A: You are correct. Many administrators do not see research and academic writing as a part of their work or daily responsibilities. Their failure to do so often limits their effectiveness. The reason these scholarly pursuits interest me—and at times help focus my work—is my wish to be innovative and creative and thus continue to grow into a productive and truly engaged member of the academy. The clear challenge for full-time academic administrators, as I see it, is to develop intellectually and contribute to learning initiatives and outcomes through teaching and active research. Conversations with colleagues and faculty are far richer and meaningful when your own background has been tailored by theory and practice in the culture of higher education. Teaching students obviously informs the teacher about students’ experiences, backgrounds, and student learning. Using those experiences to impact program development, I find, provides me with an understanding of sound learning theory and insight on how to create meaningful assessment of student learning. 

Q: How do you select topics to research? Where do you find your research inspiration? Do you have to weigh the time investment for the research work before you take something on? Do you have to parse out your time? 

 
A: My research is very organic, emerging from my professional experience, my teaching, and my involvement as the principal investigator in a series of educational grants. What connects all three of these undertakings is the recognition that simply good teaching and effective learning are not limited to the traditional classroom, but occur also in compelling venues beyond the conventional array of settings. Therefore, like many of my colleagues at LIU Brooklyn, I believe we are uniquely positioned to help our students acquire education and skills through a comprehensive effort to develop our entire campus into a “learning community.” What is also central to my research is my educational philosophy, which dictates that educators must design an environment where students construct their own learning. It is based on the tradition of constructive theory developed by people like John Dewey and, more recently, Catherine Fosnot. 

 
As for taking on projects, yes, I have to weigh my options very carefully because beyond my work and teaching responsibilities, I am also involved in several professional activities, including regional accreditation, professional organizations, to name a few. At times, it becomes a delicate balancing act; so, the project not only has to peak my interest, but also be connected to the work that I am involved in at the time. Once I’ve decided on a particular project, the challenge is in the scheduling, actually identifying pockets of time to do the research—almost like another job. If I am not flexible and adaptive in scheduling research time, it will not happen. I often find myself reinventing the workday, that is, budgeting and allocating time, and creating a receptive environment that allows me to conduct my research and write about it. Irrespective of the nature of the research, I am always reminded about the enormous amount of energy that is expended—for me anyway—in completing a study and bringing it to publication. For administrators like me to bring forth research encompasses switching gears from teaching, report writing, etc., to a mindset that is expected of those who do scholarly work. How I do this and what happens when I do this are fulfilling and enjoyable activities—but I haven’t quite worked out how it all comes together. 

Q: Your work often has a very applied aspect—in the sense that it will likely affect change and improve education. Would you agree? Is this a conscious choice? Please elaborate. 

A: Yes, I entirely agree that one could characterize my research as applied research because I think of myself as a practitioner in higher education. Therefore, I try to identify topics that are uniquely connected to the field of teaching and learning, that have critical importance in advancing education and transforming pedagogical practices, and that modify traditional college settings into learning environments to elevate the educational experiences of students. Again, I have always deliberately chosen to conduct research that is focused on student learning in higher education. Recently, I have become interested in making learning a collective activity for my students through the use of technology and “open source” software. In this new century, we find ourselves immersed in a digital world, and students entering college very often perceive their world through various social media and search engines; therefore, as educators we must not only understand the impact that technology has on how students learn, but also embrace this tool to make them better learners. The academy is adapting to initiatives that support teaching and learning through technology that provides a model for improving student success.

Q: You’ve taken part in a number of projects that have required academic peer review. How does your work as a university administrator and leader inform your peer review work? What do you look for in an academic piece of writing before you would approve its possible publication? Why? 

