Conclusions on the literature review – The gap in the literature

This chapter focuses on locating the research gap in the literature both from substantive and methodological perspectives, and, thereby indicates the place this study takes in the research pedagogic literature. The focus is placed first on the international arena and thereafter on the Finnish context.

International research on student experiences of research methods courses and bachelors’

dissertations

International research has shown that ABR-type of student behavior (Valarino & Yaber O 2002), research difficulties (Head & Eisenberg 2010), and periods of chaos and cosmos (Todd et al. 2006) in the dissertation stage should not come as a surprise to faculty – considering that the same ABR symptoms are visible in the findings of many research course (chapter 1.4.5) and URE studies (chapter 1.4.6) whether the respondents are students undergoing the process, or faculty observing the students in the process. In general, students tend to experience research difficulties in many of the phases of a standard research process (Head 2008, 433, 437; Head & Eisenberg 2010, 26). It seems that the ABR syndrome and research difficulties exist during the studies long before the dissertation begins, and should be dealt with well before the dissertation stage to facilitate a meaningful and purposeful dissertation process.

There has been a good amount of international research into UG students’ experience of the dissertation or ”the dissertation journey” as it is aptly titled by Todd and colleagues (2006, 161).

Although students may consider it “a capstone opportunity” for autonomous learning and studying a topic of personal interest from scratch to achieve something (Malcolm 2012, 572–573), and an authentic learning method resulting in the achievement of a dissertation (Todd et al. 2004, 345), many still fail to see the importance and usefulness of research, and, consequently, the relevance of research courses (GlenMaye et al. 2012, 233; Halcomb & Peters 2009, 69) – in spite of the

pedagogic improvements tested in so many of the studies reviewed. The overwhelming majority of studies reveals that students experience uncertainty, competence gaps and anxiety during the dissertation journey (Desbrow et al. 2014; Greenbank & Penketh 2014; Heinze & Heinze 2009;

Onwuegbuzie et al. 2003, 2004; Todd et al. 2004; Onwuegbuzie & Wilson 2003; Papanastasiou &

Zembylas 2008). Dissertation candidates are in danger of getting “stuck a liminal space […]

characterized by anxiety, stress, struggle and high emotion”, and, while many eventually experience a rewarding transition” (Ross et al. 2011, 25) so that “ignorance and naivety at the outset is subverted by experience” (Malcolm 2012, 571), there is no denying that many are oscillating in liminal space/territory (Ross et al. 2011, 25).

Due to these well-documented challenges, students need many types of faculty assistance.

UG supervision needs further research (Derounian 2011). New pedagogic approaches are needed, such as, moving from the focus on individual supervision to research pedagogies utilizing sociocultural approaches (Baker et al. 2014; Dysthe et al. 2006) and exploring effective supervisory styles (Armstrong 2004). The phenomenon of stuckness could also be conceptualized through Vygotski’s zone of proximal development (ZPD). It appears that students sorely need cognitive scaffolding to develop what it takes to conduct a skilled RDI process. Leinonen (2001, 223) also suggests the application of the concept to the thesis process. Additionally, the emotional challenges reported indicate that students also need, what I would call, emotional scaffolding in the management of the typical emotional challenges – both ups and downs – that take place during a longer research venture, such as, the dissertation. Overall, in light of the literature, the range of UG student experience of the dissertation process appears to be a wide one with many different qualifiers that faculty can and should actively tackle.

The first stages of the dissertation, especially the topic selection, may to some students appear as a facilitative experience, while faculty identifies it as intellectual threshold (Malcolm 2012, 571). Research has identified the first stages as a “groping stage” (Tan 2007, 207), where students are at a loss how to proceed. In the context of this study, it is worthy of note that the topic selection phase or groping stage has not been the sole focus of any prior international study. It is here that the gap in the English research pedagogic literature lies. The first stage of dissertation process is therefore worthy of its own study. In general, more research into the lived experience of student’s dissertation process has been called for (Heinze & Heinze 2009, 304; Todd et al. 2004, 337; Turner etl al. 2008, 200). Specifically, researching dissertation students’ experiences at different levels of education from UG to doctoral needs more attention, because, while some similarities in the experiences at different degree levels can be assumed, there will also be differences due to the contrasting “intellectual demands and time frames” (Anderson, Day &

McLaughlin 2008, 33). The latter authors also highlight the modest amount of academic reseach focused on dissertation experiences of professional master’s degree students.

