**1. Introduction**

#### **1.1. The "research-teaching nexus": are research and teaching two sides of the same coin?**

Until the nineteenth century, teaching was considered to be the primary function of universities [1]. In the West, the view that research should become part of the purpose of universities was first articulated and implemented in Europe, specifically in German universities:

"… universities should treat learning as not yet wholly solved problems and hence always in research mode." Wilhelm von Humboldt on the future University of Berlin (1810), cited in Ref. [2, p. 110].

The ideal of universities as institutions of learning, teaching *and* research spread to the US and elsewhere in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century [3]. Academics in higher education began spending increasing proportions of their time researching. Henceforth, it was commonly assumed that teaching and research were mutually supportive activities and that the expertise and insight gained during research improved learning and teaching quality for students [4]. A number of putative relationships between teaching and research were consequently proposed and described using various terms and definitions [5]. A useful and inclusive term that describes a range of modes by which students interface with research in their learning and development is that of the "research-teaching nexus" [6, 7]. According to Haslett [8]:

"The positioning of teaching within the nexus is determined by the role students play (i.e., students as research participants, or as an audience for research) in relation to the research emphasis (i.e., emphasis on research content or on research processes and problems). The nexus has proved useful to institutions and academics in helping them strategically consider the links between research and teaching in their own curricula and teaching." [8, p. 1].

Initially, the mutualism between teaching and research in the "research-teaching nexus" seemed self-evident: academic researchers bring their critical and reflective approach to their discipline and their hands-on experience of research methods and professional communities into the classroom, acting as a prism through which students are exposed to research in all of its many facets. Moreover, there was an assumption that research active staff aware of the current developments in their field would be able to enhance their student's learning experience. However, several authors have since challenged this relationship as one that remains unsubstantiated by research and scholarly evidence [9–11]. Indeed, comprehensive analyses of available data show that the quality and/or quantity of research output of a lecturer does not correlate strongly with undergraduate students' perception of teaching quality [9–12]. Undergraduate students do report, however, that being taught by active researchers can enhance their engagement and experience at university [13]. This indicates that teaching quality and student learning are not *necessarily* improved by the research activity of the teachers themselves via a passive mechanisms of osmosis, but rather that students must be actively involved in research to create learning experiences that go beyond those typically understood to be part of the "research-teaching nexus" to create what we will here refer to as "research-involved teaching" (RIT). Directly involving students in research-related activities—if done effectively—can result in a number of reported benefits to their development of scientific skills and knowledge as well as their confidence in carrying out research [14, 15].

### **1.2. Teaching in higher education and the role of undergraduate research: one goal, many approaches**

**1. Introduction**

112 Global Voices in Higher Education

Ref. [2, p. 110].

**1.1. The "research-teaching nexus": are research and teaching two sides of the same coin?**

Until the nineteenth century, teaching was considered to be the primary function of universities [1]. In the West, the view that research should become part of the purpose of universities

"… universities should treat learning as not yet wholly solved problems and hence always in research mode." Wilhelm von Humboldt on the future University of Berlin (1810), cited in

The ideal of universities as institutions of learning, teaching *and* research spread to the US and elsewhere in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century [3]. Academics in higher education began spending increasing proportions of their time researching. Henceforth, it was commonly assumed that teaching and research were mutually supportive activities and that the expertise and insight gained during research improved learning and teaching quality for students [4]. A number of putative relationships between teaching and research were consequently proposed and described using various terms and definitions [5]. A useful and inclusive term that describes a range of modes by which students interface with research in their learning and

"The positioning of teaching within the nexus is determined by the role students play (i.e., students as research participants, or as an audience for research) in relation to the research emphasis (i.e., emphasis on research content or on research processes and problems). The nexus has proved useful to institutions and academics in helping them strategically consider

Initially, the mutualism between teaching and research in the "research-teaching nexus" seemed self-evident: academic researchers bring their critical and reflective approach to their discipline and their hands-on experience of research methods and professional communities into the classroom, acting as a prism through which students are exposed to research in all of its many facets. Moreover, there was an assumption that research active staff aware of the current developments in their field would be able to enhance their student's learning experience. However, several authors have since challenged this relationship as one that remains unsubstantiated by research and scholarly evidence [9–11]. Indeed, comprehensive analyses of available data show that the quality and/or quantity of research output of a lecturer does not correlate strongly with undergraduate students' perception of teaching quality [9–12]. Undergraduate students do report, however, that being taught by active researchers can enhance their engagement and experience at university [13]. This indicates that teaching quality and student learning are not *necessarily* improved by the research activity of the teachers themselves via a passive mechanisms of osmosis, but rather that students must be actively involved in research to create learning experiences that go beyond those typically understood to be part of the "research-teaching nexus" to create what we will here refer to as "research-involved teaching" (RIT). Directly involving students in research-related activities—if done effectively—can result in a number of reported benefits to their development of scientific skills and knowledge as well as their confidence in carrying out research [14, 15].

was first articulated and implemented in Europe, specifically in German universities:

development is that of the "research-teaching nexus" [6, 7]. According to Haslett [8]:

the links between research and teaching in their own curricula and teaching." [8, p. 1].

