My Research Philosophy

The integration of research and teaching is often preached but seldom practiced. Research should (and often does) inform teaching, but the extent to which this happens—and the ways learning outcomes are measured—is unclear. The situation is complicated by the fact that some universities are seen as ‘teaching institutions’ while others are regarded as ‘research-led’. This distinction has created a hierarchy of sorts whereby teaching is sometimes seen as less important and sophisticated—even less ‘noble’—than research. 

A ‘Whole Scholar’ Approach

I see myself as a ‘teaching scholar’ and I do not subscribe to the view that teaching and research are separate activities. To me, research (understood as the process of creating knowledge) and education (the outcome of teaching and learning) are inseparable, so research lies at the heart of everything I do. However, I do recognize that this symbiosis is not a naturally recurring phenomenon.

I was trained in well-established, ‘research-intensive’ institutions—one of which is eight centuries old—where I often wondered why so little effort was put into teaching. I was then hired by a supposedly ‘teaching-intensive’ university where I, on the other hand, often wondered how it is possible to educate without generating knowledge. In both cases, the sharp division of research and teaching had created two different worlds, each of which was missing a part—in my view, an essential part—of the other.

This is surprising. The etymological roots of  ‘university’ (from universitas, ‘the whole’) and ‘education’ (from educatus or ‘trained’) show that knowledge production is key to the formation of responsible citizens and healthy societies, which surely must be one of the goals of higher education. In the following section, I will thus explain why in my view education should always be informed by research, and vice versa.

Why Teaching Benefits from Research

The first reason why a research-active academic is more likely to be an effective teacher has to do with breadth of knowledge and the ability to identify and overcome the conceptual barriers that hinder learning.

I do not share the view that a good educator can teach any subject, nor do I agree that content knowledge is all that matters; a research-active academic is able not just to infuse fresh materials and ideas into the curriculum, but also to introduce new ways of looking at familiar concepts—a key aim of higher education. Because of their self-reflection and scholarly work, research-active academics are also more likely to take a critical approach to the more familiar concepts, themes, and ideas of their discipline, problematize them, and highlight disciplinary strengths as well as weaknesses. In addition to making class interactions livelier, this can awaken the dormant curiosity of students—some of whom will be the scholars of tomorrow.

In this respect, my experience of research-led teaching has been inspiring, for I regularly test on my students the ideas I develop in my research—with surprising results. Among other things, I have noticed that students are both unsettled and intrigued by the fact that a discipline such as international relations can be seen from so many different angles. Their engagement with some of the ideas of my latest book has been considerable, and while senior and graduate students obviously take greater advantage of these debates, some of the most probing questions (and criticism!) of my scholarly output have come from first-year students. Their uncluttered approach to themes I have been working on for years is refreshing and I do believe the gain is mutual, for this is a case of ‘collective learning’. In my view, a research-active academic is more likely to be able to reach the ‘frontiers’ of a topic (even of a discipline) and offer them up for discussion; this will elevate class debates and motivate student learning, which will eventually result in better learning outcomes.

Why Research Benefits from Teaching

Though students are more likely to gain from a curriculum that incorporates the research output of their educators, often underestimated are the intellectual benefits of teaching and the fact that efforts in the classroom are likely to result in better research outputs. This is especially the case in smaller classes, and once again my experience  has been instructive, since most of the ideas and concepts—not to mention the drive and motivation—behind my research have originated in the classrooms. For instance, it is as a result of teaching a course on peacekeeping and peacebuilding that I began to think critically about the intellectual borders between these two concepts. Teaching at an institution where discussions are lively has also allowed me to appreciate the weaknesses of peacekeeping and peacebuilding, and to devise ways of improving them.

In short, it was through class discussions that I have been able to suggest better ways to approach contested paradigms, and it was by testing prevailing explanations in the classroom that I have found them to be inadequate. The critical approach of some of my students has even allowed me to anticipate the criticisms of some of my referees—another example of the symbiotic processes of knowledge production involved in blending research and teaching. To me, the most gratifying moment in the classroom happens when the inadequacy of old paradigms becomes clear and the need for new ones emerges. Surprisingly, this has most often happened not in specialized courses within my area of concentration but in GenEd classes.

In Sum

“The mark of a well-educated person”, Aristotle wrote, “is not that he or she has amassed knowledge about many fields, but that he or she knows how to ask good questions”. Two thousand years later, an emerging view in higher education finally recognizes that multiple disciplinary perspectives are needed to tackle complex issues such as hunger, income inequality and unemployment—to understand poverty, for instance, we need to go beyond economics and look at public policy, social justice, and social psychology. By helping students engage in long-lasting learning, the holistic integration of my teaching and research  has allowed me to understand complex issues and frame innovative solutions.

What makes this approach exciting is that problems are looked at not only within disciplines but with the possibility of new perspectives that go beyond disciplines. This is an immensely rewarding form of collaborative learning that can lead to fresh ideas and solutions—and, for an educator, there is no better reward than witnessing the transformative impact higher education can have on young minds unaccustomed to think for themselves. Allowing students to achieve what they thought was unattainable is the essence of higher education and can only be done through a ‘whole scholar’ approach that blends teaching and research—in my view, the best investment a society can make in its future generations.