: http://www.nus.org.uk/PageFiles/12238/A%20Manifesto%20for%20Partnership.pdf
Ntem, A., & Cook-Sather, A. (2018). Resistances and resiliencies in pedagogical partnership: Student partners’ perspectives. International Journal for Students as Partners, 2(1): 82-96. https://doi.org/10.15173/ijsap.v2i1.3372
Oxford Living Dictionary (2018) Dictionary. Retrieved from: https://en.oxforddictionaries.com
Payne, S. (2007). Grounded theory. In E. Lyons & A. Coyle (Eds.), Analysing qualitative data in psychology (pp.65-86). London, UK: Sage.
Sheth, J. N., & Stellner, W. H. (1979). Psychology of innovation resistance: The less developed concept (LDC) in diffusion research. Urbana-Champaign, IL: College of Commerce and Business Administration, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
Smit, B. (2003). The emotional state of teachers during educational policy change. Retrieved from http://www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/documents/00003200.htm
Taylor, C. (2015). A guide to ethics and student engagement through partnership. York, UK: Higher Education Academy. Retrieved from https://www.heacademy.ac.uk/knowledge-hub/guide-ethics-and-student-engagement-through-partnership
Williamson, M. (2013). Guidance on the development and implementation of a student partnership agreement in universities. Edinburgh: Student Participation in Quality Scotland. Retrieved from www.sparqs.ac.uk/institute.php?page=128
Woolmer, C., Sneddon, P., Curry, G., Hill, B., Fehertavi, S., Longbone, C., & Wallace, K. (2016). Student staff partnership to create an interdisciplinary science skills course in a research intensive university. International Journal for Academic Development, 21(1), 16-27. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360144X.2015.1113969
How to Cite
Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
Authors are permitted to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process - this applies to the submitted, accepted, and published versions of the manuscript. This can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (see The Effect of Open Access).