Reflections from Newfoundland

Marina Niks and Anneke van Enk

During the 2003 Research in Practice Institute in Newfoundland, we facilitated an inquiry group about the role academically trained researchers can and do play in the development of research in practice. The discussion was far-ranging but always spoke to the values and struggles that come into play when we try to decide what kinds of knowledge “count.”

Research tends to be popularly associated with practices developed in and carried out by academic institutions, and much of the existing theory about research, including various forms of research in practice, is published by university-based academics. “On the ground” too, initiatives to promote research in practice are frequently started up by or, at least, involve the participation of academically trained people. Whether based in a university or not, these researchers bring with them ways of thinking about and of doing research that are valued by the academic community. How does this, in turn, shape a form of research that is supposed to emerge from, and be oriented to the practitioner community?

Our own participation in research in practice has allowed us to reflect more critically on the particular research community we are being trained to as doctoral students. We note that, while there is overlap between the two communities, there are important differences, too. For example, academically trained researchers are part of a community that dedicates large amounts of time and money to research; in the practitioner community time and money tend to be allocated mainly to teaching and administration. Such material conditions shape research processes and products. Other differences may exist, as well, in terms of the kinds of questions that are of interest, the audiences being sought out, the ways in which research participants (i.e. “subjects) are approached, the styles of documenting work, and the venues for its dissemination.

The Institute offered us an excellent opportunity to hear from others about the ways these differences play out in research in practice and to reflect together on what such differences might suggest about the role of academically trained researchers in research in practice. The lively and interesting discussion touched on: the importance of researcher reflexivity; the persistently common perception (both outside and within the university) that there is one “right” way to do research; the decision by one group of practitioner-researchers not to do a literature review and how this highlights the challenges posed to traditional research forms; and funding criteria in Canada.

There were many more threads pursued but, as the session drew to a close, we were reminded that underpinning concrete examples and practical considerations is a philosophical and political debate about the foundations of knowledge. This debate, one university-based researcher noted, is alive in the academy too, and it suggested to her one role for academically trained researchers involved in research in practice: to link the concerns around knowledge creation that fuel research in practice to the debate within academia and, in the process, to advocate for the legitimacy of practitioner knowledge.

Marina Niks is a research friend for the BC adult literacy field and a doctoral candidate at the University of British Columbia. Anneke van Enk is a doctoral candidate at Simon Fraser University. Marina and Anneke are active participants in RiPAL-BC.

Marina (left) and Anneke (right) standing at the steps of the church hall in Portugal Cove where Institute participants enjoyed “A Newfoundland and Labrador Evening.”