Article A13.2 Developing as a Researcher by Building Research Skills: Report on the Fourth Borneo Research Education Conference (BREC 2016) TAN Kim Lim PhD Student, Curtin University Sarawak Malaysia tan.kim.lim[at]postgrad.curtin.edu.my Mohamed YAMIN PhD Student, International University of Malaya-Wales, Malaysia yammai[at]gmail.com Suggested Citation: Tan, K. L., & Yamin, M. (2016). Developing as a researcher by building research skills: Report on the fourth Borneo Research Education Conference (BREC 2016). Research World, 13, Article A13.2. Retrieved from http://www1.ximb.ac.in/RW.nsf/pages/A13.2 This is a report on the fourth Borneo Research Education Conference 2016 (BREC 2016), held at Universiti Teknologi MARA (UiTM Sarawak) in Sarawak, Malaysia during 17-18 August 2016. Five higher learning institutions from Sarawak and Sabah co-convened the conference, namely UiTM Sarawak, Swinburne Sarawak, Curtin Sarawak, Universiti Malaysia Sabah, and Universiti Malaysia Sarawak. The theme for BREC 2016 was Developing as a Researcher by Building Research Skills. The authors of this report participated in this conference. 1. Background to the Borneo Research Education Conference Series The Borneo Research Education Conference (BREC) series is an initiative aimed at establishing a platform for higher learning institutions to come together and address issues and challenges facing the education and development of researchers in the Borneo region and beyond. It was intended that BREC would complement the research training programmes of the local universities and contribute to the development of research culture (Collins, Shamala, & Dash, 2014; Dash, 2015; Dash & Ait Saadi, 2014). The growing interest in researcher development has triggered ongoing international discussions as to how best this development can be achieved. Commentators have remarked that this requires a more holistic approach to postgraduate research than has been the norm (Crossouard, 2013; Evans, 2011). Subsequently, various institutions are introducing development frameworks as a guide to facilitate the process of researchers’ development. One such framework is the Vitae Researcher Development Framework (Vitae, 2016). This framework specifies four domains of researcher development. The domains are: (a) Knowledge and intellectual abilities, (b) Personal effectiveness, (c) Research governance and organisation, and (d) Engagement, influence and impact. Developing as a researcher requires more than just knowing about a subject or mastering a technique. It also requires engaging with society, adhering to ethical principles, being responsible and self-reflective, and willing to share with and learn from others. The BREC series has become a venue where such ideas are shared, discussed, and promoted. It provides a space for engaging with and examining these diverse aspects of research education. 2. BREC 2016 Opening In her welcome address, BREC 2016 Co-chair Dr Ellen Chung of UiTM Sarawak highlighted the growing popularity of this conference series. She reported that BREC 2016 had attracted 72 participants of whom 57 were presenters. Next, the Patron of the conference, Professor Jamil Haji Hamali, emphasised the importance of inter-institutional collaboration in research training and researcher development. A keynote address was delivered by Professor Sulaiman bin Hanapi, formerly professor of Zoology at Universiti Malaysia Sarawak. He suggested that a research journey may begin with simple investigations, but a researcher’s capabilities and interests tend to develop with experience. He further noted that it is not always necessary for meaningful research to be costly and sophisticated, citing examples of research which grew out of simple observations, speculative thoughts, and systematic testing. He highlighted the importance of having clear objectives and a credible methodology in order to produce valuable output from research. Commenting on the idea of market-driven research, he said that research can also be “market-driving.” 3. Research Skills Workshop A research skills workshop was led by Dr Ismail Ait Saadi of Swinburne Sarawak. It was titled “Research Skills: Back to Basics.” The main objective of the workshop was to explore the meaning of research skills and revisit the following questions: What is research? Which skills are required for conducting research activities? How can we develop such skills? One of the activities asked participants to list what they perceive to be the most important research skills. As it turned out, the emphasis by participants was mainly on technical skills, such as understanding a method, mastering of statistical techniques, or being able to use a particular software programme. This led to a discussion which broadened our understanding of research skills, beyond the mechanics of research. There is no doubt that technical skills are necessary, but they should be complemented with other important skills. These include the skills required for recognising research problems, formulating credible and meaningful research questions, building high-quality relationships and support networks, working collaboratively, understanding research context, giving and receiving feedback, justifying research methods, selling research ideas, learning to work within and between disciplines, and being self-aware as a researcher working within an institutional and social context. 4. Parallel Sessions and the Design of the Feedback Process During parallel presentation sessions, students made 15-minute presentations of their research in progress. They ranged in style from literature reviews and early research proposals, summaries of completed PhD and Master’s projects, to reflections on the experience of being a research student. Topics presented covered a wide range of disciplines, including education, marketing, science and technology, entrepreneurship, tourism, business, governance, and banking. All full papers were published in the conference proceedings (Chung et al., 2016). A notable design-feature of this conference was the multi-layered feedback provided to presenters. Coordinated by Associate Professor Dr Boo Ho Voon, 28 academic reviewers from participating universities reviewed the conference submissions. Written feedback was provided to the authors prior to the conference, and oral feedback was given by the discussants allocated to each session. The audience also provided both oral and written feedback, using audience feedback forms. Prior to the conference, the intent of the BREC series to be a platform for young researchers to develop in a safe and supportive environment had been made known to all discussants and reviewers. They were encouraged to be mindful of their language and communication style when giving feedback, so as to maintain a supportive learning environment for the participants. The value of this approach was evident from the participants’ feedback, where many acknowledged and appreciated the way comments were delivered by the discussants and reviewers. 