The hold the date for #MICER25 has just been announced (Edinburgh Napier, 21st May 2025) and it is a good prompt for me to share that I am launching a small research project to explore the impact of MICER on the chemistry education community.
The short version is: if you think MICER has been of value to you in some form, and you would like to tell me about it, please complete this form: https://forms.office.com/e/SvuTgAxsa3
Longer version:
MICER (Methods in Chemistry Education Research) is a one-day meeting held annually since 2016.[1] The format of the meeting emphasises development: invited speakers share insights on the methods underpinning their work (in contrast to usual conference approaches where speakers share their results). The approach is participatory, with participants immersing in active learning trying out some aspect of the methods under consideration. The overall aim of MICER is to empower those attending into thinking about ways in which they may consider scholarly approaches to researching some aspect of their educational practice. This unusual approach of a hybrid conference/workshop means that MICER has become a popular event in the annual calendar of teaching focussed academics in the UK (in STEM generally, and especially in chemistry). In 2026 it will celebrate its 10th year, and that year will also see the first international version of MICER to be held.[2]
Research Question
The unusual nature of MICER and the strong following the meeting has garnered over the years prompts interest in exploring the extent to which MICER has been successful in making a meaningful difference to participants’ capacity to engage in education research in their own domains. More broadly, engaging in pedagogical scholarship and/or education research is a key aspect of academic activity and professional development for those on teaching focussed pathways or in teaching focussed roles. Therefore MICER – while specific to the instance of those in chemistry education – provides a possible sample base to explore the extent to which this type of participatory active approach has had impact on subsequent activity, and therefore whether there are broader lessons to be learned in terms of framing CPD activities for teaching focussed and teaching interested faculty.
The primary research question for this study is grounded in the foreshadowed discussion above and is:
In what ways did attendance at MICER influence subsequent domain specific research or scholarly activity?
Methodology and framing theory
Evaluation of CPD activity is a generally under-researched area, although recent initiatives in this domain have emphasised the importance of shifting away from inputs (how many CPD events do professionals engage in) and towards outputs (what was the result of engaging in professional activity) (Allen et al., 2019). Even for the latter, there is confusion about the extent to which there is a perception of value (usually manifesting in post-meeting evaluation forms) and realised value (impacts or outputs that were somehow directly supported from being involved in the CPD activity).
Allen has shared useful work that can frame the methodology for this study (Allen et al., 2020), drawing from Wenger’s social learning theory. She explains that this considers three elements: domain (shared area of interest), community (sharing, interaction, negotiation, etc), and the working towards shared practice. A scenario with such elements results in learning enabled by community involvement and networking, and this learning is defined as value creation. Drawing from this, Allen has shared a semi-structured interview protocol which seeks to draw out immediate, potential, applied, realised values as well as any reframing of values as a result of redefining success. This protocol and description are reproduced in their Supplementary Information and will be the basis for interview work with research participants.
Research Participants
An open call for participants will be issued through the MICER website blog and other social media outlets, asking those who have attended MICER to take part in the research. Participation requests from teaching-focussed academics working in the university sector will be pursued for interview, with each interview lasting up to one hour. Participants will not be compensated for their time. No participants will be under 18. Efforts will be made to ensure a diversity of participants are contributing to the research findings.
Ethical Considerations
The BERA guidelines (BERA, 2024) as used to frame this work and in line with those guidelines, the following stipulations apply:
- Informed consent: Participants will receive full information about the scope of the project and how their contributions will be used to inform the research question.
- Right to withdraw: Participants will have the right to withdraw their contribution up to the point of any publication of outputs of the work.
- Right to anonymity: Participants will not be identified nor identifiable in outputs of this research either directly or through inference.
All data gathered will be deemed relevant to the research. The research is transparent and does not intend to gather any information from participants without their direct awareness as described in the informed consent document (Supplementary Information). Conclusions drawn from participants’ contributions will be checked with them to ensure it is a true and accurate account of their contributions, and to demonstrate the value of their time in contributing to the research activity. In the event of dissemination, participants will be informed.
Data handling
Interviews will be recorded at the time of interviewing. These recordings will be held on University secured storage until the interview transcript is downloaded. The transcript will be reviewed and any identifying names or institutions will be removed and pseudonymised. As this stage, interview recordings and any identifying data will be deleted, and all work will progress from anonymised transcripts. These transcripts and their analysis will be held on University secured storage. It is not intended for data to be reused in secondary or subsequent analysis by other researchers. Data will be handled in accordance with the Data Protection Act 2018. Data will be stored for a maximum of seven years.
Minimising harm
No harm is expected to arise from this research. There may be cases where participants express frustrations regarding career direction or other instances where discussion of topics that influence their career journey may cause unintended upset. In all cases, the interview will be followed up with a check in with participants regarding their contribution, and advice regarding any networks or supporting agencies including professional bodies that may be able to provide mentoring and support.
References
Allen, L. M., Hay, M., Armstrong, E. and Palermo, C. (2020) ‘Applying a social theory of learning to explain the possible impacts of continuing professional development (CPD) programs’, Medical Teacher, 42(10), pp. 1140-1147.
Allen, L. M., Palermo, C., Armstrong, E. and Hay, M. (2019) ‘Categorising the broad impacts of continuing professional development: a scoping review’, Medical Education, 53(11), pp. 1087-1099.
BERA (2024) Ethical Guidelines for Educational Research, fifth edition (2024). Available at: https://www.bera.ac.uk/publication/ethical-guidelines-for-educational-research-fifth-edition-2024-online (Accessed: October 2024).