The collaborative book review as an opportunity for undergraduate research skill development

ABSTRACT

In this article, the authors, based on a process developed in the context of US higher education, demonstrate a model for undergraduate student research skill development that involves academic staff writing collaborative book reviews with undergraduate students and librarians, especially librarians that are also academic staff with relevant content expertise. This model can and should be modified to fit various disciplinary contexts and academic circumstances, potentially around the world. The authors acknowledge that this model will be more useful for academic staff in the social sciences and humanities as compared to the so-called hard or natural sciences. The authors reimagine book reviews based on the notion of ‘scholarship as conversation’ in library science. As evidence, the authors describe the origins of this unique collaborative process and document the impact of academic staff, librarians, and undergraduate students partnering to increase the academic rigor of book reviews. Contributing to scholarship at the intersection of research skill development, information literacy, and embedded librarianship, this article identifies a strategic opportunity for collaboration that makes writing reviews more engaging and educationally productive for students, academic staff, and librarians.     

Re-conceptualising the concept of a nexus? A survey of 12 Scottish IS/IM academics’ perceptions of a nexus between teaching,research, scholarship and consultancy

Abstract

This article starts with a personal perspective written by Stephen Rowland. This is responded to in each of the four contributions which follow. In order to stimulate debate from a wide basis of experience, Catherine Byron, Frank Furedi, Nicky Padfield and Terry Smyth were invited to respond as academics from very different disciplinary backgrounds and types of Higher Education institution in the UK.

In a brief conclusion to the article, Stephen Rowland draws together the contributions. Questions are raised for further discussion, reflection and research amongst those concerned to develop higher education teaching, and to resist the managerialist discourse which dominates in this field.

We hope that the article will stimulate debate amongst readers of the journal from different parts of higher education at a time when the very purpose of higher education is itself in a state of flux. We suspect that the issues raised here apply in many countries and would particularly welcome a response from readers not in the UK.