No.15, December 2010

RIHE International
Seminar Reports
THE CHANGING ACADEMIC PROFESSION IN
INTERNATIONAL AND QUANTITATIVEPERSPECTIVES: A FOCUS ON TEACHING &RESEARCH ACTIVITIES
Report of the International Conference on
the Changing Academic Profession Project, 2010
Organized by: Research Institute for Higher Education, Hiroshima University andResearch Institute for Higher Education, Hijiyama University

Research Institute for Higher Education
HIROSHIMA UNIVERSITYRIHE International Seminar Reports
No.15, December 2010

Report of the International Conference on
the Changing Academic Profession Project, 2010

THE CHANGING ACADEMIC PROFESSION IN
INTERNATIONAL AND QUANTITATIVE PERSPECTIVES:A FOCUS ON TEACHING & RESEARCH ACTIVITIES

Research Institute for Higher Education
HIROSHIMA UNIVERSITYThe Changing Academic Profession in International and Quantitative
Perspectives: A Focus on Teaching & Research Activities
Edited and Published by

Research Institute for Higher Education
Hiroshima University

2-2, Kagamiyama 1-chome

Higashi-Hiroshima, 739-8512 Japan

TEL: +81-82-424-6240, FAX: +81-82-422-7104
http://en.rihe.hiroshima-u.ac.jp/

Printed by:Nakamoto Sogo Printing Co., Ltd.

5-1-1, Ozu, Minami-ku, Hiroshima City
732-0802, Japan

TEL: +81-82-281-4221, FAX: +81-82-284-6579
December 2010
ISBN978-4-902808-60-5

FOREWORDi

As various kinds of university reform are increasingly in progress aroundthe world, understanding of the nature of academic profession is essential for our
deeper consideration of the higher education system in knowledge-basedsocieties. The role of universities and other higher education institutions, I
believe, has become far larger recently; and people, including those who work intheir management and in development of higher education policy, have become
more interested in the universities as institutions. For this reason, the ResearchInstitute for Higher Education in Hiroshima University started a program ofresearch on the Changing Academic Profession (CAP) in 2005. This five-year
project has been funded by the Ministry of Education and Science as a
grant-in-aid for scientific research headed by Professor Akira Arimoto, Directorof the Research Institute for Higher Education, Hijiyama University andProfessor-Emeritus of Hiroshima University. Before the conference in 2010,
we had already held thee international conferences on this topic.
The fourth and final conference was held in Hiroshima in January 2010.
This conference was organized by the Research Institute for Higher Education,
Hiroshima University, Japan in cooperation with Hijiyama University, Japan.
The title of the conference was “The Changing Academic Profession inInternational and Quantitative Perspectives: A Focus on Teaching and Research
Activities”. We invited speakers and participants from various countries which
had all conducted surveys for both the 1992 Carnegie study and the 2007-08
CAP project to come to Hiroshima.
The conference, as you will find in this publication, was very fruitful andinformative. Based on the outcome of this research project, we now move to asecond stage of research on this topic, again funded by the Ministry of Educationand Science, for another four years. We are hoping that, based on theexperience of the past five years’ several international conferences andworkshops concerning the CAP, a better and more sophisticated understanding of
the main comparative trends in the CAP and of the specific situation of the CAP
in each country will continue to progress.
December 2010

Shinichi Yamamoto
Director and Professor,
Research Institute for Higher Education,
Hiroshima University

CONTENTS
Foreword

Shinichi Yamamoto ····················································i

Keynote Speeches
Keynote Speech 1
Differentiation and Integration of Research, Teaching and Learning in the
Knowledge Society: from the perspective of Japan
Akira Arimoto ·························································

1

Keynote Speech 2
Comparing the Academic Research Productivity of Selected Societies
William K. Cummings················································· 29
Keynote Speech 3
Teaching and Research in Germany: narrowing the gaps between institutional types
and staff categories?
Ulrich Teichler ····························································· 41

Presentations
Italy
Teaching and Research in a Changing Environment: academic work in Italy
Michele Rostan ···························································· 61
South Africa
Teaching and Research in Higher Education in South Africa: transformation issues
Philip Higgs, Leonie G. Higgs, Isaac M. Ntshoe
and Charl C. Wolhuter ···················································· 87
China
Teaching and Research Activities of the Chinese Academics
Futao Huang and Min Li ················································· 101
Japan
Convergence and Divergence of Teaching and Research Activities in the Japanese
Academic Profession
Yusuke Hasegawa and Naoyuki Ogata ································· 113

JapanTeaching and Research in the Japanese Academic Profession: a focus on age andgender
Hideto Fukudome and Naomi Kimoto ·································· 135
Malaysia
Presenting Malaysian Academics to the World: what’s holding us back?
Ahmad Nurulazam Md Zain, Munir Shuib andMelissa Ng Lee Yen Abdullah ··········································· 159
South Korea
Scholarship of Service: faculty perception, workloads, and reward systems
Jung Cheol Shin ··························································· 173
MexicoThe Divergent Worlds of Teaching and Research among Mexican Faculty:tendencies and implications
Jesús F. Galaz-Fontes, Jorge G. Martínez-Stack,Etty H. Estévez-Nénninger, Ana L. de-la-Cruz-Santana,
Laura E. Padilla-González, Manuel Gil-Antón,
Juan J. Sevilla-García, and José L. Arcos-Vega ······················· 191
USA
The Balance between Teaching and Research in the Work life of American
Academics, 1992-2007: is it changing?
Martin Finkelstein ························································· 213

Conclusion
Changes and Realities in Teaching and Research Activities of the Academy
Futao Huang································································ 235

Appendices
1. Conference Program ······························································· 239
2. List of Participants ································································· 243

Acknowledgement

We would like to acknowledge the invaluable contribution of Professor
Keith J. Morgan, visiting professor at RIHE, Hiroshima University, who edited
all the manuscripts in this report.

Shinichi Yamamoto
Director & Professor,
Research Institute for Higher Education,
Hiroshima University
Akira Arimoto
Director & Professor,
Research Institute for Higher Education,
Hijiyama University

Keynote Speeches

1
RIHE International Seminar Reports, No.15, 2010 Page

Differentiation and Integration of Research,
Teaching and Learning in the Knowledge Society:from the perspective of Japan

Akira Arimoto

Introduction
The Changing Academic Profession (CAP) project is an international
research network consisting of some twenty countries throughout the world.
As a part of the CAP project, financial aid from the Japan Society for the
Promotion of Science (JSPS) allowed the Japan project to start in 2006.
Amongst its activities, the Japan project has conducted three international
conferences in 2006, 2008 and 2009.
These conferences have focused on a series of topics: “The Changing
Academic Profession and Quality Assurance of Research, Teaching, andGovernance: from a Perspective of International Comparison” in 2006; “TheChanging Academic Profession in International Comparative and Quantitative
Perspectives” in 2008; “The Changing Academic Profession over 1992-2007:
International, Comparative, and Quantitative Perspectives” in 2009. The
proceedings of these conferences have been published by the Research Institutefor Higher Education (RIHE), Hiroshima University (RIHE, 2006, 2008, 2009).
This year, the Japan project is focusing on the topic of “The Changing
Academic Profession in International and Quantitative Perspectives: a Focus on
Teaching and Research Activities,” by inviting the participation of elevencountries (strictly speaking, ten countries and one region): U.S.A., Argentina,
Italy, South Korea, China, Germany, Malaysia, South Africa, Mexico, Hong
Professor, Research Institute for Higher Education, Hijiyama University, Japan, e-mail:arimoto@hijiyama-u.ac.jp2

Differentiation and Integration of Research, Teaching and Learning in the Knowledge Society

Page

Kong, and Japan), all of which conducted both the survey held in 1992 by the
Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching (Carnegie survey) andthe survey held in 2007 for the CAP project (CAP survey).