A: Many of my full-time faculty colleagues, I believe, don’t fully recognize that academic administrators like myself often use a combination of theoretical, research, and procedural perspectives for managing student problems, professional concerns, and day-to-day operations. Many of these same theoretical and empirical approaches are consistent with and transferrable to the strategies I use to support my research. For example, when attempting to understand a student problem or identifying a testable hypothesis for a research question, one is challenged, I believe, with similar demands surrounding each of these issues: acquiring background information; evaluating what has occurred in similar situations, e.g., review of related research; possible relevant methodologies; and expected results. A careful researcher will always be certain that the work presented for publication meets certain criteria: 

(1) is the research question or position clearly stated and testable; 

(2) are the methodologies employed up to date and consistent with the problem being researched; 

(3) are the observations presented clearly; and 

(4) are the discussion and conclusions gleaned from and concordant with the observations. 

Yes, I know, this seems like it’s culled from the scientific method, but I feel it is still the best framework for establishing research protocols, and I try to follow these procedures as best I can. When reviewing the research of others, I look first to see if these questions have been answered. Then, using my social science experience, I try to deconstruct the work and identify elements of the paper that can be improved or refined. 

Q: And now the converse: Does your research and publication work inform your administrative work? Does your academic peer review work inform your administrative work? 

A: To a certain extent, I’ve answered this question already. Clearly, my research on constructivist theory, open source technology, student learning, learning environments, constructivism, and learning communities informs and advances program development at my institution and for my students by providing contextual constructs, knowledge, and even insights for exploring the world through higher education. I like to believe that my research is very much like David Kolb’s Learning Style Model, its approach to research, teaching, and administration being very similar to what I do. Kolb’s model describes the connections among concrete experiences, reflection, action, and experimentation—for me, it is not only how each one informs the other, but also the nature of the interactions in his model. Anyone who appreciates how the peer review process is intended to work will understand its relationship with choosing the appropriate administrative course of action that will enable administrators achieve their professional goals. To be effective, both peer review and administrative decision-making must rely on the process of assessment. For example, each employs very similar criteria: hypothesis, experimentation, observation, discussion, and conclusion are simpatico to goals, objectives, measures, results, assessment. Both peer review and administrative decision-making help us explore academic and administrative possibilities and make informed decisions.

Q: When your own work is peer reviewed, what sorts of feedback do you find informative and constructive? What sorts of feedback do you find less helpful? Do you ever find it hard to engage the peer review comments, or has it generally been a more gentle process? 

A: I very much appreciate peer review when it helps make the written part of the research clearer and more cogent by identifying inconsistencies, errors in grammar, and approaches to make the paper more concise. Feedback, where the reviewer wishes to substitute her judgments about the conclusion over mine, is usually less constructive—although on some occasions warranted. The difficulty I’ve experience with some peer review comments occurs when the reviewer is imprecise and vague about what she sees as troubling and makes no attempt to put forth possible remedies. Peer review for me is challenging at times, even though I fully appreciate its value to the publication of scholarly works. I suspect no one is happy at having any part of her scholarship contested, whether it’s substantive or even a simple grammatical correction. However, recognizing the visceral nature of this kind of reaction, I try to put it aside and focus on incorporating the comments that, in my judgment, improve the quality of the paper. When I believe a reviewer’s objection is wrong, I have no uneasiness in defending my position and reporting so to the editor. Often, the upholding argument strengthens the paper.

Q: Are there certain things you strive to achieve before a work goes through the double-blind peer review process? When you do a last mental walk-through of your work before attaching and hitting “send,” what do you think about? 

 
A: One concern always on my mind when I’m ready to present my work for publication is the potential audience who may eventually read the work. You have to make certain the article satisfies the peer reviewer, the expert in the area of your research who will read and comment on your work and thereafter substantiate and confirm that your submission is worthy of publication. By the time I’m ready to submit my work for review, I’m confident that its theoretical perspectives and practical applications are clear and well founded. But, at this point, I take one more turn at tightening the paper. For example, are there extraneous words or introductory phrases that can be omitted, is the grammar perfect, is each citation accurately listed, are graphs and figures understandable? Any researcher who does not make an effort to improve her submission along these lines runs the risk of reviewers and editors concluding that a poorly written paper may be indicative of confused research as well. Often, I ask a colleague to read the paper before submitting it to identify any errors I’ve overlooked. Of course, the paper must satisfy not only the journal editor and peer reviewer, but also engage the student, teacher, or researcher in your field. So, it must be written for both the active scholar and those who are not quite so competent; that is, it must be designed to reach both audiences, clearly a difficult task for the writer. By the time I’m ready to hit the send button, I find myself relieved that I’ve finished a project that is now ready for others to see, and, yes, I start to worry about how it will be received.

