In a context of intense debate around the need to promote stronger research skills in politics graduates, this article explores an approach to teaching research methods which focuses on the discipline, student and research process. Through a case study, we show that adopting a discipline-embedded research-oriented approach ensures student engagement with methods teaching. Following the principle that students should experience primary research from the moment of choosing a research topic up to the stage of implementation and analysis of results, students engage with this module through their interest in the discipline and sense of ownership of their learning process.
AdeneyK.CareyS. (2009), ‘Contextualising the Teaching of Statistics in Political Science’, Politics29(3), pp. 193–200.
2.
DiamondI.TongueJ.McInnesC. (2007), International Benchmarking Review of UK Politics and International Studies, Swindon: Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC), British International Studies Association and Political Studies Association. Available from: http://www.esrc.ac.uk/_images/International%20benchmarking%20review %20-%20Politics%20and%20International%20studies_tcm8–4554.pdf [Accessed 08 May 2013].
3.
EltonL. (2001), ‘Research and Teaching: Conditions for a Positive Link’, Teaching in Higher Education6(1), pp. 43–56.
4.
GriffithsR. (2004), ‘Knowledge Production and the Research–Teaching Nexus: The Case of the Built Environment Disciplines’, Studies in Higher Education29(6), pp. 709–726.
5.
HealeyM. (2005), ‘Linking Research and Teaching to Benefit Student Learning’, Journal of Geography in Higher Education29(2), pp. 183–201.
6.
House of Commons (2009), Innovations, Universities, Sciences and Skills Select Committee's Eleventh Report – Students and Universities, UK Parliament, 20 July. Available from: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm/cmdius.htm [Accessed 08 May 2013].
7.
IshiyamaJ. (2002), ‘Does Early Participation in Undergraduate Research Benefit Social Science and Humanities Students?’, College Student Journal36(3), pp. 380–387.
8.
IshiyamaJ. (2010), ‘What is the Impact of In-Class Active Learning Techniques? A Meta Analysis of the Existing Literature’, Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, 2–5 September. Available from: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1644146 [Accessed 08 May 2013].
9.
JenkinsA.BreenR.LindsayR. (2003), Reshaping Teaching in Higher Education: Linking Teaching with Research, London: Routledge.
10.
JenkinsA.HealeyM.ZetterR. (2007), Linking Teaching and Research in Disciplines and Departments, York: Higher Education Academy. Available from: http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/assets/documents/LinkingTeachingAnd Research_April07.pdf [Accessed 08 May 2013].
11.
LightfootS. (2010), ‘Developing Research Literacy in Undergraduate Students in Research Intensive Universities’, paper presented at the Annual Conference of the Political Studies Association, Edinburgh, UK, 30 March.
12.
ParkerJ. (2002), ‘A New Disciplinarity: Communities of Knowledge, Learning and Practice’, Teaching in Higher Education7(4), pp. 373–386.
13.
ParkerJ. (2010), ‘Undergraduate Research-Methods Training in Political Science: A Comparative Perspective’, PS: Political Science and Politics43, pp. 121–125.
ThiesC.HoganR. (2005), ‘The State of Undergraduate Research Methods Training in Political Science’, PS: Political Science and Politics38, pp. 293–297.
16.
TurnerC.ThiesC. (2009), ‘What We Mean by Scope and Methods: A Survey of Undergraduate Scope and Methods Courses’, PS: Political Science and Politics42(2), pp. 367–373.
