Listening Part 4 You hear part of a podcast in which a book of essays on academic research methods is being discussed. You will hear the discussion twice. Choose the correct answers. You have one minute to read through the questions. Welcome to the podcast. I'm Dan Archer and today I'm going to take a closer look at a collection of essays by a group of education specialists from the UK, Europe and Australia. They argue that academics need to change the way they approach research and their book's called Doing Rebellious Research in and Beyond the Academy. To discuss it with me today are Helena Kingsland, an educational researcher at City University, and Phil Taylor, a freelance science journalist. Hi, and welcome to my podcast. Hello. I'm going to start with a quote from the year 1988. Back then, in the prologue to doing rebellious research, the anthropologist Mary Pratt said of academics, how could such interesting people doing such interesting things produce such dull books? Is that it, in a nutshell? What do you think, Helena? I'd say this book explores more than that, Dan. It's not just questioning whether speaking at academic conferences and publishing scholarly articles should be the main ways of disseminating research. If you look at the case studies in the book, it also talks about changing the way research is done in the first place, the need to add to the usual stock of research tools. Take the case study of what they call thesis drabbling. What's that one? It's where the students summarised their thesis in 100 words of stream of consciousness writing. Oh yeah, that was interesting. Especially because the students themselves said that it helped them to focus on the real purpose of their research thesis and to reconnect emotionally with why they wanted to do it in the 1st place. I'm glad you've mentioned that because I think that's a key theme of this book, especially the essays about hip-hop poetry or circus acts to spread research findings to a wider audience. And it's something that really resonated with me. You see, I didn't come from an academic background. My parents didn't go to university, but they let me watch the Royal Institute's lectures every year. The televised lectures that present science to young people. Yes, and I was gripped by them. The best lecturers used jokes and were full of genuine, wide-eyed wonder at the world around us. The essays in this book are also about finding the joy in learning and provoking curiosity and surprise. Reading them took me right back to being 10 and sitting in front of the TV and wondering whether I could be a scientist too. But just for the sake of argument here, aren't you going to get laughed out of the room if you employ the same tactics in a university setting? And aren't you running the risk of being accused of oversimplifying or dumbing down your subject if you use magic or dance or whatever to present your research? Professor Pamela Bernard, one of the book's co-editors, actually expects the book to be written off by some of her fellow scholars. But she also makes it very clear that she and the book's authors firmly believe they're doing what academics are meant to do. To be challenging and get a reaction, not boring and conventional. Precisely. She warns that unless academics communicate in more engaging ways, they'll end up getting lost in all the noise of our modern media age. That's certainly true. Bernard's absolutely right about that. If academics are hoping to address global warming, political upheavals, food shortages or whatever, their emphasis must be on getting their message heard. And not just by the general public, by other academics in other fields who might benefit. Aren't our modern universities all about being interdisciplinary, actively encouraging collaboration between the subjects? In theory, maybe, but I have colleagues who sit in isolation, busy with their research, rarely talking with people in other departments let alone people in other institutions. To be fair though Helena that's the result of how the whole thing set up it's a structural problem a consequence of dividing knowledge up into distinct areas with their own conventions and jargon. But just doing what's always been done before isn't good enough anymore maybe so well that's certainly the feeling behind these essays. Welcome to the podcast. I'm Dan Archer and today I'm going to take a closer look at a collection of essays by a group of education specialists from the UK, Europe and Australia. They argue that academics need to change the way they approach research and their book's called Doing Rebellious Research in and Beyond the Academy. To discuss it with me today are Helena Kingsland, an educational researcher at City University, and Phil Taylor, a freelance science journalist. Hi, and welcome to my podcast. Hello. I'm going to start with a quote from the year 1988. Back then, in the prologue to doing rebellious research, the anthropologist Mary Pratt said of academics, how could such interesting people doing such interesting things produce such dull books? Is that it, in a nutshell? What do you think, Helena? I'd say this book explores more than that, Dan. It's not just questioning whether speaking at academic conferences and publishing scholarly articles should be the main ways of disseminating research. If you look at the case studies in the book, it also talks about changing the way research is done in the first place, the need to add to the usual stock of research tools. Take the case study of what they call thesis drabbling. What's that one? It's where the students summarised their thesis in 100 words of stream-of-consciousness writing. Oh yeah, that was interesting. Especially because the students themselves said that it helped them to focus on the real purpose of their research thesis and to reconnect emotionally with why they wanted to do it in the 1st place. I'm glad you've mentioned that because I think that's a key theme of this book, especially the essays about hip hop poetry or circus acts to spread research findings to a wider audience. And it's something that really resonated with me. You see, I didn't come from an academic background. My parents didn't go to university, but they let me watch the Royal Institute's lectures every year. The televised lectures that present science to young people. Yes, and I was gripped by them. The best lecturers used jokes and were full of genuine, wide-eyed wonder at the world around us. The essays in this book are also about finding the joy in learning and provoking curiosity and surprise. Reading them took me right back to being 10 and sitting in front of the TV and wondering whether I could be a scientist too. But just for the sake of argument here, aren't you going to get laughed out of the room if you employ the same tactics in a university setting? And aren't you running the risk of being accused of oversimplifying or dumbing down your subject if you use magic or dance or whatever to present your research? Professor Pamela Bernard, one of the book's co-editors, actually expects the book to be written off by some of her fellow scholars. But she also makes it very clear that she and the book's authors firmly believe they're doing what academics are meant to do. To be challenging and get a reaction, not boring and conventional. Precisely. She warns that unless academics communicate in more engaging ways, they'll end up getting lost in all the noise of our modern media age. That's certainly true. Bernard's absolutely right about that. If academics are hoping to address global warming, political upheavals, food shortages or whatever, their emphasis must be on getting their message heard. And not just by the general public, by other academics in other fields who might benefit. Aren't our modern universities all about being interdisciplinary, actively encouraging collaboration between the subjects? In theory, maybe, but I have colleagues who sit in isolation, busy with their research, rarely talking with people in other departments, let alone people in other institutions. To be fair though, Helena, that's the result of how the whole thing's set up. It's a structural problem, a consequence of dividing knowledge up into distinct areas with their own conventions and jargon. But just doing what's always been done before isn't good enough anymore. Maybe so. Well, that's certainly the feeling behind these essays. That is the end of Part 4.