Middle Ageuniversity

Carnegie䠍䠕䠕䠎
SurveyPast

Community ofknowledge

Futureuniversity

Enterprise ofknowledge

Present
andfutureCAP 䠎䠌䠌䠓
SurveyFigure 1. Changing university and academic profession

My keynote address this time is entitled “Differentiation and Integration of
Research, Teaching, and Learning in the Knowledge Society;” in the previous
conferences it has focused on “Institutionalization of Faculty Development witha Focus on Japan,” in 2006, “International Implications of the Changing
Academic Profession in Japan,” in 2008, and “Changing Academic Profession in
the World from 1992 to 2007,” in 2009 (Arimoto, 2006a, 2008, 2009a).
Taking account of the conference’s purpose as indicated in the title “TheChanging Academic Profession in International and Quantitative Perspectives: a
Focus on Teaching & Research Activities,” my aim is to examine how theacademic profession in the world has or has not changed between 1992 and2007.
Figure 1 shows a framework of the concept that the university is changing
from a community of knowledge to one of an enterprise of knowledge over thetime span of past-present-future. Accompanying this trend, the academic
profession is also changing from A through B, and C, to D. We analyzed theexisting situations, B, in the Carnegie 1992 survey (Altbach, ed., 1996; Arimoto& Ehara, eds., 1996), and that of C in the CAP 2007 survey (Arimoto, ed., 2008;
Kogan & Teichler, ed., 2007; RIHE, 2008, 2009).
Figure 2 indicates the framework imposed by a knowledge society for
integration of research, teaching and learning in the knowledge society, evenAkira Arimoto

3

Page

though a differentiation of these functions is inevitable in the changing
environment of the university. The effects of globalization and marketization ina knowledge-based economy are apt to exert great pressure for transformation of
the university from a community of knowledge to an enterprise of knowledge.
Higher education policy also supports this kind of pressure for the university’s
involvement in rationalization and efficiency by introducing a mechanism of
selection and concentration.
Globalization
Marketization
Knowledge
society

HE policy

integration

National
government

Research

Teaching

University
ersitycurriculum

Teaching and
Learning Process

Learning

Discipline
academics students

differentiation

Research Teaching

Learning

Academic profession

Students

Academic productivity

Figure 2. R-T-L differentiation and integration in the knowledge society

The pressure leads to differentiation, separation and fragmentation between
research and teaching to the extent that the academic profession is divided into
those with a research orientation and those with a teaching orientation. Thispressure works not only on academics conducting research and teaching but on
students engaged in learning. The teaching and learning processes in theclassroom have difficulty in sustaining quality assurance due to a disintegration
between teaching and learning. Without an integration of these functions,academic productivity itself is constrained by virtue of its dependence on
integration of research, teaching and learning.
Based on these frameworks, this report will discuss four issues: thenecessity for integration of research and teaching; the processes of manifest andlatent differentiation; conflicts between differentiation and integration: theCarnegie and CAP surveys; and integration as the inevitable problem to berealized.

4

Differentiation and Integration of Research, Teaching and Learning in the Knowledge Society

Page

1. The necessity of integration of research and teaching(1) Effects of the knowledge society
The knowledge society (that is, a knowledge-based society), can only exist
on the basis of knowledge. Its impact on the university is indicated by thecompatibility of value to both university and society. As shown in Figure 3, theuniversity provided the basis of the original knowledge society through its
functions of discovery, dissemination, and services based on knowledge before
society at large shifted from an information-based society to a knowledge society.
In this sense, the university was “a knowledge society 1”, while the latter is “aknowledge society 2” (Arimoto, 2007; 2009a, p.4). Continuity of the twosocieties is clearly shown by the compatible existence in recent years of all thefunctions such as research (discovery of knowledge), teaching (dissemination ofknowledge), and learning (understanding of knowledge) in the two societies.
Gibbons and others have discussed how knowledge itself has been transformed
from Mode 1, or pure knowledge, which was useful only to the university, toMode 2, or applied and development knowledge, which is useful also to society
as well as to the university (Gibbons, et al., 1994). In the emerging knowledge
society, it is true to say that university and society at large could not continue tosurvive if they neglected research, teaching and learning because all of thesehave acquired an increased social significance.
Knowledge society 1=university

knowledge

Service

Administration

Service

Teaching

ResearchResearchknowledge

Teaching

Knowledge society 2= university + society

Administration

University 1
Society 1

University 1

Society 2

Figure 3. Development from knowledge society 1 to knowledge society 2

Individual national governments seek to enhance high research productivity
by making extravagant investment in research activities in the universities,

Akira Arimoto

5

Page

which are seen a centers of excellence in a knowledge society, and also as
indicators of the priority attached to the competition among countries in therising worldwide knowledge society. By pursuing a doctrine of selection andconcentration, the research universities have become recipients of investment of
more resources. Yet the number of research universities is small. Of the total
number of all universities and colleges, about 5% are committed as research
universities to competition at the domestic level and relatively few of these arecommitted to the more severe competition at international level to achieve a
position at the top of the world rankings. To this end their ability is evaluatedby an indicator of academic productivity based on discovery of somethingoriginal, important to the scientific and academic community. Study ofacademic productivity, a concept derived from that of scientific productivity
originally used by Merton (ed., 1973), is inevitable, because the main role of theacademic research enterprise is to raise academic productivity (Shinbori, 1973;
Arimoto, 1981, 2007a, 2009b).
On the other hand, such results are obtained only by productive scientists
and researchers who are educated and trained through a process of educationfrom elementary level to university and especially at graduate level. To raise
research productivity, it is necessary to raise educational and teachingproductivity. Competition for high research productivity implies high academic
productivity including both research and teaching productivity. Accordingly, a
research-teaching nexus (R-T nexus) is inevitable. In addition, teaching isrelated to both the teaching and learning process and so learning is inevitably
also integral to an increase in academic productivity. This logic is adaptable
not only to a research university but also to a non-research university. As a result,a research-teaching-learning nexus (R-T-L nexus) is necessary and also quality
assurance of its attainment is necessary (Clark, 1997; Nicholls, 2005; Arimoto,2006a).
(2) Logic of academic discipline
The university is an organization developing various kinds of activities on
the basis of knowledge (Clark, 1983). Knowledge allows an academic
discipline to develop into advanced knowledge. Academic staff who specializein their disciplines form groups and organizations in order to pursue research,teaching and service, and develop these activities (Becher & Parry, 2007; Parry,2007). In fact, academics’ conformity to the academic disciplines in which theyspecialize is fairly high as shown in the results of the CAP survey that compares
the extent to which each of the following affiliations is “very important”:

6

Differentiation and Integration of Research, Teaching and Learning in the Knowledge Society

Page

academic discipline (60.4%); department (34.2%); institution (33.1%) (Table 1).
Table 1. Degree of affiliations (%)
Discipline

Department

Institution

1. very important

60.4

34.2

33.1

2. important

28.2

37.1

32.3

3. half and half

8.4

19.7

23.0

4. not important

2.0

6.5

8.3

5. not at all important

1.1

2.5

3.2

The functions of knowledge consist of understanding, discovery,
dissemination, application, and control of knowledge, and correspond to theuniversity activities of learning, research, teaching, service, and management andcontrol respectively. Within an individual discipline, each of these functions isinstitutionalized.
Accordingly, it is natural that activities such as dissemination, application
and understanding are undertaken on the basis of knowledge that is discovered in
the process of dealing with disciplinary knowledge. Activities of research,teaching, understanding, and social service are usually identified as academic
work intrinsic to the university. In this context, the university is an institution
which deals with knowledge and conducts academic work integrating thefunctions of knowledge. Academics are given the role of pursuing this kind of
academic work.
(3) Mechanism of academic work
Among many social institutions, the university is almost the only institutionthat is expected by society to pursue both the functions of research and teaching
together. Accordingly, this is accepted as the university’s continuing mission.
A university is apt to become merely a school if it focuses solely on teaching
without research, while it is apt to become a research institute if it focuses solely
on research without teaching. These two functions are considered to be the two
characteristics of academia. In other words, an academic is thought to be a
researcher and teacher at the same time.
However, the compatibility of researcher and teacher started only about two
hundred years ago when modern universities were institutionalized in the West.
Before that time, academics were not researchers. Even in the 19th century,
their work lay in requiring their students to show ability in recitation of atextbook in the classroom, not of teaching the findings of research activities

