A case for undergraduate research

by Jerry A. Varsava

In recent issues of University Affairs, the future of undergraduate education has been discussed. Ian Clark, Richard Van Loon, and David Trick have promoted the establishment of a two-tier system in Ontario, where a number of new, pedagogically focused undergraduate institutions would operate along with existing research-intensive universities. For her part, Maureen Mancuso has rejected this proposal, emphasizing, among other things, the importance of professorial research in the overall enterprise of undergraduate teaching and learning. I would like to pick up on this thread, or at least a strand of it.

If we embrace Dr. Mancuso’s position, and I certainly do, an important extrapolation can, and should be, made. If it is true that undergraduates should come under the tutelage of subject experts – and it is research and its impactful, vetted dissemination that certify researchers’ credentials as experts – then there should be a concomitant emphasis on undergraduate research and, importantly, its dissemination at all universities.

Research is of course already an inherent part of the standard undergraduate curriculum. The major term paper or project and the seminar presentation are common elements of upper-level undergraduate courses. But why aren’t other opportunities widely available to highly motivated, energetic undergraduates to advance their intellectual and socially responsive interests and commitments beyond the formal curriculum? Why are universities too often ignoring the cultivation of this rich source of intellectual and social capital? Why are they not exploiting the recruitment, promotional, and even political benefits that would derive from a fulsome program of elective, extracurricular research opportunities for this important, populous stakeholder constituency? And, indeed, what benefits might faculty realize through their stewardship of such an enterprise?

As is broadly known, the neglect of undergraduate research in Canada is particularly acute in the social sciences and humanities, the domains in which I work. The Natural Science and Engineering Research Council should indeed be lauded for its Undergraduate Student Research Awards which can and often do lead to undergraduate research dissemination, with undergraduates commonly in a subsidiary role. And, from time to time, CIHR’s institutes prescribe research roles for undergraduates. While per capita funding for researchers in the natural sciences, engineering and medical areas, of course, greatly exceeds that in the disciplines that the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council covers, and stark budget realities notwithstanding, SSHRC should be meaningfully involved in the undergraduate research enterprise.

I think of undergraduate research as a final frontier on university campuses, yet to be fully mapped and yet, frankly, to be methodically exploited. So, what might be done? Departmental targets should be set – say, two undergraduate research disseminations by time of graduation – and students encouraged, but not obligated, to hit the number. Undergraduate research should also have an appropriate level of emphasis in strategic plans at the faculty and institutional levels. Contributions to the advancement of undergraduate research should be meaningfully recognized in the annual assessment of faculty and administrators alike. And for those understandably concerned with money matters, opportunities for undergraduate research and its dissemination can be scaled in complexity and size and budget, and made operational within and between disciplines.

The promotion of undergraduate research is admittedly taking place in many quarters. Among international university consortia, Universitas 21 supports undergraduate research, though the Worldwide Universities Network (WUN) does not. It is unclear what role the newly founded Matariki Network of Universities envisions for itself at this point. In the U.S., the Council On Undergraduate Research has been active for many years. In the U.K., the first annual British Conference of Undergraduate Research was held last year.

There have also been some important developments closer to home. A few years ago, Queen’s University established its Inquiry@Queen’s Undergraduate Research Conference. On my own campus, the Undergraduate Research Initiative was launched last year. Further, the Kule Institute for Advanced Study (KIAS), an endowed research center established in 2010, and which I direct, has begun a series of master classes on various matters related to undergraduate research and its dissemination; additionally, last August, KIAS held its inaugural annual interdisciplinary research conference for undergraduates, “Tomorrow’s Ideas, Now,” an event that attracted students from North America, Europe, Asia, and Australia. Information on these diverse activities can be found on the relevant websites.

I would like to conclude with a couple of numbers, each of which will unfortunately be higher when you read them: $44.27 trillion and 391.8 ppm. The first figure is a recent reading from the Global Public Debt Clock, as calculated by the Economist; the latter is the measure of atmospheric CO2 for December 2011 by scientists at the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Each number is growing inexorably, and each augurs disaster on a global scale if circumstances remain unrelieved.

At a time when so many leaders and opinion makers are reluctant to engage in an “adult conversation” on these and other major issues, it may be time to seek counsel from undergraduate minds, many of whom have an acute grasp of the social and political problems of our day, and certainly have a longer-term vested interest in their amelioration than do most of us. Otherwise stated, the vital talents of some of our brightest citizens should not be hidden under a bushel, nor the fruits of those talents buried on hard drives.

Jerry Varsava is a professor of comparative literature and English at the University of Alberta. He also serves as the founding director of the Kule Institute for Advanced Study, whose second “Tomorrow’s Ideas, Now” International Interdisciplinary Undergraduate Research Conference takes place in August 2012.