Undergraduate research and inquiry can be defined as "student engagement from induction to graduation, individually and in groups, in research and inquiry into disciplinary, professional and community-based problems and issues, including involvement in knowledge exchange activities" [16, p. 16]. In this context, Linn et al. [17] distinguish between more individualized and bespoke "Undergraduate Research Experiences" (UREs) and "Course-Based Undergraduate Research Experiences" (CUREs; see also Ref. [15]):

"UREs feature individual students in faculty research laboratories and provide the opportunity for one-on-one mentoring. Typically, students spend one or more semesters in labs, although the type of activity and form of mentoring varies substantially […]. In contrast, CUREs have a curriculum and are open to most students. CUREs put high demands on mentors to guide many students." [17, p. 2].

Typically, UREs (e.g., research internships, work placements, etc.) are bespoke and individualized research experiences that affect only a few students and that can be highly competitive because of the limited availability of URE opportunities at any given time. The time invested by students in this type of experience is often high and, because of the resources and time required for delivering UREs, in many cases falls outside their regular taught curriculum (e.g., summer term breaks). The comparatively large amounts of staff, space, and material resources required for the delivery of individualized UREs (especially in applied scientific disciplines) that often require one-to-one research supervision make large-scale provision of URE's impractical at even the most research-intensive institutions [17, 18]. In contrast, CUREs are embedded in the regular curriculum and therefore open to all students of a module/programme, while at the same time being much less individualized, less resource intensive and therefore typically easier to deploy [17].

Though assessing the impacts of direct research experiences on student outcomes is challenging and has not been a regular feature of deploying interventions to facilitate UREs and CUREs [17], the available evidence suggests that engaging undergraduate students in research activities improves student engagement and retention and can attract students into postgraduate research careers [15, 18–23]. These benefits have led to calls for expanding RIT in various forms in undergraduate teaching both in North America and Europe [24, 25].

Women and minority undergraduate students seem to particularly benefit from research experiences [26, 27]. This is encouraging in light of student populations in the UK and worldwide tending to become more diverse in both social background and academic ability as higher education becomes more inclusive [28, 29]. The data also suggest, however, that the students who mostly benefit from undergraduate research opportunities are those who already have a high level of engagement and interest in postgraduate research [15, 22]. We therefore argue that a central aim of involving students in research (and of teaching in general) should be to provide opportunities precisely for those students who are not already enthused and determined to embark on research careers.

Thus, for RIT strategies to ultimately deliver benefits for all students, they must be integrated fully into university teaching programmes and curricula with forethought to maximize their impact [15, 23]. This is particularly important considering the potential cost of investing in RIT strategies at a time of increased marketization and cuts to funding in higher education [30]. Innovative models have been developed for feasibly delivering and assessing the impacts of CUREs and UREs on a large scale in high-subscribing higher education programmes [15, 31–33]. For example, Rowland et al. [34], in recognition of the importance of student choice and the diversity among participants in higher education, created a two-stream undergraduate chemistry module. One stream provided a traditional learning experience in laboratory techniques and methods and the other offered students with a desire to carry out research the opportunity to do so by carrying out a scaffolded undergraduate research project in the laboratory instead [34]. Though they identified challenges to staff and resourcing in providing and supervising a large number of undergraduate research projects, the authors found streaming the teaching better supports students with diverse needs [34]. Desai et al. [18] approached the issue of limited resources differently: they devised a tiered supervision system based on the concept of a "research-intensive community" (p. 137) at Texas A&M University. The system allowed efficient small group supervision of the research activity of undergraduate students.