From the methodological viewpoint, surprisingly, the only GT study abroad or in Finland even close to the the phenomenon in focus in this study has been done by Marinkovich and Salazar (2011). Their aim was to establish the social representations faculty held about the bachelor thesis writing process in a history program. Thus, GT studies into student dissertation experience do not exist. Methodologically, GT lends itself excellently to investigating the experiential aspect of human life. Additionally, as a new way to research the phenomenon, GT has the potential to yield new insights. This study aims to fill this methodological gap also.

Finnish research on the UAS bachelor thesis

Finnish research into the UAS bachelor thesis shares with the international literature the foci on student and faculty experiences, and the development of more effective learning processes through collaborative learning. But there are also additional research foci that we briefly look into later in this chapter.

Research into student experiences of the UAS bachelor thesis process creates a complex and partially contradictory image. Students set practical goals for the thesis, including, graduation, learning to do a thesis, developing expertise, producing new information to oneself, and intellectual development (Leinonen 2001, 161–163). Students have also experienced the authentic working life context and working life advisors important for developing expertise (Frilander-Paavilainen 2005, 70, 171; Ylönen 2005, 17, 22–23). Paradoxically, some students have critiqued the thesis goals and criteria for being too low, and expressed the motivation to work even harder at the edge of their competence (Frilander-Paavilainen 2005, 161). Yet, simultaneously, they have listed a variety of problems caused by lack of competences and the special skills needed in the thesis process (Leinonen 2001, 158–159). Specifically, students have clearly voiced the need for special support in the first stages of the thesis process when setting the thesis objective, tasks and demarkation, which all guide the rest of the process (Frilander-Paavilainen 2005, 175; Leinonen 2001, 157-160; Pehkonen & Kauranen 2012, 23; Ylönen 2005, 14–15). Researchers warn that the difficulties experienced in the topic selection phase can result in delaying the thesis (Pehkonen &

Kauranen 2012, 23), lowered motivation, perceptions of poor advising provision, and lack of depth in thesis learning (Ylönen 2005, 22–23). Unsuccessful demarkation can also result in students experiencing problems with theoretical framework design, and the synthesis of results (Leinonen 2001, 160).

The above results clearly indicate the existence of a similar “groping stage” as in the international literature (cf. Tan 2007, 207). The “groping stage” is in the Finnish context aggravated by lack of faculty commitment, support and advising in the tripartite collaboration process (Frilander-Paavilainen 2005, 138), companies’ lack of understanding of the learning objectives of the thesis, and their focus on maximizing organizational gain from the thesis starting from the topic definition (Frilander-Paavilainen 2005, 161). Students have also voiced concerns that the attainment of goals set by the educational policy (i.e. RDI to support regional development and business) has been left for them to fend for (Frilander-Paavilainen 2005, 161).

Students do not only need assistance with topic selection. Additional faculty support has been called for when writing down research questions, searching for literature, demarkating and handling the theoretical framework, finding source material, preparing the research design, learning analysis methods, planning data collection, working with data, interpreting and reporting the results, writing the discussion and conclusion chapters, producing text and evaluating own work critically (Frilander-Paavilainen 2005, 72; Leinonen 2001, 158–159, 183; Pehkonen &

Kauranen 2012, 18–23; Ylönen 2005, 22). Students have also requested improvements to out-of-date, unclear and hard-to-find guidelines, orientation to the thesis process through more studies in research skills, the timing of the process, the lack of alignment of practices with written guidelines, and an earlier start for the thesis process. (Pehkonen & Kauranen 2012, 23–24.)

Socioconstructivist pedagogy and collaborative learning has been tried and found useful to complement individual thesis advising (Leinonen 2006; Leinonen 2012; Frilander-Paavilainen 2005; Vesterinen 2003). The process should encourage the students to discuss, critique and interpret each others’ work in peer groups, and with faculty and working life organizations.