Other stories that might be of interest:

Print Comments (3) Post a comment
Email Reprint Share Share

Comments on this Article

(Part 1 of 2)

I appreciate the attention paid in University Affairs to the future of Ontario Universities and the question of a new tier of primarily teaching institutions to accommodate the growing number of undergraduate students. Both those who favor this approach and those who oppose it have valid points. This should indicate to all of those concerned that this is a very difficult matter to decide.

Here is some experience from an institution that has now made the transition from an entirely undergraduate institution to the role of being a primarily undergraduate institution, strongly supported by master's and Ph.D. programs, namely: Ryerson University.

Firstly, even when Ryerson (then Polytechnical Institute) only offered undergraduate degrees, mostly in recognized professional fields, MANY FACULTY WERE DOING RESEARCH AND CREATIVE ACTIVITY THAT WAS MERITORIOUS.

Secondly, many of the students in bachelor's programs such as journalism and my field, urban planning, entered Ryerson already holding most or all of an undergraduate degree. In some fields there was a formal post-BA degree curriculum, and in other fields students were placed in year 2 or year 3 based on courses completed. These "post-BA" students were in most cases very good students but students with an applied bent: they wanted the professional education offered at Ryerson.

Many Ryerson undergraduate students over the years did fine research, either in project and studio courses, or as part of their honour's thesis. One loss over the years has been programs making this thesis research optional or dropping it altogether, because of a lack of faculty time resources to properly supervise the research.

As Ryerson became a University in fact and name, it was not only able to be eligible for faculty research grants from Federal sources, it was much more able to recruit well-qualified faculty in many fields, including fields like engineering in which Canada is often short of young faculty.

Having gone through a rigorous approval process, its master's and later PhD programs were opened and attracted many good applicants, who today provide energy and skills to assist faculty in research and to assist in the classroom.

Posted by James H. Mars, Feb 2, 2012 12:12 PM

(Part 2 of 2)

Having been involved in the Masters in Applied Environmental Sciences and Management program during its creation and first years of operation, I am convinced that no corners were cut in this addition to the Ryerson offerings. And the graduate students in that program which I worked with, and who worked for me as teaching assistants, were terrific.

Every Ontario, every Canadian, university should strive to have many – but perhaps not all – faculty active in current research relevant to the field in which they teach. Being effectively "barred" from doing research will only make faculty at a new "minor university" frustrated and restive.

Having some faculty at all universities spend most of their time teaching and studying ways to better teach is wise. But to set up universities in which all the faculty will only be paid to teach is a recipe for unhappiness which will inevitably be fed back to students in a negative way.

The way to improve the "efficiency" of undergraduate education is to better integrate community college curricula and institutions into the university sector, to get universities to cooperate with one another, and to insure that some faculty on every university campus emphasize teaching, and to insure that some faculty on every university campus do good research.

Think of a relatively weak university in Canada. Do you want more of those institutions? No, you don't. Yes, distances in Canada are great, travel and living away from home is expensive, so perhaps students who want to study radio and television arts first-hand will be able to spend only their last two years in Toronto, but they can get foundation courses from local colleges, nearby universities, or over the Web.

I support one-tier, a better tier which can walk and chew gum at the same time: teaching mainly for some faculty, teaching and research for most, and research-only for a small number.

Dr. James H. Mars
Professor Emeritus
School of Urban and Regional Planning
Ryerson University

Posted by James H. Mars, Feb 2, 2012 12:11 PM

Undergraduate research is quite necessary to turn out graduates that will be able to compete at a high level for either graduate/professional school spots or to enter the workforce. I was fortunate to be a student that had to do a mandatory "498" independent research project in the Biochem program at Carleton U in the mid 80s. Really struggling with participating in research, where your lab is making up the structure and direction as they progress may be the only time you face something similar to the "real world out there". If anything, undergraduates are not involved early enough. This should start right after 1st year. Faculty may be worried about investing time with newbies, teaching them the most basic lab routines, but those freshmen students soon become reliable young veterans who pass on the skills to the newest students. Then they get to experience teaching, in an advanced way, typical of any workplace. These undergrads also start reading literature earlier (They have to at least read your own papers!) Undergraduates at my university (Oakland University, similar to size of Carleton) get access to summer programs and "490" research credits as early as first year. They make real contributions to data we publish, they submit abstracts to national meetings. As a cohort, they exceed the average success rates getting into grad and medical schools. They also make graduate students or technologists that hit the ground running, compared to peers that only practiced techniques in lab courses. They learn to communicate their results. Our Provost supports summer scholars in research in all our disciplines, including the Summer Program in Eye Research (SUPER) in my unit (Eye Research Institute). Our SUPER alumni move on into graduate/medical schools, and other advanced careers, and are eagerly snapped up. They then make it easy to recruit new students to our institution; once they are out there, they make OU look good.

Posted by Ken Mitton, Feb 1, 2012 4:59 PM


Post a comment

University Affairs moderates all comments according to the following guidelines. If approved, comments generally appear within one business day. We may republish particularly insightful remarks in our print edition or elsewhere.