Article A14.1 Developing as a Researcher Through Perseverance: Report on the Fifth Borneo Research Education Conference (BREC 2017) Daria Gom PhD Candidate, Curtin University, Malaysia Lecturer, Universiti Malaysia Sabah, Labuan International Campus, Malaysia daria.gom[at]postgrad.curtin.edu.my Irina Baydarova Yaa Serwaa-Akoto Amoah Suggested Citation: Gom, D., Baydarova, I., & Amoah, Y. S. (2017). Developing as a researcher through perseverance: Report on the fifth Borneo Research Education Conference (BREC 2017). Research World, 14, Article A14.1. Retrieved from http://www1.ximb.ac.in/RW.nsf/pages/A14.1 This is a report on the fifth Borneo Research Education Conference (BREC 2017), held at Curtin University, Malaysia in Miri, Sarawak, on 6 & 7 November 2017. This year’s theme was “Developing as a researcher through perseverance.” BREC is a yearly event jointly organised by five higher learning institutions from the Borneo region, namely Curtin Malaysia, Swinburne Sarawak, Universiti Malaysia Sarawak, Universiti Malaysia Sabah, and Universiti Teknologi MARA (UiTM) Sarawak. Since its inception in 2013, the objective of this conference series has been to enhance research education and researcher development in the Borneo region (Collins, Shamala, & Dash, 2014). In BREC 2017, the discussions that emerged centred on the postgraduate research students’ well-being, and the perseverance required to face various challenges and setbacks experienced typically by postgraduate research students. 1. Research Development vs Researcher Development The increasingly demanding profession of academia, as illustrated by the “publish or perish” refrain and the intense competition among universities for global ranking have led to an overemphasis on research development (i.e., to increase research outputs) but very much less on researcher development. In an attempt to restore a balance between the two, the BREC conference series puts researchers at the centre of its attention (Dash & Ait-Saadi, 2014). The past themes of the conference have highlighted the following aspects of researcher development: 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 BREC 2016: Developing as a Researcher by Building Research Skills The carefully chosen themes clearly indicate that researcher development goes beyond mastering a technique, understanding a research method or learning the use of software (Tan & Yamin, 2016). It is a holistic approach that integrates both professional and personal aspects of development (Evans, 2011a, 2011b, 2012). 2. BREC 2017 in Brief 2.1. Welcome Address: Collaborative Model In his welcome address, Dr Goi Chai Lee, Conference Co-chair, Curtin University, Malaysia, commended the collaborative nature of the conference which involves five universities based in Malaysian Borneo, and urged the organisers to invite other higher learning institutions to be part of this initiative. He also recognised the importance of the theme, which focuses on perseverance. This is a particularly important characteristic for researchers to develop, given that challenges and setbacks encountered by research students lead to drop-out (as high as 40%, The Guardian, 2012) and mental health problems (Levecque, Anseel, Beuckelaer, Heyden, & Gisle, 2017). 2.2. Keynote Speeches: Challenges and Opportunities As it seems to have become a norm in the BREC conferences, two keynote speakers were invited, representing academia and industry respectively. The first keynote speaker, Associate Professor Dr Muhammad Madi bin Abdullah from University College of Technology Sarawak, highlighted various common challenges faced in postgraduate research. These include a misunderstanding of the nature of postgraduate research, the inability to develop a connection with supervisors, and inadequate recognition and status given to postgraduate students. He also stressed on the importance of selecting a research topic that is neither too broad nor too narrow, and the use of appropriate methodology that can help answer research questions. The second keynote speaker, Tuan Haji Azmi bin Haji Bujang, Director of Yayasan Sarawak, shared the Sarawak Government’s vision for transforming Sarawak into a developed state by 2030. The Sarawak Socio-Economic Transformation Plan (2016-2030) focuses on rural transformation, economic growth, urban redevelopment, social development, and environmental development. This comprehensive plan aims to achieve a higher per-capita income, enhance quality of life, and eradicate poverty. Tuan Haji Azmi urged research students as well as academics to undertake research projects that are in line with the Government’s vision. Some of the research areas he suggested include clean water supply, generation and distribution of electricity, agricultural production, and quality and accessibility of education. He also anticipated the need for research related to urban development, especially the improvement of public transportation systems, waste management, and expansion of tourism. 