Akira Arimoto

7

Page

(Ushiogi, 1986, 2008). At that time few teachers were researchers. After
research was accepted into the university, providing students with expertise
discovered by research activities became a part of the teaching and learning
process. In this sense, an attempt to integrate research and teaching has become
fundamentally necessary in the modern university.
(4) Logic of the teaching and learning processes
Teaching, which shares an important position in the modern university
together with research, operates on the dual basis of the teaching and learning
processes. The teaching and learning processes comprise a trinity: an academic
who supplies the teaching, a student who participates in the learning, and thecurriculum which determines the teaching content. These three main elements
maintain a culture and structure to reflect the ideals and aims of the academicorganization.
Speaking from a macro perspective, the teaching and learning processes
receive, directly and indirectly, various inputs from the environment, such as
knowledge, society, and the national government, surrounding academia by wayof academia’s structures and functions that affect their environments by way of
the academic organization. For example, reconstruction of knowledge affects
the arrangement of the curriculum, teaching methodology, and learning method.
The knowledge society naturally affects the trinity of curriculum, academic staff,
and student, because it demands human training so as to meet its aims and goals.
University policy seeks educational reforms, leading to changes in development
identified through quality assurance of students’ achievement by undergraduate
education. In general, the aim of the teaching and learning processes is humandevelopment, with an emphasis on enhancement of output related to students’achievement, quality, and morale identified by quality assurance of thecurriculum, academic staff and students.
The relationship between the quality and ability of the teacher is important.
For academic staff and their disciplines, discovery as well as dissemination, thatis to say research as well as teaching, is important. In this context, ability bothas a researcher and as a teacher should be examined. The result of advanced
research is reflected in the curriculum and at the same time contributes to theformation of quality and attainment derived from a student’s creativity,
imagination, and problem solving ability. As Harriet Zuckerman noted, Nobel
laureates are apt to benefit from teachers who themselves were Nobel laureates,
an observation that suggests the importance of the quality of academic staff in
the teaching and learning process (Zuckerman, 1977).

8

Differentiation and Integration of Research, Teaching and Learning in the Knowledge Society

Page

There is also need to recognize the importance of tacit knowledge by which
the researcher can provide students with ability by teaching through research.
As Figure 4 shows, elite scientists can provide their students with a series ofvalues and a climate and culture proper to their discipline which they, as
would-be researchers, need to acquire for themselves. As pointed out by
Zuckerman, the disciples of elite scientists are likely to become elite scientists
themselves, because they can learn the structure of their teachers’ creative
thinking by their teaching through research. Paul A. Samuelson, 94, passed
away on December 13, 2009: it is remarkable to note how many of his students
became Nobel laureates in economics, and with such widely differing
disciplinary philosophies: George A. Akerlof; Robert F. Engle III; Lawrence R.
Klein; Paul R. Krugman; Franco Modigliani; Robert C. Merton; Joseph E.
Stiglitz (Weinstein, 2009, p.6).
Teaching and learning process•

Invisible college• Creative thinking• Discipline’s culture• Paradigm

Tacit knowledge
Elite scientists
Students of eliteteacher

student

out put

teaching

study
learning

achievement

scientists• Tacit knowledge

Semi-elite scientists
Marginal scientists
Ordinary scientists

Necessity and importance of
R-T-L nexus

Formal knowledge

Figure 4. Elite scientists and teaching and learning process

On the other hand, ordinary scientists find it difficult to approach theinvisible colleges of elite scientists. This is true not only for the most advanced
researchers, such as Nobel Prize winners, but also for those ordinary researchers
who now teach students in the stage of universal access so as to enhance theircreative thinking, imagination, and problem-solving ability. In this context, thelinkage of the role of research to the role of teaching, that is, the indivisibility of
research and teaching is important. In other words, it follows that teachingAkira Arimoto

9

Page

without research is insufficient for educating and training distinguished humanresources.
Academic staff are not school teachers but learned scholars and alsoteachers as scientists and researchers. University teachers basically teachstudents in the classroom on the basis of research conducted in the laboratory,
the library and the office, teaching through research as was the original meaningof the Humboldtian model of integration between research and teaching (Ushiogi,
2008). Academic staff differ from teachers in the elementary and secondary
schools who do not conduct research. “At the higher level, the teacher does notexist for the sake of the student: both teacher and student have their justificationin the common pursuit of knowledge” (von Humboldt, 1910[1970], p.249).
Recently, there have been increasing numbers of academic staff conducting
teaching without research in academia and to this extent it is undeniable that a
traditional type of integration between research and teaching is of diminishedavailability. Teachers who teach university students without involvement inresearch may not be regarded as university teachers, although they may well be
proficient as school teachers.
Similarly, university students differ from school students, because they arelearners who need to learn on the basis of research to the extent that they will betaught by teachers, teaching through research.
(5) Mission of the academic profession: integration of research, teaching andlearning
As has been discussed, in a university a teacher mutually interacts withstudents by way of the curriculum.
A student studies by means ofaccomplishing the educational tasks prescribed by the teacher as part of theteaching and learning process; at the same time students exercise their own
initiative in augmenting their learning. The former implies study rather thanlearning in that it reflects the teacher’s formal education more than the student’s
self-education (Clark, 1995). The latter implies learning and self-education
rather than study and so it is possible to be conducted by students in places
outside the classroom such as libraries, homes, and cities and towns. Of course,a borderline between the classroom and other places is not clear today when acredit system inserted in teaching usually needs completion of an assignment andhomework outside the classrooms.
Given this situation, if we think about how a fruitful outcome of theteaching and learning process can be obtained, it seems to be necessary to seek aharmonious relationship of the teacher’s intention for teaching and the student’s
intention for learning. In other words, the most effective output will be realized10

Differentiation and Integration of Research, Teaching and Learning in the Knowledge Society

Page

by integrating the intention of teaching through research on the side of theteacher with the expectation of study through research on the side of the student.
Table2. Typology of relationship between teacher and student
teacher and student
university

Type
A
B
C
D

Teacher Student
䠇
䠇
䠇
䠉
䠉
䠇
䠉

䠉

classic

remedial
discipline

influence

Four categories can conceptually be created from combination of teachers’
and students’ intentions and expectations: Type A (teacher+, student+); Type B(Teacher+, student−); Type C (teacher−, student+); Type D (teacher−, student−)(Table 2). Type A is thought to be decreasingly accessible today, though it
represents the standard traditional type of the teaching and learning process.
On the other hand, types B, C, and D, though they are deviant types, seem to be
more acceptable today. Even so, Type D exists only conceptually and remains
unavailable in practice. Among these four types, the two types, A and B, whichhave a teacher’s positive intention (+) lie inside academia; while the two types, C
and D, which have a teacher’s negative intention (−) lie outside of academia.
Type B in particular is likely to become more common at a time when theemerging universal stage of higher education has inevitably created a situation ofsuper-diversification of students with less enthusiasm and ability for study andlearning. This is evident in the fact that a series of new approaches to thesestudents, such as remedial education and first-year education, is thought to beappropriate to their needs. If we are to expose these students to a knowledge
society, or even an inquiring society, it is clear that the R-T-L nexus becomes
more and more important so as to develop their academic achievements bytransforming their intentions from negative to positive.

