Academicians have been arguing for decades about whether or not faculty research supports undergraduate instruction. Those who say it does—a group that includes most administrators and faculty members—cite many ways in which research can enrich teaching, while those on the other side cite numerous studies that have consistently failed to show a measurable linkage between the two activities. This article proposes that the two sides are debating different propositions: whether research can support teaching in principle and whether it has been shown to do so in practice. The article reviews the literature on the current state of the researchteaching nexus and then examines three specific strategies for integrating teaching and scholarship: bringing research into the classroom, involving undergraduates in research projects, and broadening the definition of scholarship beyond frontier disciplinary research. Finally, ways are suggested to better realize the potential synergies between faculty research and undergraduate education.

Department of Education,

Building capacity for change: research on the

The focus of this paper is based on our recent work in building capacity for research in teaching and learning and the management of change in higher education institutions. The paper describes and evaluates two institution-wide programmes designed to increase pedagogic research output. It begins by describing the major features of these programmes, summarises the outcomes and critically assesses their impact within each institution as well as in the higher education sector more broadly. Both programmes have been successful in creating an active pedagogic research culture within their respective institutions and have the potential to do so in a variety of institutional contexts. The paper is designed to assist conference participants who wish to develop a capacity for research on teaching and learning in their own institutions. It aims to: • identify appropriate strategies to promote research in teaching and learning in higher education institutions • develop a clearer understanding of the ways in which pedagogic research can be facilitated and encouraged • enhance the UK’s capacity for research-based practice in teaching and learning.

The focus of this paper is based on our recent work in building capacity for research in teaching and learning and the management of change in higher education institutions. The paper describes and evaluates two institution-wide programmes designed to increase pedagogic research output. It begins by describing the major features of these programmes, summarises the outcomes and critically assesses their impact within each institution as well as in the higher education sector more broadly. Both programmes have been successful in creating an active pedagogic research culture within their respective institutions and have the potential to do so in a variety of institutional contexts. The paper is designed to assist conference participants who wish to develop a capacity for research on teaching and learning in their own institutions. It aims to: • identify appropriate strategies to promote research in teaching and learning in higher education institutions • develop a clearer understanding of the ways in which pedagogic research can be facilitated and encouraged • enhance the UK’s capacity for research-based practice in teaching and learning.

We compare the undergraduate Economics majors and their underlying structure in the top-ranked Economics departments of Europe and the USA, identifying the fundamental courses included in an Economics major in top-ranked universities. We further distinguish between those courses that are required and those that are usually offered as electives, finding striking differences between Europe and the USA, especially regarding the nature of the main electives offered.The insights from this comparative study may be useful for the ongoing restructuring of undergraduate Economics majors in European countries caused by the Bologna Process.

This article addresses two relatively neglected issues in the field of peace research: (1) attitudes of system managers toward peace (defined as the absence of war); and (2) the relative importance of several socialization factors in determining those attitudes. Using interview data from a sample of UN elites, we describe the priority they accord peace, their preferred targets of peace (global vs. national or regional beneficiaries), policies they favor to realize peace, and preferred fora/procedures for negotiating policy. Then, we compare the impact of generational membership, North-South differences, and UN roles on respondent support for peace and propensity to favor policy change. Descriptive data reveal that peace is less important to these elites than economic welfare and social justice. This ordering, which is consonant with UN agenda trends, suggests spotty attention to peace initiatives in the future coupled with potential discrepancies in resource allocation between high and low political areas. In addition, peace is valued largely by globalminded elites, implying potential gaps between global schemes to end war and use of violence by nationalistic elites to attain preferred ends. Finally, while little disagreement exists concerning the importance of UN negotiation to attain peace, there is considerable disagreement over appropriate policy direction for the future. These aggregate tendencies are clarified by results of hypothesis tests showing level of development the best predictor of peace support and generational membership important to policy preferences. Explanatory findings, which tend to counter conventional socialization wisdom, implicate a North-South dimension in prepolicy debates, with DC affiliates favoring higher peace prioritization. However, in debates over policy, cohort differences, particularly the disproportionately change-oriented views of older elites, could have impact on outcomes. Thus, results of both analytic modes suggest important cognitive and socialization impediments to peace which may require reconciliation before policy progress can be made.