CUREs can be used to provide research-involved experiences for most or all students [17]; where provision of UREs is limited, all students should be given an equal opportunity to compete for these opportunities and benefit from them even if they are not directly involved. While models for involving undergraduate students in research continue to be developed for individual learning experiences, curriculum elements, and modules, the greater challenge is to develop undergraduate research opportunities across entire undergraduate curricula and programmes that are interlinked and build on each other throughout the student journey. Moreover, involving undergraduate students in knowledge exchange and collaboration with researchers in industry and elsewhere outside of the university in the context of research has not received as much attention as involving students in institutional academic research. All of these aspects of student development are essential, however, for developing research-ready graduates that have the skills required by employers who hire graduates [35].

#### **1.3. Undergraduate research improves undergraduate employability**

Employability encompasses what graduates know, what they can do, their job specific skills, their transferable skills, and their attitude and behavior [36]. The required skills are often specific to an employer or specific sector of the economy [37]. Graduates, especially from biological science programmes, therefore enter into a highly competitive job market where research skills are often critical to prospective employers. A recent consultation undertaken by the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry [38] identified that graduates often lack the required skills or knowledge important for employment within the life science industry and that newly employed graduates routinely need extensive graduate training, which can represent a major commitment from the employer [39]. This skills gap can be significantly reduced, however, where there is suitable employer engagement within the degree programme. For example, the involvement of Siemens with the University of Lincoln engineering degree has allowed Siemens to reduce the length of their graduate training programme by 9 months [40]. A key element of higher education engagement with industry is in shaping graduate behavior and attitude such that the graduates understand their choices and employer expectations, and are positioned to meet those expectations. Two specific challenges need to be addressed to produce industry-ready graduates: to impart relevant job specific and appropriate transferable skills, including research-specific skills, and to provide the appropriate industry engagement and an understanding of the responsibilities and practice of those working in the respective industry. Involving undergraduate students in research and knowledge exchange can help meet the first of these challenges through the general benefits it provides to the cognitive development and skills development of students [41]. More importantly, however, participation in undergraduate research can break down student misconceptions about scientific research, careers in science and the day-to-day activities of research scientists [42].

Thus, for RIT strategies to ultimately deliver benefits for all students, they must be integrated fully into university teaching programmes and curricula with forethought to maximize their impact [15, 23]. This is particularly important considering the potential cost of investing in RIT strategies at a time of increased marketization and cuts to funding in higher education [30]. Innovative models have been developed for feasibly delivering and assessing the impacts of CUREs and UREs on a large scale in high-subscribing higher education programmes [15, 31–33]. For example, Rowland et al. [34], in recognition of the importance of student choice and the diversity among participants in higher education, created a two-stream undergraduate chemistry module. One stream provided a traditional learning experience in laboratory techniques and methods and the other offered students with a desire to carry out research the opportunity to do so by carrying out a scaffolded undergraduate research project in the laboratory instead [34]. Though they identified challenges to staff and resourcing in providing and supervising a large number of undergraduate research projects, the authors found streaming the teaching better supports students with diverse needs [34]. Desai et al. [18] approached the issue of limited resources differently: they devised a tiered supervision system based on the concept of a "research-intensive community" (p. 137) at Texas A&M University. The system allowed efficient small group supervision of the research activity of undergradu-

CUREs can be used to provide research-involved experiences for most or all students [17]; where provision of UREs is limited, all students should be given an equal opportunity to compete for these opportunities and benefit from them even if they are not directly involved. While models for involving undergraduate students in research continue to be developed for individual learning experiences, curriculum elements, and modules, the greater challenge is to develop undergraduate research opportunities across entire undergraduate curricula and programmes that are interlinked and build on each other throughout the student journey. Moreover, involving undergraduate students in knowledge exchange and collaboration with researchers in industry and elsewhere outside of the university in the context of research has not received as much attention as involving students in institutional academic research. All of these aspects of student development are essential, however, for developing research-ready

Employability encompasses what graduates know, what they can do, their job specific skills, their transferable skills, and their attitude and behavior [36]. The required skills are often specific to an employer or specific sector of the economy [37]. Graduates, especially from biological science programmes, therefore enter into a highly competitive job market where research skills are often critical to prospective employers. A recent consultation undertaken by the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry [38] identified that graduates often lack the required skills or knowledge important for employment within the life science industry and that newly employed graduates routinely need extensive graduate training, which can represent a major commitment from the employer [39]. This skills gap can be significantly reduced, however, where there is suitable employer engagement within the degree programme. For example, the involvement of Siemens with the University of Lincoln engineering degree has allowed Siemens to reduce the length of

graduates that have the skills required by employers who hire graduates [35].

**1.3. Undergraduate research improves undergraduate employability**

ate students.

114 Global Voices in Higher Education