2. Processes of manifest and latent differentiation
Various factors affect the conditions of increasing differentiation between
research and teaching: the institutionalization of the graduate school; theestablishment of academic associations; centers of learning; the publication andAkira Arimoto

11

Page

citation of papers; the rise of the research university; the institutionalization of
ranking; and the reward system.
(1) The institutionalization of the graduate school and the research university
As a result of the institutionalization of science into the university since the19th century, the logic that had prevailed in the scientific community conquered
the whole academic community and displaced the previous logic of teaching that
had prevailed hitherto. In reality, however, the process was gradual and during
the period of change, while a research orientation was becoming dominant,conflicts were deepened.
The institutionalization of graduate schools is related to the rise of theresearch universities, because these are usually characterized by graduate schools.
According to the Carnegie classification, the research university is considered tooccupy the top of the hierarchy of academic social stratification (Carnegie
Commission on Higher Education, 1976). “Research universities are defined
here as academic institutions committed to the creation and dissemination ofknowledge in a range of disciplines and fields and featuring the appropriate
laboratories, libraries, and other infrastructure that permit teaching and researchat the highest possible level.” (Altbach, 2009, p.15). Talcott Parsons ranked theresearch university at the top of American higher education institutions (Parsons& Platt, 1973). A research university is oriented to research just as its nameimplies, being expected to have higher research productivity.
(2) The establishment of academic associations
In origin, academic associations were related to academic disciplines andacademic work so that they have had close connection to academia since they
were established in the 19th century (Brubacher & Rudy, 1968; Oleson & Voss,eds., 1979). In fact, the pro-research climate of academic associations had aprofound influence on academia. This is indicated by the studies undertaken by
the members, their shared culture, norms, methodology, and way of thinking, by
emergence of technical terms proper to the specific academic discipline, and bycontributing articles to the association which in turn recognizes them by theiracceptance and publication in a journal. Publication of articles is identified
with research productivity, which differs from academic productivity, which
combines both research productivity and teaching productivity. The separationof research productivity in this way marks the division of the labor of researchfrom that of teaching.

12

Differentiation and Integration of Research, Teaching and Learning in the Knowledge Society

Page(3) Publication and citation of papers
The importance of research productivity inevitably produces a series ofindicators that attempt to count it adequately. These include: the number of
papers produced; the Science Citation Index (SCI), which counts the number ofcitations; and the Relative Citation Impact (RCI), which measures the impact ofan original paper on other papers. A researcher’s prestige and reputation arecommonly assessed by the measures of quantity and quality of research
productivity provided by these indicators.
(4) Center of learning
The achievement and reputation of a center of learning (COL) (cf.
Ben-David, 1977) or center of excellence (COE) is often assessed by research
productivity. The “Mathew effect” works in the sense that such centersaccumulate prominent scientists, researchers, scholars and international students
from all over the world. The operation of this effect reveals that establishmentof the current centers of learning has a close relationship to theinstitutionalization of science and research into academia.
Examination of the shift of the global COE identifies the importance of theextent and quality of research productivity, although the quality of academic
productivity may provide a conclusive factor. The quantitative and qualitativesides of academic productivity are evaluated by various indicators in order to
identify the overall COE ranking: eponymy, number of papers, SCI, RCI
citations, various international awards including Nobel prizes, patents.
Among these, eponymy is the custom of identifying new knowledge by thename of its discoverer or the location of its discovery. The dictionary of
eponymy (Ruffner, 1977) lists eponymous names (20,972 cases) as well as
eponyms (12,867 cases). A study of eponymy, which includes an analysis of
the dictionary, clarifies comparatively the amount of eponymy in every country.
According to the data obtained, it is interesting that research productivity has
been concentrated sequentially in specific countries: France, the U.K., Germany,and the U.S. The analysis corresponds to a shift of the global COE from France,
through the U.K., to Germany, and then to the U.S., from the 17 th century to the
21st century (Shinbori, ed., 1985; Arimoto, ed., 1996).
This observation suggests that the global center of learning, where
academic productivity is highest in the world, is able to shift gradually. It alsosuggests there are associated phenomena of relative upward and downward
mobility, of brain drain and gain, and of a geographical center and a periphery.
The share of the number of papers produced by country illustrates the effect.

Akira Arimoto

13

Page

An analysis of the National Science Indicators, 1981-2004, which was made byThomson Scientific, and covered 781,000 papers, reveals the share of eachindividual country. In 2004, the U.S. ranks first with 31.7%, followed by Japan
(9.6%), Germany (8.5%), the U.K. (8.4%), France (6.2%), and all others (35.7%)(MEXT, 2006). A similar international comparison by using SCI data gives
similar results with Japan placed high in the list, next to the U.S. The Japanese
government, however, pays particular attention to the quality of academic
productivity and prefers criteria such as those provided by the SCI and RCI, in
recognition of the necessity of improvement in quality in order to catch up withother advanced countries. For example, from analysis of the RCI data from1985-2004 (idem, ibid) “Japan’s RCI proportion is less than 1%, putting it in aposition relatively lower than other major selected countries. Whereas the RCI
figures for Japan and the United States have stayed relatively stable since 1981,
they have risen in the other major countries, with particularly strong increases
seen in recent years for the United Kingdom, Germany and France.” (MEXT,
2006)
It is interesting to compare these results with the results of the CAP survey
especially with respect to research productivity in the U.S. and U.K., because
these two countries are considered to be ranked at the top of the stratification.
Responses to the question of “How many scholarly contributions have you
completed in the past 3 years” cover a wide range of publications (Table 3).
The categories “scholarly books you authored or co-authored”, “scholarly books
you edited or co-edited”, and “articles published in an academic book or journal”
are particularly relevant. The best five countries in the total ranking of 17
countries with respect to these categories are (1) Japan, (2) Germany, (3) Korea,(4) Portugal and Hong Kong. Japan was also ranked first in the 1992 Carnegie
survey (Arimoto & Ehara, eds., 1996) and so it has retained the leading position
over fifteen years, although overall academic working conditions havedeteriorated so much.
According to these results, research productivities in the U.S. and the U.K.
are much lower than expected. It is natural then to question why thesecountries, as centers of learning, possess so little productivity. Are there
proportionately fewer academics belonging to the COE who are sampled in the
CAP survey? Are most of their universities and academics mediocre inacademic productivity? Is sampling problematic? These questions occur, but
it cannot be denied that the survey shows low research productivity in bothcountries.

0.4 90.1 14Artistic work performed or
exhibited

Video or film produced

Total Ranking

7

8.8

0.1 6

Computer program written for
public use

Total

0.1 15

Patent secured on a process
or invention

0 16

1.2 10

1.7 3

Professional article written for
a newspaper or magazine

Others

5.7 8

13

11.1

0.2 140.1 120.4 8

0.1 11

0.1 10

1.4 9

2.5 2

6.9 7

0.2 170.3 16AU

Paper presented at a scholarly
7.5 5
conference

Research report/monographwritten for a funded project

5 12

0.4 8

Scholarly books you edited orco-edited

Articles published in an
academic book or journal

0.6 7

Scholarly books you authoredor co-authored

AR

8

6

2

7

13

10.6

1

0

0 12

0 17

0 16

2

6 11

1 10

0 14

0 14

1

BR

8

9.2

1 4

0 13

0 10

0 7

0 9

1 8

8 7

2 8

6 8

0 12

0 15

CA

9

9.5

0 15

0 15

0 16

0 1

0 3

1 15

3 17

1 11

9 5

1 2

1 5

CH

17

12.1

0.3 11

0.1 16

0.3 11

0.1 12

0.1 13

1.3 9

4.5 14

1.2 12

5.2 11

0.3 100.4 14FI

2

5.5

0.3 12

0.2 2

0.5 4

0.1 5

0.3 4

1.7 4

6.5 6

2 3

8.2 6

0.5 4

0.4 11

DE

IT

JP

4

7.3

6

7.9

0.3 9 0.3 13

2

7

7

6

8

2

1

5.3

*

0.1 9 0.1 11 0.1

0.2 13 0.1 17 1.4

MY

0.7 3 0.3 9

1 3 0.6 6

KR

2 5.6 9

1 1.5 7

7 0.2 14

9 0.1 10

1 0.2 7

3

10

9.6

7 0.3 105.7

0.5

0.1 17 0.2 5

0.4

0.1

0.7

1.1 12 0.9 14

7.6

2.6

2 18.8 1 3.9 15

51

0.1 14 0.1 15 0.1 13

0.2 5 0.1 8 0.5

2.3 1 1.8 2 1.5

7.5 4 7.5 3 6.3

1.6 5 1.6 4 1.5

9.4 3 8.6 4 9.8

0.4 7 0.5 6 0.5

0.5 10 0.9 4 1.9

HK

13

11.4

0.5 6

0.2 3

0.5 6

0.2 4

0 17

1.2 11

3.1 160.6 17

2.3 170.2 16

0.4 12

MX

0.3 2

0.2 6

0.8 17

4.1 15

0.7 15

3.4 16

3.9 1

1.3 2

PT

11

10

4

7

0.6 5 10.9 1

0.1 6 31.1 1

0.5 5 36.1 1

0.1 16

0.1 12

1.6 5

4.8 13

0.7 16

5.8 100.3 13

0.5 9

NOTable 3. How many of the following scholarly contributions have you completed in the past three years?
US

