Date of the Workshop: Wednesday 29 April 2026
Location: School of Mathematics, University of Leeds (hybrid: in person and online)
Number of participants: 109 (36 in-person and 73 online)
Number of distinct organisations represented: 41 institutions across 8 countries
Introduction
This workshop addressed a clear professional development gap for mathematicians transitioning from mathematical research into education research and pedagogical scholarship. As universities increasingly recognise teaching-focused research excellence and the scholarship of teaching and learning in promotion pathways, many mathematicians with strong disciplinary track records struggle to see how their existing research skills transfer into credible education research.
The central objective was to focus on the transition process itself, helping participants understand how their mathematical research expertise can underpin robust education research, while also helping them navigate unfamiliar methodologies, funding routes, and publication norms. The workshop directly aligned with the IMA/LMS/RSS strategic priority of enhancing teaching and learning in higher education mathematics and building research capacity that bridges mathematical expertise with pedagogical scholarship.
Workshop Overview
The workshop took place on Wednesday 29 April 2026 at the School of Mathematics, University of Leeds, running in hybrid format to enable participation from colleagues unable to attend in person. The event brought together 109 participants from 41 institutions across 8 countries (including the UK, Argentina, the Czech Republic, South Africa, the USA, Germany, Saudi Arabia, and the Philippines) with 36 colleagues joining in person in Leeds and 73 participating online. Participants were welcomed from all career stages, from early-career academics planning their first education research project to established mathematicians reorienting their research focus towards teaching and learning, reflecting the workshop’s intention to support the transition into pedagogical scholarship at any point in a career.
The programme combined several structured elements: a keynote lecture, a panel on career pathways, three invited talks, and time for networking and informal discussion. Michael Grove (University of Birmingham) delivered the keynote Mathematical Research to Education Research: Building Credible Scholarship, followed by a panel on Career Pathways and Trajectories chaired by Alison Voice (University of Leeds) with contributions from the other speakers. In the afternoon, Samantha Pugh (University of Leeds) spoke on Funding and Working with PhD Students, Cosette Crisan (UCL) led a session on Data Collection and Analysis, and Chris Sangwin (University of Edinburgh) closed with Publishing in Mathematics Education Journals. Throughout, the format emphasised interaction: participants were invited to articulate and refine their own emerging projects, ask practical questions, and connect with colleagues facing similar transitions.
Post-event feedback indicated high levels of satisfaction with the workshop, with the vast majority of respondents rating the day 4 or 5 out of 5 overall, and describing the organisation, accessibility, and hybrid delivery as very good to exceptional.
Main Themes and Ideas
The workshop coalesced around four interlinked themes that together traced a practical pathway from disciplinary research towards credible mathematics education scholarship.
Translating disciplinary expertise into education research. The keynote established a foundational argument: that mathematical rigour, precision, and problem formulation are assets in education research, not obstacles to it. Drawing on his own trajectory, Michael Grove showed how familiar disciplinary skills such as defining problems carefully, interrogating assumptions, and building coherent arguments from evidence, translate directly into designing, conducting, and evaluating education studies. Feedback suggests this reframing was particularly powerful for participants who had questioned whether their disciplinary background “qualified” them to undertake education research, and several commented that they left the session seeing their existing expertise as a resource rather than a barrier
Career pathways and professional identity. The panel on career pathways made the transition from disciplinary research into education research tangible by offering concrete examples across career stages and institutional contexts. Panellists including Alison Voice, Cosette Crisan, Chris Sangwin, Samantha Pugh, and Michael Grove described routes ranging from gradual shifts alongside ongoing disciplinary work to more decisive moves into educational leadership and dedicated scholarship roles. They were candid about the influence of institutional culture, promotion criteria, workload models, and departmental expectations, helping participants to situate their own choices within wider structural conditions rather than viewing them as purely individual decisions. Participants repeatedly singled out this session in their feedback as one of the most valuable parts of the day, citing the honesty of the accounts and the reassurance of hearing “non linear” career trajectories that nonetheless led to sustained, recognised mathematics education work.
Building a practical research infrastructure. The afternoon sessions shifted focus from “why” to “how”, outlining the practical infrastructure needed to sustain mathematics education research. Samantha Pugh mapped key funding routes for STEM education projects (including research councils, subject societies, institutional schemes, and student internship funding) while emphasising realistic pathways for colleagues who are starting small, for example with undergraduate or MSc projects that can grow into larger programmes of work. She then situated doctoral supervision within this picture, arguing that colleagues should view PhD supervision as a medium term goal that rests on prior experience with smaller scale projects, and offering clear advice on ethical supervision practices, workload, and the emotional labour involved.
Complementing this, Cosette Crisan introduced participants to core social science methodologies and the ethical dimensions of working with students and colleagues as research participants. She highlighted the shift from simply evaluating a module to treating data as research data, and walked through the implications for sampling, informed consent, data minimisation, and ethics review. Together, these sessions gave participants a much clearer sense of the methodological and ethical learning curve involved in mathematics education research, while also normalising the fact that many of these concepts (such as epistemology, qualitative coding, thematic analysis) are initially unfamiliar to mathematicians.
