An intriguing collection of Case Studies.

At this years Roundtable we have a total of 37 case studies across our three case study sessions. They are filled with a diverse range of paradoxes in a variety of contexts and come from diverse presenters around the globe. We can’t wait to hear what they have to share, but for now we’ve compiled all case study abstracts in PDFs below for you to get a taste of what is to come.

 

Case Study Abstracts are now Available!

Case Study Submissions
closed on 1st October.

The information below was our invitation to the student-staff partnership
community to submit Case Studies to the Roundtable.

What we asked for in case study submissions.

“Here’s a challenge. Rather than submitting a straightforward description of your Partnership Case Study, we are keen for you to dig a little deeper and to try and find an aspect of it that foregrounds a paradox – an interesting partnership contradiction or puzzle you want to discuss at the Roundtable with others.

Below are three examples we’ve created to outline what we mean by paradox. The goal of inviting you to identify at least one Paradox is to try and get underneath the practices themselves to the educational challenges at hand. “

 
 

Here are 5 Tips to help with your case study.

It doesn't matter if you're a student from Sri Lanka or a staff member from Mexico - we're looking forward to hearing what you have to add to our conversation at the Roundtable this year.

 

Identify the Paradox.

A staff member looking for students to partner on a new Faculty equity committee is keen for participation but there is no funding to pay students for their time, insights, and experiences.

A tutor using Zoom asks students to turn on their videos for engagement but does not turn theirs on.

A team of staff and students agree to co-write an article about their work. They agree to share the labour but run out of time. As the deadline draws near, the staff ends up writing most of it, essentially, erasing students from full participation and representation.

 

Paradox: students’ experience is valued but does not warrant remuneration.

Paradox: contradictory expectations about participation.

Paradox: the agreements we routinely make with students limit their full participation.

What do I submit?

Once you’ve identified your Partnership Case Study, alongside providing us with your contact details (including those of your collaborators), aim to prepare an Abstract (400 words max.) that includes the following:

  1. Title 

  2. The institutional context for your Partnership initiative 

  3. The scholarly literature that informs your Partnership initiative 

  4. The challenge/problem your Partnership initiative aims to address 

  5. How the Partnership initiative addresses the challenge/problem 

  6. The Paradox for discussion (e.g., how it emerged, how you made sense of it, what you learned, the next steps you took or plan to take)

If you cite scholarly literature, please include a full Reference List (formatted to APA7 and included in the final word count). Our advice is to keep your citations limited to no more than 2-3 references. 

In addition, you will be asked to choose the context your Partnership Case Study is most clearly aligned with (if you can’t decide, choose one and we’ll assess at our end).

Choose a Context for your Case Study.

  • 1. Partnership in Teaching, Learning, Assessment and Curriculum

    Partnership initiatives that are located within or across units, programs and degrees. For example, the focus might include the co-design, evaluation or improvement of a learning activity, an assessment task/strategy, response to feedback or the curriculum and teaching itself. The Abstract should aim to emphasise how the initiative honours a commitment to staff-student partnership.

  • 2. Partnership in Engaging Students in Research (including undergraduate research) 

    Partnership activities/initiatives that focus on engaging students in the process of being and becoming researchers. While this might include initiatives both in, and out, of the formal curriculum, the Abstract should aim to emphasise the process of partnership between staff and students.

  • 3. Partnership in co-or extra-curricula program or initiative (student services/engagement) 

    Partnership initiatives that sit outside the formal curriculum within the broader university student experience. This might include a careers or employability program, peer engagement programs, or university-wide initiatives related to student engagement. The Abstract should aim to emphasise how the initiative is a partnership collaboration between staff and students.

  • 4. Partnership in academic governance

    We welcome initiatives that address student-staff partnership related to academic governance within, between, and across, layers of the university - from curriculum and research quality assurance and improvement, to university level academic governance. We welcome initiatives that showcase: (a) institutional models of student-staff partnership in academic governance, or (b) what has worked and why, or (c) opportunities for improvement.

  • 5. Partnership in academic and/or educational development

    Academic and educational development focuses on supporting staff to make decisions about their educational practices using evidence and scholarship. Under this theme, we welcome initiatives that involve students as partners, for example, as consultants in the observation of teaching, as peers in the review of curriculum, as makers of events, programs and resources, and as collaborators in providing their experience and insights to support staff professional learning. The Abstract should aim to emphasise how the initiative is a partnership collaboration between staff and students.

  • 6. Theoretical and conceptual challenges to Partnership

    Staff-student partnership is a contested practice. We welcome Case Studies that take up, theorise, and offer a critical interrogation of student-staff partnership. This might include questions about equity, representation, decolonising practices and claims that partnership is a radical anti-neoliberal practice. We recognise that Abstracts in this context may well depart from the template provided (and that’s ok).

Each Case Study will be allocated a 25 minutes time slot on either Day 1 or Day 3 of the Roundtable. Your presentation will be chaired. You will have 15 minutes to present and 10 minutes for discussion focused on the paradox you have identified.

Case Study submissions closed on Fri 1st October.

Thanks for your submission. Hang in there as we puzzle our way through them. Check the Key Dates to learn when you will be notified of the outcome.

Questions? Email Roundtable2021@westernsydney.edu.au.