1 13

13

11.2

3

4

3

8

11

10.2

0.4 8 0.7

0.1 10 0.2

0.2 15 1.3

0.2 3 0.1

0.1 14 0.1 11

0.8 16

5.5 10 5.3 12

1.1 14 1.2 13

6 9 4.3 13

0.3 11 0.2 15

0.4 13 0.2 17

UK

14
Differentiation and Integration of Research, Teaching and Learning in the Knowledge SocietyAkira Arimoto

15

Page

(5) The institutionalization of ranking
Ranking of universities, with an emphasis on research, has appeared as apart of the evaluation system. The shifts in location of institutional COE areusually evaluated by such ranking. At the core of ranking is the large weightattached to research productivity and research orientation, although indicators
other than research are highly significant. In the U.S., ranking has lasted formore than eighty years, from 1925 until today, so that the hegemony ofresearch-ism is firmly established (Arimoto, 1981).
Its now universal
acceptance has affected academics as well as institutions but also beenrecognized by governments, societies, and public interest worldwide. The
growth of interest in ranking has been further spurred by publication of thesurveys of the Times Higher Education (THE), of Shanghai Jiao Tong University,and of the World News and Reports.
According to the world rankings, the center of learning is located in the U.S.
and the U.K. There is a periphery located in other countries, notably in Asia,
Africa and Latin America. “While there will always be centers and peripheries,
the centers will be mainly concentrated in the major industrialized countries forthe foreseeable future. There is room, indeed a necessity, for a wider
dissemination of research capacity throughout the world.” (Altbach, 2009,
pp.15-16) There is a South-North problem of a differentiated society withrespect to knowledge and brain gain and brain drain worldwide.
How has this happened? Why is there a differentiated society? Many
reasons must be working. There are macro-level factors such as social systems;
there are mid-level factors such as the institutional and organizational traits ofscience and engineering; and there are micro-level factors such as scientificsocialization (Arimoto, ed., 1996).
Such matters − and others − are important indeed. Integrated research andteaching must lie behind the fact that both the U.S. and the U.K. are ranked at
the top of the hierarchy; the U.S. especially provides an example. Of course,
research productivity is not a unique indicator; other indicators are major
contributors to estimates of ranking. For example, THE uses indicators such as:
research quality, teaching quality, graduate employability, and international
outlook (London Times, 2008). Teaching is also used directly and indirectly as
an indicator.
Internationally, competition among systems, universities, and academics has
been intensifying. In this kind of environment, all academics are naturally
confronted with much pressure for research productivity not only in research
universities but also in non-research universities. As is shown in Figure 5, the16Differentiation and Integration of Research, Teaching and Learning in the Knowledge Society

Page

CAP survey asked academics worldwide whether “High expectations to increase
productivity are a threat to the quality of research.” The results show the total
score of those who “strongly agree” and “agree” is 60%, while for those who“strongly disagree” and “disagree” it is only 16%.
Moreover, with this pressure, almost all institutions, whether high or low inthe rankings, are committed to the research productivity competition. This wasseen in a survey in Japan in 2007, when academics in the research universities
showed research productivity higher than those in non-research universities(Arimoto, 2007).
This kind of competitive atmosphere is probably
recognizable worldwide. National projects have appeared, designed to produce
world-class universities, with titles such as the 21st century COE project in Japan,
the BK21 project in Korea, and the 211, 985 and 111 projects in China (cf.
Altbach & Umakoshi, eds., 2004).

Strongly disagree
4
3

6.5
9.5
23.6
33.0

2
Strongly agree

27.3

Figure 5. High expectations of increasing research productivity are a threat tothe quality of research (%)(6) Reward system
The ranking system is related, directly and indirectly, to the reward systembecause it forms part of the evaluation system on which the reward system isbased. Modern society puts greater value on universalism and achievement
than on particularism and ascription, by assessing people from this kind of
perspective. Accordingly, the reward system has a close relationship to thisperspective. For example, the concept of CUDOS, which was developed byRobert Merton to deal with the ethos of scientific society, is adaptable to scienceAkira Arimoto

17

Page

in academia (Merton, ed., 1973; Arimoto, 1987). There, the reward system,
including values such as communality, universalism, organized skepticism, anddisinterestedness, is the operational standard.
Evaluation of research productivity based on universalism may well besuitable for an ethos of science. In a climate in which the research paradigm
prevails, as previously discussed, the reward system responds to the priority
attached to research. Research evaluation undertaken in international andnational academic forums is given objective and cosmopolitan characteristics,
while evaluation of teaching, made by students’ reactions in the classrooms andby presidents’ reactions in their awards, possesses merely local characteristics.
Various awards having internationally high visibility also contribute to a
reward system at the pinnacle of which the Nobel Prize is located. The reward
system has a close relationship with prestige and power and therefore withdetermination of the pecking order of universities. The global center oflearning is structurally strongly connected to this pecking order, both
institutionally and nationally. Within these systems, it can be seen to connect tothose academics as the scientists and researchers who are actual or potential
Nobel laureates.
In this context, the probability of realizing this effect is high in the research
universities in the U.S. There they have gathered many Nobel laureates: forexample, in the case of physics, institutions with more than 9 Nobel laureates are
as follows: MIT, 19; Columbia,19; Princeton,13; Chicago, 13; UCB, 12;
Stanford, 12; Harvard, 12, Bell Institute 12, Caltech, 12; Minnesota, 9; all ofthese except the Bell Institute are universities. In the case of chemistry,
institutions with more than 4 laureates are as follows: UC Berkeley, 16; Harvard,
13; Chicago, 9; Cornell, 5; Columbia, 5; MIT, 5; Rockefeller, 5; Princeton 4; allof these are universities (MEXT-NISTEP, 2007).

3. Conflicts between differentiation and integration: the Carnegie
and CAP surveys(1) Three types of orientation to research and teaching: the CAP Survey
Differentiation and separation between research and teaching are being
promoted in spite of the demand for recognition of their nexus. This is clearly
evident in academics’ consciousness throughout the world. In this context,
research on academic productivity based on academics’ consciousnesses has
provided some interesting results. An analysis of academics’ orientation toresearch and teaching based on the Carnegie survey identified three types: a18

Differentiation and Integration of Research, Teaching and Learning in the Knowledge Society

Page

research orientation; a research and teaching orientation; and a teachingorientation (Arimoto & Ehara, eds., 1996).
a. The first type, designated a German model, stresses research more thanteaching, and is found in countries such as the Netherlands, Japan, Germany,
Sweden, and South Korea.
b. The second type, designated an Anglo-Saxon model, stresses research andteaching equally, and occurs in countries such as the U.K., the U.S.,
Australia, and Hong Kong.
c. The third type, designated a Latin American model, stresses teaching morethan research, and is found in countries such as Argentina, Chile, andBrazil.
Identification of the three types confirms that the global academic
profession consists of many sub-divisions, which reflect the influence of thevarious cultures, environments, and attitudes peculiar to the national academic
systems, institutions, and organizations to which they belong. In particular theygive rise to varied reactions with regard to their orientations to research andteaching.