2.3. Elaborating on the Theme: Developing as a Researcher The conference challenged participants to think about what it means to develop as a researcher. The first keynote speaker has stated that researchers should be able to adopt and master systematic research processes for the attainment of quality in research. However, he also emphasised that, in addition to intellectual and professional competencies, researchers should also possess a high degree of integrity, ethical standards, and modesty at a personal level. This point was further emphasized by Dr Ismail Ait Saadi, who led a pre-conference workshop, titled Researcher Development: Does the “er” Really Matter? During the workshop Dr Ait Saadi introduced participants to the Vitae Researcher Development Framework (RDF), which identifies various characteristics that a researcher needs to possess amidst the changing demands of the 21st century (Reeves, 2013). The RDF provides guidance to researchers’ development by emphasising four important domains: (a) knowledge and intellectual abilities, (b) personal effectiveness, (c) research governance and organization, and (d) engagement, influence, and impact (“About the Vitae Researcher Development Framework”, 2017). Before introducing the framework, Dr Ait Saadi asked the participants to work in groups to list the important characteristics of a researcher. While we all touched on various qualities and attributes related to knowledge, intellectual abilities, and personal effectiveness, we realised later that we had given little thought to the last two domains, namely research governance, and engagement, influence, and impact. One of the important features of a competent researcher that most groups failed to identify, relates to communication and teamwork. Another area we had perhaps underestimated in the early stages of the workshop is the ability to connect with industry and win grants. After reflection, workshop participants agreed that while not all parts of the RDF may be equally relevant in our Malaysian context, going forward we do need to give more consideration to the development of our communication and team-working skills. As noted by Reeves (2013), it is no longer sufficient for researchers to possess only technical skills related to their field, they also need to develop social, ethical, and communication skills to succeed in the emerging research landscape. 2.4. Elaborating on the Theme: Perseverance Many postgraduate students would agree that embarking on a higher degree by research can be a long and lonely journey that requires passion, vision, and most importantly, “stamina.” This is because the research journey is full of obstacles of all kinds. Attention has been recently placed on perseverance as a key ability of the student to successfully complete a postgraduate research program. Perseverance has been defined as an ability to accomplish long-term or higher-order goals in the face of challenges, engaging the student’s psychological resources, such as their academic mind-sets, effortful control, strategies, and tactics (Laursen, 2015). Throughout the conference, the participants were encouraged to share their own experiences of developing perseverance as an ability that may help them in completing their programmes. Several student participants indicated the difficulties they encountered with the data collection process, conflict with their supervisors, declining motivation, and rising frustration during their candidature. They also shared the ways in which they managed to achieve their goals. The following are some comments received from the participants on the challenges they faced and how they managed to overcome those challenges:
After 8 months, I realized that my progress is insufficient and my supervisor keeps on changing his mind regarding research methods. The time was passing, but the conflict between me and him was growing. I had only two options to choose from: either to give up my research and leave or to take another difficult step and change my supervisor. Well, I chose the second option and I can say that my decision was totally right. (Student Participant, BREC 2017) I have been chasing a person to interview for months. Every time I would make an appointment he would simply not show up. After several visits to his office, I managed to catch him. I really needed his interview for my research. So, I kept myself calm, focused on task, and started interviewing him, and finally the mission was accomplished! (Student Participant, BREC 2017) A total of 37 presentations were made. The presenters were mainly postgraduate research students, although there were a few academic staff presenting as well. Students themselves chaired most of the sessions. This, according to Dash and Ait-Saadi (2014), offers participants an opportunity to play some scholarly roles such as facilitating discussions, giving credit, and managing time. Research topics were drawn from diverse fields including education, finance, management, marketing, and tourism. This aligns with the policy of the BREC conference series to welcome researchers from all fields because the focus is on the researcher, regardless of their field of study (Dash & Ait-Saadi, 2014). At the end of the conference several participants noted that they enjoyed the opportunity to engage with presenters from disciplines and fields different from their own. The audience was encouraged to participate constructively, by sharing their feedback and suggestions (in the spirit of treating feedback as a “gift”: see Canaday, 2015; Petersen, 2013). As a unique feature of BREC, at least one discussant was pre-assigned to each presenter, who provided comprehensive written feedback to the presenter. Presenters and discussants were awarded with certificates at the end of each session. 