UCL Research Department of Primary Care and Population Health

Background: There is evidence of a negative relationship between the student experience and research-intensive universities. Attempts to ameliorate these negative effects have been made by cultivating the idea of the research-teaching nexus. Nonetheless, despite widespread belief in its existence the beneficial synergy of  this nexus continues to be described as a myth with  evidence suggesting at best a weak and variable association. 

Conceptions of learning are highly value laden and significantly influenced by context and purpose. In higher education ontological and epistemological differences between disciplines regarding the bond between knowledge and how it is generated are increasingly recognised as the key contextual factor influencing academic practice mediated through disciplinary identities and cultures.

Medical schools, in general, and departments of primary care, in particular, differ from other traditional academic settings due to their disciplinary heterogeneity (a bit like the clinical general practice) with associated benefit and challenges. Understanding discipline-related variation in teaching and its leadership has potential benefits to students and faculty.

Aim: To explore the theoretical and empirical basis for the variability in the research-teaching nexus and the implications for  academic primary care

Method: Literature review and practical discussion

Discussion: At a time when universities are encouraging cross- and inter-disciplinary teaching, research and enterprise, this review identifies and organises  key disciplinary issues that help or hinder such work and revisits the idea of scholarship as an integrating concept that unifies research and teaching through a shared focus on discovery and reflection