Japan’s Policy

Researchorientation

Continuation ofresearchorientation

HUMBOLDTIAN Latin American Teachingorientation
type
IDEAL

Conversion toteachingorientation

Germantype

Anglo Saxon
type

Research and Groping forteaching
research andorientation teachingorientation

past

present

Future?

Figure 6. Humboldtian ideal: past, present and future

As Figure 6 indicates, the Anglo-Saxon model seems to approach the
Humboldtian ideal most closely in the sense that it seems to conform to thepattern of integrated research and teaching. On the other hand, the German

Akira Arimoto

19

Page

model, with its strong emphasis on research, tends to pay too much attention toacademic staff as researchers and too little to students as learners. In contrast,
the Latin American model puts more weight on teaching and the students andless on research and the academic staff. In this respect, the situation in Japan ischallenging. Is it possible to change from the research orientation in the pastand the teaching orientation of current government policy to achieve a balanced
research and teaching orientation in the future?
(2) Reinforcement of research: CAP survey
Although only ten countries participated in both surveys, direct comparisonof some of the results obtained in the Carnegie and the CAP surveys is possible,
because they both asked some closely similar questions. As a consequence, it
is surprising to discover that the results differ significantly from the expectationthat the Humboldtian ideal model would have been realized to a greater degree
during the past fifteen years.
The results from the CAP survey (Figure 7) reveal that the German model
has extended to a number of countries, while conformity to the Latin Americanmodel has declined.
The Anglo-Saxon model, which was thought toapproximate to the ideal has also declined to a considerable extent. Of those
conforming to the German model, Germany (research 62% ∕ teaching 33%) andSouth Korea (68% ∕ 32%) have strengthened their research orientation and Japan(72% ∕ 28%) has kept almost same proportions as fifteen years ago. Among thecountries which conformed to the Latin American model, Brazil (49% ∕ 51%)now shows an Anglo-Saxon pattern and Argentina (57% ∕ 43%) has shifted to a
research orientation, though Mexico (38% ∕ 61%), a new comer, reveals ateaching orientation. Among the countries which belonged to the Anglo-Saxon
model, the U.K. (67% ∕ 33%), Australia (60% ∕ 30%), Hong Kong (63% ∕ 37%)
all shifted to a research orientation, while only the U.S. (44% ∕ 56%) remained
unchanged. Among the new comers, almost all countries except China (47% ∕53%), South Africa (47% ∕ 53%), and Malaysia (47% ∕ 53%) show a strong
conformity to a research orientation as follows: Norway (83% ∕ 17%), Italy (77%
∕ 23%), Canada (68% ∕ 32%) and Finland (65% ∕ 35%).
Summarizing these findings, we can recognize the fact that the academic
profession worldwide has reinforced its research orientation during the fifteen
years since 1992. William Cummings pointed out at the CAP Conference in2009 that “While several countries exhibit an increased stress on research, nocountry for which there is data for both 1992 and 2009 indicates a notable
increase in the stress on teaching.” (Cummings, 2009, p.41) This fact means

20

Differentiation and Integration of Research, Teaching and Learning in the Knowledge Society

Pagethat the manifest increasing development of differentiation between research andteaching is now directly opposed to attainment of a Humboldtian ideal of
integrated research and teaching.
teaching

MexicoUnited States
South Africa
China
MalaysiaBrazilPortugal
Argentina
Hong Kong
FinlandUnited Kingdom
Germany
CanadaKorea, Republic ofAustralia
Japan
Italy
Norway

61.4%
55.9%
53.1%
53.1%
52.6%
50.8%
46.7%
42.9%
36.9%
34.7%
33.2%
32.9%
32.4%
32.0%
30.4%
28.3%
23.3%
17.0%

research

38.6%
44.1%
46.9%
46.9%
47.4%
49.2%
53.3%
57.1%
63.1%
65.3%
66.8%
67.1%
67.6%
68.0%
69.6%
71.7%
76.7%
83.0%

Figure 7. Teaching and research orientation by country, 2007

(3) Causality
Reinforcement of a research orientation throughout the world can be
attributed to a range of conditions and causalities. They include: the effects ofsocial changes; change to the reward system; the research orientation of higher
education policy; an increased division of labor in higher education institutions.
International social changes during the fifteen years have strengthened:
globalization, the orientation of the knowledge society and marketization, all ofwhich have increasingly affected the research orientation. In particular,
penetration of the knowledge economy into academia has developed anenvironment of knowledge enterprise in academia to the extent that higher
education systems worldwide have pursued indicators of rationalization ofknowledge efficiency, promoting the strength of indicators of research at theAkira Arimoto

21

Page

expense of teaching.
International competition has been strengthened in accordance withinternational marketization of higher education. One result is that theconnection of research to the reward system has become stronger than that ofteaching. By this mechanism, the dependence of the reputation of institutions
on research and researchers has become widely established both inside andoutside academia.
Academic policy has focused on a collection ofinternationally prominent researchers commanding high salaries in order toenhance an institution’s visibility and reputation. Relentless competition
among institutions has become a common occurrence in the process of scouting
and headhunting distinguished researchers. As has already been discussed,
headhunting Nobel laureates has become custom and practice for research
universities (MEXT-NISTEP, 2007).
Research productivity disproportionately affects the reward system in the
promotion as well as the recruitment of academic staff. While internal
promotion is nominally determined by academic productivity, the facile
quantitative evaluation of research productivity tends to outweigh the lessprecise estimates of teaching productivity. Moreover the ability to achieve
recognition for excellence in research more rapidly than in teaching may also
contribute to the increasing commitment of younger academics to a researchorientation
Reinforcement of research orientation by higher education policy has beenstrengthening the research orientation of academics remarkably. For example,
in the U.K., a policy of support for a teaching orientation was strengthened in
1997; conversely, since 2003, it is a research orientation that has been reinforced.
As a result, universities can now be divided into three categories: research,teaching and a combination of the two (Kogan, et al., eds., 2006, p.109). This
inversion of policy forced a change in the consciousness of academics. In
contrast, in the U.S., a policy of integration of research and teaching has beensustained consistently. In Japan, while the traditional research orientation has
been maintained strongly for many years and continues today, national policy
has been focusing on a teaching orientation in recent years (Central Council of
Education, 2005).
Finally, there is the division of labor and its effects. Differentiation of thehigher education system from a single tier to multiple tiers has affected
academics’ consciousness and behavior to a considerable extent. In the U.S.,
for example, there is a separation of community college courses, undergraduate
courses, master’s courses, and doctoral courses. In general, academics in the

22

Differentiation and Integration of Research, Teaching and Learning in the Knowledge Society

Pagegraduate schools must become research orientated to meet the demands of a
research university, while their counterparts in the undergraduate schools must
adopt a teaching orientation to meet the demands of general education. Of
course, practice may differ from theory. In U.S. academia, where the amount ofintegrated research and teaching is fairly high, it is evident that quite a few
academics in undergraduate schools are involved in research (cf. Clark 1997).
In contrast, in Japan, academics’ consciousness was not differentiated somuch as, unlike the U.S., the graduate and undergraduate schools were notclearly separated. The results of the 1992 survey showed almost the same
extent of research orientation among academics in both the undergraduate andgraduate tiers. Recently, differentiation in the levels of institution andconsciousness is assumed to have occurred as a lot of academics have moved tograduate schools from undergraduate schools since 1991 when a national policy
stressing the graduate school was introduced into higher education institutions inJapan (Arimoto, 2009b).

