Why is Research Still Invisible in Further Education?

This article takes as its starting point earlier research reported by Geoffrey Elliott in 1996. That study found that research was consistantly marginalised in the FE sector, and identified a number of structural factors that contributed to this ‘invisibility’. This new study draws upon a small sample of lecturers who belong to a Further and Higher Education Early Years Partnership. Through the participants’ voices and perspectives, the authors identify continuing dissonance and issues of research marginalisation. The discussion also highlights contemporary educational discourse, with its predominant focus upon measurable value at the expense of values, as a key factor in sustaining a culture that is antithetic to thoughtful reflection and research. The authors identify the development of a ‘collaborative centralised’ research community as critical to an alternative possibility for research in further education.

Invaluable but Invisible: an Initial Investigation of Chinese Graduate Skill Development and Subsequent Skill Use

Measures of impact of Higher Education have often neglected the Chinese student view, despite the importance of these students to the UK and Chinese economy. This research paper details the findings of a quantitative survey that was purposively distributed to Chinese graduates who enrolled at the University of Worcester on the Business Management degree between 2004-2011 (n=49). Analysis has been conducted on their skill development throughout their degree, their skill usage in different employment contexts, the value of their degree, and gender differences in skill development and usage. Discrepancies between skill development and usage, between males and females, and with previous research findings are discussed. Future research directions are also specified.

Facing the Face of the Other: The Case of the Nia Centre

Until comparatively recently there has been little systematic effort to record the contribution to British theatre history of the diversity represented by Black British and British South and East Asian theatre makers. That failure to ‘see’ and acknowledge this lacuna within the academy reflected what in 2001 was condemned as widespread institutional racism within the theatre industry itself. The other ‘faces’ had been rendered effectively invisible. This chapter considers the ethical and evidential challenges associated with the task of recovering the history of a project created to enhance an important concept of cultural identity: the little-documented failure in the 1990s of the Nia Centre, the UK’s first black arts centre which opened in Hulme, Manchester in 1991. My exploration raises a number of key ethical challenges: How in the aftermath of the Nia’s collapse and in the almost complete absence of archival records, is the historian to mediate what inevitably are multiple truths coming from different perspectives? Whose, and what values were, and remain, at stake both at the time of the project itself, and in the telling of the history? How does the historian deal with failure especially if the circumstances were obscure and little regarded? The dream of the Nia died more than a decade ago, but the participants in that history are very much alive and their sensitivities have to be respected as part of the ethical challenge.