5. Conference Closing and Participants’ Feedback In the closing session, all presenters, participants, organisers, and guests gathered in a large circle and shared their thoughts on the conference. The attempt to engage everyone was a distinctive feature of this conference (this seems to be informed by the emerging scholarship on the design of academic conferences, see e.g., Verbeke, 2015). Everyone was given a chance to express their feelings, make suggestions, and speak about what they had expected, and what they had gained from the conference. Most expressed their satisfaction and appreciated the unique style of the conference which enabled close interaction with discussants, rich and thought-provoking feedback, and the development of a friendly and supportive atmosphere. In addition to the oral sharing of experience, written feedback was also gathered after the conference. The following are extracts from some of the written feedback which reflect changes in perceptions and thoughts experienced by some participants during the conference. “Triggered new perspectives which I have overlooked and [the feedback] helped to improve my research.” “I was able to spot areas in my research where many improvements [were needed] and necessary changes to my work.” “It is always an enriching experience to receive feedback. I have hardly received bad feedback. It always helps me to be a better person.” “I could encourage other postgraduate student to join this kind of conference.” “Seeing how the presenters and discussants interact, which mistakes should be avoided, really helped me much in preparing me to do my research.” “The reviewers took their time to scrutinize my paper and their feedback gave me an insight on [how to improve on] the quality of my research.” “People in the conference motivate me so much to finish my study.” “Before joining this conference, I always thought that supervisor and literature reviews are the only guiding points in a researcher's life. I have never felt so wrong. [It] turns out, [the] other researchers no matter in the same field or not, are also a good source of knowledge.” 6. Conclusion From the feedback given by past and current BREC participants, it is evident that the BREC series has benefited many of them. Research students face many challenges, and require much support throughout their programmes of study (Lahenius & Martinsuo, 2011; Mantai & Dowling, 2015). BREC 2016 brought together like-minded individuals to create and extend important social support networks, reflecting the contemporary understanding that such support networks are important for the education and development of researchers (see e.g., Jairam & Kahl, 2012; Sacham & Od-Cohen, 2009). This provides an example of how the design and creation of a rich learning environment for adult learners can contribute to the education and development of researchers (a topic that relates to constructivist learning environments, see e.g., Gale, 1996; Lefoe, 1998). References Chung, E., Hamali, J., Abdullah, F., Voon, B. H., Joseph, C., Madi, . . . Mathew, V. N. (Eds.). (2016). Developing as a researcher by building research skills [CD]. Proceedings of the Borneo Research Education Conference 2016. Kuching, Malaysia: Universiti Teknologi MARA. eISBN 9789670828107 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 Crossouard, B. (2013). Conceptualising doctoral researcher training through Bernstein's theroretical frameworks. International Journal for Researcher Development, 4(2), 72-85. 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. 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 Evans, L. (2011). The scholarship of researcher development: Mapping the terrain and pushing back boundaries. International Journal for Researcher Development, 2(2), 75-98. Gale, B. W. (1996). Constructivist learning environments: Case studies in instructional design. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology. Jairam, D., & Kahl, D. H. Jr. (2012). Navigating the doctoral experience: The role of social support in successful degree completion. International Journal of Doctoral Studies, 7, 311-329. Lahenius, K., & Martinsuo, M. (2011). Different types of doctoral study processes. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 55(6), 609-623. Lefoe, G. (1998). Creating constructivist learning environments on the web: The challenge in higher education. Paper presented at the Australasian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education (ASCILITE) conference, December 14-16, 1998, Wollongong, Australia. Retrieved from http://www.ascilite.org/conferences/wollongong98/asc98-pdf/lefoe00162.pdf Mantai, L., & Dowling R. (2015). Supporting the PhD journey: Insights from acknowledgements. International Journal for Researcher Development, 6(2), 106-121. Shacham M., & Od-Cohen, Y. (2009). Rethinking PhD learning incorporating communities of practice. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 46(3), 279-292. Verbeke J. (2015). Designing academic conferences as a learning environment. Constructivist Foundations, 11(1), 98-105. Vitae. (2016). About the Vitae researcher development framework. Careers Research and Advisory Centre (CRAC) Limited, Cambridge. Retrieved from https://www.vitae.ac.uk/researchers-professional-development/about-the-vitae-researcher-development-framework Published Online: November 29, 2016 Copyleft Xavier Institute of Management, Xavier Square, Bhubaneswar 751013, India Research World (ISSN 0974-2379) http://www1.ximb.ac.in/RW.nsf/pages/Home | ||
 |