Article A12.1 Developing as a Researcher by Playing Scholarly Roles: Report on the Third Borneo Research Education Conference (BREC 2015) Thien Sang Lim PhD Candidate, Universiti Malaysia Sabah, Malaysia tslim[at]ums.edu.my Siao Fui Wong PhD Candidate, Universiti Malaysia Sabah, Malaysia siao_fui[at]yahoo.com Roystance Asit MSc Candidate, Universiti Teknologi MARA, Sarawak, Malaysia roystancesalem[at]yahoo.com Suggested Citation: Lim, T. S., Wong, S. F., & Asit, R. (2015). Developing as a researcher by playing scholarly roles: Report on the third Borneo Research Education Conference (BREC 2015). Research World, 12, Article A12.1. Retrieved from http://www1.ximb.ac.in/RW.nsf/pages/A12.1 This article is a report on the third Borneo Research Education Conference (BREC 2015), a conference focused on developing researchers in the Borneo region and beyond. Borneo is the world’s third largest island, which is shared by three Southeast Asian countries, namely Brunei, Indonesia, and Malaysia. BREC 2015 was held at Universiti Malaysia Sabah (UMS) during 5-6 November 2015. Five institutions collaborated in organising BREC 2015, namely the host institution UMS, supported by Curtin Sarawak, Swinburne Sarawak, Universiti Malaysia Sarawak (UNIMAS), and Universiti Teknologi MARA (UiTM Sarawak Campus). The theme for BREC 2015 was “Developing as a Researcher by Playing Scholarly Roles.” The authors of this article were participants in this conference. 1. Borneo Research Education Conference (BREC) Series While academic conferences tend to emphasise on research topics, methods, results, and outcomes, the BREC series focuses on researchers’ education and development (Collins, Shamala, & Dash, 2014; Dash & Ait Saadi, 2014). This conference series highlights the importance of researchers’ education and development as a necessary precondition for producing credible research results and socially relevant outcomes. The BREC series was initiated in 2013 “to supplement the effort of local universities to produce competent researchers” (Dash, 2015, p. 153). It focuses on strengthening the culture of higher education and research in this region and the need to prepare researchers for their roles in both academia and society. This perspective is reflected in the conference themes chosen so far: BREC 2013: Developing as a Researcher through the Culture of Sharing BREC 2014: Developing as a Researcher by Doing Meaningful Research BREC 2015: Developing as a Researcher by Playing Scholarly Roles Conferences under the BREC series deviate significantly from the standard pattern of academic conferences. A high level of participant engagement is achieved in BREC conferences because of the focus and the design of the conference activities. 2. A Conclave of Research Students and Research Educators BREC 2015 attracted both research students and research educators. Among the participants were 32 research students at various stages of their postgraduate programs. They came from institutions of higher learning in the Borneo region and also from Peninsular Malaysia. Their research topics were related to education, economics, finance, people management, marketing, entrepreneurship, and tourism. A number of research educators and academic leaders from the five collaborating universities also participated in the conference, playing various roles. Volunteering academics from UMS contributed as reviewers and discussants. 3. Playing Scholarly Roles: A Warm-Up Exercise The notion of scholarly role is multifaceted. It is socially and historically constructed, and it can include a variety of practices. One specific scholarly practice is giving and receiving feedback to each other, which becomes particularly relevant in a conference context. Therefore, this was chosen to be the focus of a warm-up exercise on Day-1. The exercise was structured as a plenary workshop, requiring small-group activities among the conference participants. The workshop demonstrated the importance of giving and receiving feedback effectively. In the context of research education, effective feedback is neither empty praise nor insensitive criticism. It is to be appreciated as a human process and handled in a respectful and sensitive manner. Both giving and receiving feedback effectively involve a combination of skills and attitudes, which were discussed and demonstrated in the workshop. Several participants found the workshop quite timely, as it prepared them for their scholarly roles in the soon to follow parallel sessions, where they would be either presenters or audience members, seeking and offering feedback to each other. 4. Becoming a Researcher in the Real World There were two research education seminars, which highlighted issues of being a researcher in the real world, from different perspectives. On Day 1, the seminar leader was Ms Leila Sim Ah Hua, General Manager, Sarawak Development Institute. Her focus was on “Developing Researchers for the Real World.” On Day 2, the seminar leader was Professor Syed Azizi Wafa, Faculty of Business, Economics, and Accountancy, Universiti Malaysia Sabah. His focus was on “Strengthening the Backbone of an Academic Scholar.” Both of these sessions highlighted important areas for researcher development. The sessions are summarised below. 4.1. Seminar 1: Developing Researchers for the Real World On Day 1, the seminar leader was Ms Leila Sim Ah Hua, General Manager, Sarawak Development Institute. Ms Sim drew her message from her long experience of commissioning researchers and guiding interns as a part of her work at Sarawak Development Institute (SDI). SDI is an autonomous non-profit research institute that undertakes interdisciplinary research on issues related to the socioeconomic development of the state of Sarawak. She described her work as the provision of “research services.” In her experience, the research students who do their internship at SDI often encounter difficulties due to the following reasons: (a) They are not clear about their focus of learning and development. (b) They are also unsure about future career options. (c) Often they do not know where to look for relevant information. (d) Their skills of preparing research proposals, designing research instruments, writing reports, and making presentations are inadequately developed. In this regard, Ms Sim finds some differences among students from different countries. This suggests there could be differences in the postgraduate learning experience in different countries. Her experience of working with university researchers also raises a number of concerns. The main concerns are the following: (a) Researchers are not able to communicate effectively with stakeholders such as policy makers. (b) Researchers find it difficult to work within time and cost constraints. (c) Research reports often lack internal coherence; there is insufficient integration within the report. Discussions following Ms Sim’s talk focused on different skillsets and expectations associated with different kinds of project (such as academic research, contract research, and consultancy projects). These involve different types of client. Notwithstanding such differences, the importance of oral and written communication skills, capacity to work efficiently within practical constraints, ability to integrate group members’ work, and ability to engage with diverse audiences remain important skill areas for all researchers. 