Together these facilitate learning both individual and communal expertise during the thesis process. (Frilander-Paavilainen 2005, 164–176; Mäenpää 2014 56–58.) Students have experienced these approaches useful as they allow learning from other students’ theses and receiving critical peer comments on one’s own thesis (Leinonen 2006, 117). Peer feedback has, however, also received critique. Leinonen (2006, 119) lists as problems heavy focus on structural and linguistic aspects rather than on substance, the lack of dialogue, and the inability to activate the audience.

In the faculty relationship, students may assign their problems to the abstractness of the tuition, and the person and knowledge of the advisor, while the root of the problems may actually lie in the students’ own lack of basic ontological understanding (Kilpiäinen 2003, 77, 127–128).

Students have critiqued the advising provision for being uninformative, one-sided, rigid, and lacking in creativity or critical approach (Kilpiäinen 2003, 77, 127–128). Some students have also reported not receiving advising from the teacher or the working life representative

(Frilander-Paavilainen 2005, 106). This may be partly due to the varying conceptions teachers have of self-guidedness, some of which may result in leaving the student to fend for himself during the thesis (Frilander-Paavilainen 2005, 162). Yet, individual thesis advising has been considered very useful by majority of students alongside with shared seminars (Leinonen 2001, 147, 154). Students’ key criteria for choosing an advisor have been expertise, shared interests, earlier collaboration and advisor’s personal characteristics (Leinonen 2001, 174–175). They expect to receive guidance for both themselves as learners and for the thesis as a work in progress (Leinonen 2001, 176–177).

Students hold in high esteem advisor’s encouragement, matter of factness, empathy, enthusiasm and comradery, criticality, demandingness, sense of humor, warmth and impulsivity (Leinonen 2001, 185–186) in line with much prior international research. Flexibility and accessibility of the individual provision are much appreciated by students (Leinonen 2006, 121).

As stated in the beginning, there are some additional research foci in the Finnish literature, partly due to the contextual differences arising from the UAS legislation and national research strategies. These focus areas include integration of the thesis and the work placement, and the tripartite collaborative relationship between the thesis student, the commissioning organization and the educational institution. All parties agree that tripartite dialogue is necessary to facilitate shared understandings and a smoother thesis process. (Frilander-Paavilainen 2005, 72, 137–138, 141,161–

170). At its best, the collaboration facilitates for the student an extended work experience in the multivoiced dialogue of an authentic working environment and within its community of practice, which, in turn, generates learning and increases innovation opportunities for all parties (Frilander-Paavilainen 2005, 142; Hyrkkänen 2011, 12–16; Leinonen 2006, 109, 121; Rissanen 2003 18–19;

Vanhanen-Nuutinen et al. 2006, 243–244). The collaborative process also helps students develop and improve upon a multitude of competences from self-management to cognitive, emotional and social skills, and to crucial working life skills (Frilander-Paavilainen 2005, 164; Leinonen 2012, 482, 485, 524; Mäenpää 2014; Toljamo & Ihohanni 2007, 298; Ylönen 2005, 19). Managing the relationship has proven challenging in practice, however. Faculty should facilitate the tripartite collaboration process and inform working life organizations. Yet, faculty often fails to meet this brief, while also providing insufficient advising (Frilander-Paavilainen 2005, 164–176; Leinonen 2006, 121) with the result that student unnecessarily experience avoidable difficulties. Since students also consider it important that their thesis results be usable, and that the company actually utilize them (Ylönen 2005, 22–23), the role of faculty facilitation is clearly crucial.

This review of Finnish literature shows that the same research gap exists in both the Finnish and the international UG dissertation/thesis research. Both highlight the difficulties students face throughout the thesis process, and, specifically, in the first stages. Yet, there are no studies

focusing specifically on this challenging stage. The methodologial situation is also the same: there are no GT studies focusing on the thesis experiences of UAS thesis students or faculty in the Finnish context. There is a clear gap to fill with a study focusing on the experiences of UAS bachelor’s students in the first stages of the thesis process in the context of the Finnish UAS system utilizing GT as the research approach.