3. Participants’ Feedback As customary in the BREC conference series, a closing event was held in which organisers and participants sat in a circle to share their experiences and thoughts on the conference. Participants were generally appreciative of the way BREC deviates from many other conferences by placing its focus on the researcher. Another area that participants found helpful was the feedback process. Participants also applauded the organisers for accepting projects at various stages of their research and allowing those to be presented. They highlighted that BREC did not only serve as a platform for them to receive feedback on their work, but also served as a safe space to practice and improve their presentation skills. Participants found the keynote speeches and workshop to be practical and informative. The organisers commended all participants, especially those at an early stage of their research and attending an academic conference for the first time, for their courage to present their work in front of an audience. They encouraged participants to make good use of the feedback and experience from the conference, and to seize the opportunity to network with other researchers and research educators. Below are some of the statements made by the participants on their conference experience: “I like how BREC focuses on the researcher.” “The feedback I received gave me the assurance that I’m on the right track. I also learnt that I have to be humble to learn more.” “I find the interdisciplinary nature of BREC very useful.” “The reviewer reports are very thorough.” “BREC has a different and positive approach which is very motivating.” “I am grateful for the inspiration from the reviewers.” “I have learnt that everybody has a problem; we have to stay together.” “The comments from the reviewers and audience were very constructive.” “BREC is a good beginning; the feedback and recommendations were good.” 4. Conclusion “Developing as a researcher through perseverance” was an apt and timely theme to be discussed, considering the challenges and demands researchers have to face in their research journey. The keynote addresses, workshop, parallel sessions, and the feedback received from the conference definitely have left their imprints on participants who felt motivated to pursue their journey and determined to face the challenges along the way. References About the Vitae Researcher Development Framework. (2017). Careers Research and Advisory Centre, Cambridge, UK. Retrieved November 24, 2017, from https://www.vitae.ac.uk/researchers-professional-development/about-the-vitae-researcher-development-framework Canaday, S. (2015). Feedback is a gift, give it! Psychology Today. Retrieved from https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/you-according-them/201503/feedback-is-gift-give-it 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 Evans, L. (2011a). The scholarship of researcher development: Mapping the terrain and pushing back boundaries. International Journal for Researcher Development, 2(2), 75-98. Evans, L. (2011b). What research administrators need to know about researcher development: Towards a new conceptual model. Journal of Research Administration, 2(1), 15-37. Evans, L. (2012). Leadership for researcher development: What research leaders need to know and understand. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 40(4), 423-435. Laursen, E. K. (2015). The power of grit, perseverance, and tenacity. Reclaiming Children and Youth, 23(4), 19. Levecque, K., Anseel, F., Beuckelaer, A., Heyden. J., & Gisle, L. (2017). Work organisation and mental health problems in PhD students. Research Policy, 46, 868-879. Petersen, D. (2013). Carole Robin: Feedback is a gift. Insights by Stanford Business. Retrieved from https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/insights/carole-robin-feedback-gift Reeves, J. (2013). Matching the characteristics of researchers with the demands of 21st century research. In M. Kompf & P. M. Denicolo (Eds.), Critical issues in higher education (pp. 137-145). Rotterdam, Netherlands: Sense. 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 The Guardian. (2012). Is a PhD the right option for you? Retrieved November 24, 2017, from https://www.theguardian.com/careers/phd-right-career-option Published Online: December 11, 2017 Copyleft Xavier Institute of Management, Xavier Square, Bhubaneswar 751013, India Research World (ISSN 0974-2379) http://www1.ximb.ac.in/RW.nsf/pages/Home | ||
 |