4. Integration is the inevitable problem to be realized(1) Characteristics of the academic organization
As was discussed previously, integration of research and teaching has been
facing increasing difficulty of realization owing to the effects of the dominantresearch paradigm. However, considering that among many institutions only
the university has the function of research and teaching as its two indispensable
vehicles, achievement of integration presents an inevitable problem to be solved
as soon as possible.
a. The core of work in the academic system is research and teaching as its twovehicles. No educational institution other than university has two
systemic and organizational functions.
b. In a knowledge society, research-based teaching is necessary at all levels of
education from primary education to tertiary education. Furthermore, fora system of lifelong learning from birth to death, research-based teaching isnecessary in order to develop human education for independent andautonomous thinking.
c. As part of their evolving professionalism, academics are expected to pursue
teaching through research rather than merely by instruction. It is valuable
for academics to recognize the abilities of students for problem-solving aswell as the creativity through tacit knowledge embedded in academics asAkira Arimoto

23

Page

researchers. Students as learners have high possibilities of achievementfrom study as well as from learning better from academic staff withresearch ability rather than from those who lack it.
(2) Reconsideration of scholarship: the mission of the academic profession
Considering in the 21st century that integration of research and teachingseems to have become fairly difficult to realize, we have to think that integrationof research, teaching, and learning (a nexus of R-T-L) may be even moredifficult to realize. This is true, and some scholars have already discussed the
problem of reconsideration of scholarship as well as the R-T-L nexus (Clark,
1997; Boyer, 1990; Nicholls, 2005).
For academics who have been committed to a research orientation it isespecially difficult to change their consciousness and conception of scholarshipas would be necessary for the innovation of a new nexus. For example,
according to the Carnegie survey in 1992, Japanese academics indicated that the
proportion of the age cohort enrolled in universities should be less than 40%,
although at that time the enrollment rate was 45% (Arimoto & Ehara, eds., 1996,
pp.39-50). This discrepancy between academics’ consciousness and the realenrollment rate persisted to 2007 when, in the CAP survey, the preferred
enrollment remained at less than 40% despite an actual rate of 55%,
corresponding to attainment of universal higher education (Ogata, 2008). The
survey responses indicate that the existing student enrollment rates were far
beyond the expectation of academics, which reflected their research orientation
as well as a view of the university still in the elite stage of higher education.
However, as discussed previously, the greater importance of learning in
addition to that of teaching is increased in meeting the needs of the universal
stage of higher education development. Accordingly, it appears inescapablethat achieving an R-T-L nexus will be extremely difficult in an environment thathas yet to accept an R-T nexus. Academics globally who, like Japanese
academics, are committed to a research orientation, have to resolve this difficult
problem at all costs.

Concluding remarks
1. Within fifteen years, social changes have exerted a great deal of pressurein transforming academia from a community of knowledge to an enterprise ofknowledge. The pressure has considerably affected the academic profession inits consciousness and behavior. In the emerging knowledge society, which

24

Differentiation and Integration of Research, Teaching and Learning in the Knowledge Society

Pagecoexists both in society overall and in the university, knowledge functions suchas discovery, dissemination and application are increasingly important for theacademic activities of research, teaching and service that comprise academic
work, and especially for research and teaching as its two vehicles.
An integration of research and teaching (an R-T nexus) has become
necessary in the teaching and learning process. Both teaching through researchand learning through research are necessary, even though academics undertake
teaching to conform to the curriculum and students also undertake learning.
Considering these factors, integration of research and teaching, and, even more,
integration of research, teaching and learning (an R-T-L nexus) is necessary.
2. In reality, however, such integration is rarely achieved due to theincreasing tendency for differentiation between research and teaching. Many of
the factors that contribute to this have been analyzed in this paper: theinstitutionalization of the modern university; the shift of the center of learning;academic productivity. The concept of the Humboldtian model was adaptable a
century ago, at the time of institutionalization of the modern university, but thismodel is hardly adaptable to the universal stage of higher education today.
Conversely there is a trend of encouraging teaching without research thatnecessarily drives academic staff either towards research or towards teaching.
Conflicts between research and teaching are evident in many countries.
Indicators such as analysis of eponymy, the numbers of papers, SCI, andrankings, testify that the center of learning has shifted and also that a researchorientation has been greatly strengthened around the world. A comparative
discussion about academic productivity contrasts a mode of closeness based onparticularism and ascription with one of openness based on universalism andachievement. By paying attention to the tight connection of openness andacademic productivity, it is seen that research productivity is also related to theclimate of openness. This discussion is, of course, related to the subject of my
keynote address to last year’s CAP conference. At that time I analyzed theindicators of openness as follows: competitiveness; mobility; control ofinbreeding; a pyramidal type of construction of academic staff; single andmultiple tier structures; the chair system and the department system; theapprenticeship system and the collective education system. Consideration ofthese indicators testified that openness is observed in Germany and the U.S. but
not in Japan (Arimoto, 2008, 2009a).
3. Concerning the conflict between differentiation and integration ofteaching and research, the Carnegie survey identified conformity to three types:
a research orientation; a research and teaching orientation; and a teachingAkira Arimoto

25

Page

orientation. By the time of the CAP survey, the distribution between thesetypes had changed. Conformity to a teaching orientation and to a research andteaching orientation had decreased, but to a research orientation it had increased.
Particularly noteworthy is the decline in the research and teaching orientation,
the type closest to the Humboldtian ideal, which relative to the Carnegie survey
had declined in all countries except the U.S. Among the factors that may havecontributed to the increased conformity to a research orientation are the effects
of social change, the changes to the reward system, the research orientation ofhigher education policy, and the divisions within the higher education system.
4. Increased differentiation between research and teaching can be readily
attributed to factors such as: institutionalization of the graduate school;
establishment of academic associations; identification of centers of learning;assessment of productivity and citations of papers; the status of the research
university; the reward system; and the institutionalization of ranking.
Considering the way in which the process of differentiation has spread globally,
we are forced to recognize the difficulty of integrating teaching and research.
Nevertheless, integration is necessary.
In the 21st century when,unprecedented universalization will be steadily promoted, it has to be said that
integration is necessary, not only to establish an R-T nexus but also to extend it
to an R-T-L nexus, if the increasing demands of students’ learning are to be met.
As discussed in this paper, consideration of the present situation, in which
creating even an R-T nexus is difficult, will necessarily impose greater difficulty
if an R-T-L nexus is to be realized. In this context, the academic profession
worldwide is confronted with the challenge of finding the means to achieve thisessential development.

References
Altbach, P.G. (ed.) (1996). The International Academic Profession: Portraits of Fourteen
Countries. Princeton, NJ: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.

Altbach, P.G., (2009). Peripheries and centers: research universities in developing countries.
Asia Pacific Education Review, 10 (1, March), 15-27.

Altbach, P.G., & Umakoshi, T. (eds.) (2004). Asian Universities: Historical Perspectives andContemporary Challenges. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

Arimoto, A. (1981). Sociology of Academics (in Japanese). Tokyo: Gakubunsha PublishingCo.

Arimoto, A. (1987). Study of Merton Sociology of Science: Formation and Development of Its

26

Differentiation and Integration of Research, Teaching and Learning in the Knowledge Society

Page

Paradigm (in Japanese). Tokyo: Fukumura Publishing Co.

Arimoto, A. (2006a). Institutionalization of Faculty Development with a Focus on Japan. In
RIHE (ed.), Reports of Changing Academic Profession Project Workshop on Quality,
Relevance, and Governance in the Changing Academia: International Perspectives(COE Publication Series 20) (pp.3-20). Hiroshima: RIHE, Hiroshima University.

Arimoto, A. (2006b). The Changing Academic Profession in Japan: Its Origins, Heritage andCurrent Situation. Reports of Changing Academic Profession Project Workshop on
Quality, Relevance, and Governance in the Changing Academia: International

Perspectives (COE Publication Series 20) (pp.183-194). Hiroshima: RIHE, Hiroshima
University.