Q: Is there any tension between the support you get as an administrator and maybe the hard-scrabble circumstances in publishing? Do these feel like very separate realms? 

 
A: I’m fortunate because the leadership at LIU/Brooklyn supports the development of its faculty and teaching administrators by providing funds for travel to academic venues, research material, publication costs, etc. The deans and other academic administrators value published research as an indicator of faculty development and as a requirement for effective up-to-date teaching. As I’ve noted earlier, my administrative work and my research are two sides of the same coin. 

Q: When you think of your research, do you have a sense of what you’d like your legacy to be? Is there a certain niche that you think is yours? (I’m not asking to get you into trouble even though I can sort of see some possible risk here.) 

 
A: Quite frankly, I never imagined my research amounting to anything like a legacy—it was always more about the questions that interested me and about being committed to making a difference in the lives of my students. However, if you’re asking me how I would like others to view my work, then I’m prepared to take a stab at it: I hope my readers find my writings thought-provoking contributions to the emerging pedagogies of the 21st century. I’ve touched on this earlier in the context of the academy parting ways with the inherited teaching methodologies of the past. Today’s students are demanding that their instructors use new teaching strategies to help them understand the unfolding complex issues facing them. That’s why my research focuses on the integration of technology as a form of text, resource, and forum for students to construct knowledge and on the creation of inclusive learning spaces and practices for diverse students. If I’ve helped in some small way to meet these goals or even moved the process ahead, I will be satisfied.

Q: What sorts of things do you read to stay atop the research aspects of your field? Also, do you attend conferences as a researcher? 

A: Well, that’s a loaded question! I read blogs, traditional research articles, digital texts, traditional texts, view TED Talks—just about anything that peaks my interest and sends me on my next research adventure. Actually, many of my research ideas get their start either with a conference that I’ve attended or presented at. For example, after I presented at a Teaching with Technology Conference at LIU Brooklyn on TED Talks, I recognized that the presentation could grow into a book chapter with some additional research. 

 
Q: Anything else you may wish to address? 

A. Yes! With all of these worlds converging and colliding at times, many times I feel like this clip from I Love Lucy episode.  

Gladys Palma de Schrynemakers Professional Biography

Dr. Gladys Palma de Schrynemakers, heads Institutional Effectiveness and Academic Support on the Brooklyn Campus, directs the student life and academic outcomes assessment efforts. She is responsible for campus strategic planning and university-wide strategic efforts, and directs Brooklyn’s Retention Task Force. She developed and leads the LIU Promise Initiative on the LIU Brooklyn a comprehensive approach to undergraduate advisement. 

Additional responsibilities include the development of a campus grants agenda and writing institutional grants. Dr. Schrynemakers directs the Collegiate Science Technology Program (CSTEP) which prepares undergraduate minority and economically disadvantaged students to enter the STEM fields. She is the P.I. for the New York State’s Smart Scholars Early College High School. Dr. Schrynemakers chairs the statewide Smart Scholars assessment sub-committee. She chairs the annual Teaching Narrative Conference at the Brooklyn Campus, an event that focuses on teaching narratives as a form of inquiry about student learning. 

She has served on Accreditation Teams for the Middle States Commission on Higher Education and as a Periodic Reviewer for the Commission, as well as serving on Accreditation Teams for the New York State Department of Education. Serving her second three-year term as the Executive Vice President of APACS, Association of Administrators of CSTEP and STEP, she works closely with over 200 CSTEP/STEP directors and program staff to create a statewide professional development network. Dr. Schrynemakers teaches in the University Honors Program, Anthropology/Sociology Department and has secured over 9.5 million dollars in grants, and published frequently in peer-reviewed venues on theory and practice of constructing theory, teaching and technology, and assessment.