Publishing and building a visible research recordIn the closing session, Chris Sangwin demystified the process of publishing in mathematics education journals and positioned writing as a central component of an academic identity in teaching focused roles. He distinguished between practitioner scholarship (such as case studies and teaching innovations) and research articles that make theory informed, methodologically robust contributions, and mapped these onto different types of journals and audiences. Drawing on his experience as an editor, he was explicit about what makes a submission credible (clear research questions, appropriate methodology, ethical practice, and engagement with existing literature) and about common reasons for rejection. Participants identified this session as especially helpful in feedback, noting that it clarified how to move from interesting practice to publishable research and provided a realistic picture of how publications can evidence educational impact and support progression on teaching and scholarship pathways.
Emerging Implications and Recommendations
The workshop appears to have generated momentum that extends beyond the day itself, with participants reporting concrete plans for next steps in their mathematics education research trajectories. Survey responses indicate that colleagues intend to apply for ethical approval, design and run initial studies, submit grant applications (including small scale institutional and subject society schemes), and develop undergraduate, MSc, and PhD projects in areas such as assessment, active learning, and transnational education. Several respondents also mentioned plans to attend specialist conferences (for example CETL MSOR and related discipline based education meetings) and to form local reading groups or seminar series on mathematics education within their departments.
For many early and mid career colleagues, the workshop either confirmed or significantly strengthened an intention to build a recognisable profile in mathematics education alongside or instead of disciplinary research. Feedback suggests that hearing detailed career narratives and seeing concrete publication and funding routes helped colleagues to imagine how education research could be woven into promotion cases, job and fellowship applications, and departmental roles, rather than being positioned as add on or invisible labour. A number of participants explicitly linked the day to renewed confidence in framing their work as research, not just innovation or service, and to a clearer sense of how to evidence impact for institutional processes.
There are also indications of emerging institutional impact. Some participants described plans to share recordings and materials with colleagues, to use arguments and examples from the workshop in departmental discussions about workload models and recognition, and to advocate for more explicit support structures (such as education focused research groups and internal funding calls) within their own institutions. Others expressed interest in cross institutional collaboration, including multi site studies, co authored papers, and jointly supervised doctoral projects that could strengthen the visibility and credibility of mathematics education research within the wider mathematical sciences community.
Finally, feedback points to clear demand for further discipline specific support of this kind. Participants requested follow up workshops on topics such as designing robust small scale studies, writing for specific journals, and navigating ethics processes, as well as more opportunities for structured networking, especially for online participants, who suggested dedicated virtual networking or breakout spaces. Addressing these requests, would both enhance future events and help sustain the community of practice that began to form through this workshop.
Resources and Links
Recordings of all main sessions are available and have been linked from the workshop webpage to maximise ongoing access and impact. The key resources are:
- Keynote: Mathematical Research to Education Research: Building Credible Scholarship — Michael Grove (University of Birmingham)
- Panel discussion: Career Pathways and Trajectories — Alison Voice (University of Leeds) and workshop speakers
- Talk 1: Funding and Working with PhD Students — Samantha Pugh (University of Leeds)
- Talk 2: Data Collection and Analysis — Cosette Crisan (UCL)
- Talk 3: Publishing in Mathematics Education Journals — Chris Sangwin (University of Edinburgh)
Acknowledgments
The organisers gratefully acknowledge the support of the IMA/LMS/RSS Higher Education Teaching and Learning Series 2025/26, whose funding made it possible to bring together speakers and participants from such a wide range of institutions and countries. We also thank the School of Mathematics at the University of Leeds for providing the venue and logistical support, including hybrid facilities and a financial contribution towards catering.
Particular thanks are due to the workshop contributors: Michael Grove (University of Birmingham), Alison Voice (University of Leeds), Samantha Pugh (University of Leeds), Cosette Crisan (UCL), and Chris Sangwin (University of Edinburgh), whose presentations and panel contributions formed the core of the programme. Finally, we acknowledge the many participants who shared their experiences and questions throughout the day, helping to shape a genuinely collaborative and reflective environment.
Conclusion
Overall, the workshop met its objective of supporting mathematicians in making an informed, confident transition into education research and pedagogical scholarship. With 109 participants from 41 institutions across 8 countries, the event reached an audience that considerably exceeded expectations and spanned the full range of career stages, from PhD students and early-career academics to senior professors. It demonstrated that mathematicians’ existing research capabilities can be a strong foundation for rigorous education work, provided they are complemented by explicit guidance on methodology, funding, and publishing.
Participants left with concrete plans, new connections, and, as feedback consistently described, renewed confidence and momentum to pursue mathematics education research. The combination of a focused theme, high-quality contributions from experienced researchers, and a diverse, engaged cohort created a productive space for reflection, learning, and community-building that left participants wanting more.
Several respondents explicitly requested further events of this kind. The organisers are committed to responding to that demand and to working with the IMA, LMS, and RSS to sustain and expand support for mathematicians making this transition.