4.2. Seminar 2: Strengthening the Backbone of an Academic Scholar On Day 2, the seminar leader was Professor Syed Azizi Wafa, Faculty of Business, Economics, and Accountancy, Universiti Malaysia Sabah. He described some aspects of the Malaysian public university culture, in comparison with the United States. From the disciplinary perspective of cultural and organisational psychology, he highlighted three behaviour patterns found commonly among Malaysian academics. He offered representative words in Malay that would capture the essence of those behaviour patterns. Takut [fear]: Academics come across as fearful of expressing their thoughts especially when they are in disagreement with others. This could be a result of how they are brought up as children and taught to be nonconfrontational with others, especially elders. Malu [shy, ashamed], malas [lazy], and segan [reluctant, i.e., a combination of malu and malas]: Academics are often unwilling to say what needs to be said or do what needs to be done. Taking initiative does not seem to come naturally. Cukup makan [literally, enough to eat, i.e., doing just enough to get by]: This is another cultural trait that can be found in academic institutions. Academics seem to be content with doing the minimum necessary to survive as academics. The above behaviour patterns are not specific to Malaysia, these are shared by many other eastern cultures where there is a reluctance to stand out from the crowd. Highlighting the cultural difference between eastern and western cultures, the speaker compared the Japanese saying, "A nail that sticks out will be hammered" with the US American idiom, “The squeaky wheel gets the grease.” The two sayings convey contrasting cultural attitudes towards assertive and enterprising behaviour. This has a strong message for researchers’ education and development. Behaviour patterns that marginalise initiative and prevent one from achieving one’s full potential cannot be good for developing an academic culture. One needs a combination of assertiveness and diplomacy in order to develop one’s academic potential. 5. Playing Reviewer, Discussant, and Session Chair Roles Scholarly roles such as those of reviewers, discussants, and session chairs came alive in the parallel sessions. Reviewers had read specific papers assigned to them prior to the conference. Many of them had prepared written reviews for the presenters. The reviewers became the lead discussants after each presentation. Audience members had the option of giving oral and written feedback to the presenters. Thus the parallel sessions became a practice ground for giving and receiving constructive feedback. All sessions were chaired by the student participants. They took to this scholarly role rather enthusiastically. Some of them managed to grow more comfortable with the awkward tasks of chairing, such as reminding a presenter of the remaining time or stopping a talkative member of the audience. The level of audience interaction was high. Some discussions had to be stopped in order to be resumed over tea or lunch, evidencing signs of a developing a scholarly community. 6. An Unusual Closing For the closing session, all conference participants, discussants, organisers, and guests gathered around a circle. Everyone was requested to share their thoughts and feelings about BREC 2015 and also offer suggestions, if any. The sharings touched on the following points: (a) BREC 2015 proved to be a unique experience for most. The idea of developing as a researcher by playing scholarly roles had a motivating effect. The constructive and supportive practice demonstrated by the co-organisers also influenced the participants positively. (b) The focus on researchers’ education and development carried various messages for research educators and academic leaders. They acknowledged the importance of encouraging students and colleagues, rather than demotivating them or leaving them without support. (c) Some participants confessed that they were sent here by their supervisors, but the conference experience had exceeded their expectations. They gained helpful feedback, established important connections, and reconnected with the purpose of their research studies. (d) Several participants and institutional representatives expressed interest in hosting future BREC events. Finally, research educators seated around the circle took turns to handover certificates and mementoes to student participants. The unusual degree of simplicity and authenticity of the whole process was commended by the academic leaders present. 7. Participants’ Feedback Here are some extracts from the participants’ written feedback on their conference experience: “I received new perspective, different angle of [on] my issue.” “The feedback enables me to review my progress so far and identify areas that should be improved.” “I do really like the way of the conference [was] conducted; I got a very good response.” “Informal discussions.” “The discussant shared a study related to my research.” “Practice on my defence proposal.” “I need to established network and search for more resources.” “To inform me of what is clear and what is not clear in my study.” “Small group, quality discussion among participants.” “Too little participants.” “Highly recommend the ‘warm up’ session.” “Advertise the conference earlier.” “Please organise next year.” “Do it in Sabah every year.” “Bravo!” References Collins, H., Shamala, R., & Dash, D. P. (2014). Developing as a researcher through the culture of sharing: Report on the first Borneo Research Education Conference (BREC 2013). Research World, 11, Article A11.1. Retrieved from http://www1.ximb.ac.in/RW.nsf/pages/A11.1 Dash, D. P., & Ait Saadi, I. (2014). Developing as a researcher by doing meaningful research: Report on the second Borneo Research Education Conference (BREC 2014). Research World, 11, Article A11.4. Retrieved from http://www1.ximb.ac.in/RW.nsf/pages/A11.4 Dash, D. P. (2015). Enacting a developmental niche for researchers: Lessons from research education initiatives in India and Malaysia. International Journal for Researcher Development, 6(2), 144-164. Published Online: December 20, 2015 Copyleft Xavier Institute of Management, Xavier Square, Bhubaneswar 751013, India Research World (ISSN 0974-2379) http://www1.ximb.ac.in/RW.nsf/pages/Home | ||
 |