Arimoto, A. (2007). National Research Policy and Higher Education Reforms with Focus on

Japanese Case. In S. Sorlin, & H. Vessuri (eds.), Knowledge Society vs. Knowledge

Economy: Knowledge, Power, and Politics (pp.175-197). New York: Palgrave
Macmillan.

Arimoto, A. (2008, February). International Implications of the Changing Academic
Profession in Japan. Keynote presented at the CAP seminar, Garden Palace, Hiroshima.

Arimoto, A. (2009a). Changing Academic Profession in the World from 1992 to 2007

(Keynote presented at the CAP seminar, Garden Palace, Hiroshima, February, 2009). In
RIHE (ed.), RIHE International Seminar Reports 13 (pp.1-37).

Arimoto, A. (2009b). The Competitive Environment of Academic Productivity and theAcademic Research Enterprise in the Case of Japan. Asia Pacific Education Review, 10(1, March), 29-46.

Arimoto, A. (ed.) (1996). Study of Center of Learning (in Japanese). Tokyo: Toshindo
Publishing Co.

Arimoto, A. (ed.) (2008). The Changing Academic Profession in Japan (CAPJ) (in Japanese).
Tokyo: Tamagawa University Press.

Arimoto, A., & Ehara, T. (eds.). (1996). International Comparison of the Academic Profession(in Japanese). Tokyo: Tamagawa University Press.

Becher, T., & Parry, S. (2007). The Endurance of the Disciplines. In I. Bleiklie, & M. Henkel(eds.), Governing Knowledge: A Study of Continuity and Change in Higher Education. A

Fertscrift in Honour of Maurice Kogan (pp.133-144). Dordrecht: Springer.

Ben-David, J. (1977). Centers of Learning: Britain, France, Germany, United States: An
Essay. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Boyer, E.L. (1990). Scholarship Reconsidered: Priorities of the Professoriate. Princeton, NJ:
Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.

Brubacher, J., & Rudy, W. (1968). Higher Education in Transition, New York: Harper & Row.
Carnegie Commission on Higher Education. (1976). A Classification of Higher Education.

Central Council of Education. (2005). Future Vision of Higher Education in Japan (inAkira Arimoto

27

Page

Japanese).

Clark, B.R. (1983). Higher Education System: Academic Organization in Cross-National
Perspective. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Clark, B.R. (1995). Places of Inquiry: Research and Advanced Education in Modern
University. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Clark, B.R. (1997). The Modern Integration of Research Activities with Teaching and
Learning. Journal of Higher Education, 68 (3, May-June), 241-55.

Clark, B.R. (2008). On Higher Education: Selected Writings, 1956-2006, Baltimore: The
Johns Hopkins University Press.

Cummings, W.K. (2009). Teaching versus Research in the Contemporary Academy. In RIHE
(ed.), RIHE Internationa Seminar Reports, 13, 33-55.

Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P., & Trow, M. (1994). The
New Production of Knowledge: The Dynamics of Science and Research inContemporary Societies. London: SAGE Publications.

Kogan, M.K., Bauer, M., Bleiklie, I., & Henkel, M. (eds.) (2006). Transforming Higher
Education: A Comparative Study, Second edition, Dordreht: Springer.

Kogan, M., & Teichler, U., (eds.) (2007). Key Challenges to the Academic Profession,

UNESCO Forum on Higher Education, Research and Knowledge. Werkstattberichte, 65,
International Center for Higher Education Research Kassel at the University of Kassel.

London Times. (2008). QS Quacquarelli Symonds (www.topuniversities.com).

Merton, R.K. (ed.) (1973). The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Investigations.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology. (MEXT). (2006). Annual
Report on the Promotion of Science and Technology, FY 2006. Tokyo: MEXT.

MEXT-NISTEP (2007). NISTEP REPORT No.102 [Report on the World Top Class COE inthe U.S.], Tokyo: MEXT-NISTEP.

MEXT. (2009). School Basic Statistics, FY 2009. Tokyo: MEXT.

Nicholls, G. (2005). The Challenge to Scholarship: Rethinking Learning, Teaching, andResearch, Key Issues in Higher Education. London: Routledge.

Ogata, N. (2008). Academics’ Views about Students. In A. Arimoto (ed.), Changing Academic
Profession in Japan (pp.111-122) (in Japanese). Tokyo: Tamagawa University Press.

Oleson, A., & Voss, J. (eds.) (1979). The Organization of Knowledge in Modern America,
1860-1920. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Parry, S. (2007). Disciplines and Doctrates. Dordrecht: Springer.

Parsons, T., & Platt, G.M. (1973) The American University. Massachusetts: Harvard
University Press.

RIHE. (2006). Reports of Changing Academic Profession Project Workshop on Quality,
Relevance, and Governance in the Changing Academia: International Perspectives

28

Differentiation and Integration of Research, Teaching and Learning in the Knowledge Society

Page(COE Publication Series, No.20). Hiroshima: RIHE, Hiroshima University.

RIHE. (2008). The Changing Academic Profession in International, Comparative andQuantitative Perspectives. (Report of the International Conference on the Changing
Academic Profession Project, 2008). Hiroshima: RIHE, Hiroshima University.

RIHE. (2009). The Changing Academic Profession over 1992-2007: International,

Comparative, and Quantitative Perspective. (RIHE International Seminar Reports
No.13), RIHE, Hiroshima University.

Ruffner, J.A. (ed.). (1977). Eponyms Dictionary Index. Gale Research Company.

Shinbori, M. (1973). Research of Academic Productivity (in Japanese). Daigaku Ronshu, No.1,
pp.11-19. Hiroshima: RIHE, Hiroshima University.

Shinbori, M. (ed.). (1985). Evaluation of Academic Achievement: Eponymy Phenomena in
Science (in Japanese). Tokyo: Tamagawa University Press.

Ushiogi, M. (1986). A Report on Campus Ecology (in Japanese). Tokyo: Chuokoron
Publishing Co.

Ushiogi, M. (2008). Is The End of Humboldtian Ideal?: New Dimension of Modern University(in Japanese). Tokyo: Toshindo Publishing Co.

Von Humboldt, W. (1910). On the Spirit and the Organizational Framework of Intellectual
Institutions in Berlin. Translated by Shils, E Minelva, 8 (1970), 242-50.

Weinstein, M.M. (2009). Paul A. Samuelson, 94, economics Nobel laureate. International
Herald Tribune (December 15), 6.

Zuckerman, H. (1977). Scientific Elite: Nobel Laureates in the United States. New York: The
Free Press.

29
RIHE International Seminar Reports, No.15, 2010 Page

Comparing the Academic Research Productivity of
Selected Societies

William K. Cummings

Introduction
Nations1 differ in their levels of academic research productivity, and an
important component of each nation’s productivity is the productivity of
individual scholars. Smaller nations with relatively productive scholars canseek to match the productivity of a larger nation if the latter’s productivity is low.
International statistics on aggregate national research productivity indeed
suggest that the productivity in some of the larger nations is leveling off and thatsome of the smaller nations, notably those referred to as Asian newly emerging
societies, are catching up. This paper drawing on CAP data seeks to compare
and examine both the current pattern of academic research productivity forselected nations and to compare recent trends (1992 to 2007).

The data and their limitations
The CAP Project encouraged relatively large national surveys of theacademic profession in 20 countries conducted mainly over 2007; for several ofthese countries, a similar survey (similar in terms of sample design and many ofthe questions of the common instrument) was conducted in 1992 under thesponsorship of the Carnegie Fund for the Advancement of Teaching.
Professor of International Education and International Affairs, The George Washington
University, USA, e-mail: wkcum@gwu.edu
1
Most of the samples of the CAP study were from “national” academic populations. Hong
Kong, a region of China, is an exception. The CAP study included samples of academics
both from mainland China and from Hong Kong. In the discussion below we will sometimes
refer to Hong Kong as a nation, even though the correct designation should be region.
30Comparing the Academic Research Productivity of Selected Societies

Page

The CAP Survey covers all academic fields. As the most prominentinternational comparisons of research productivity focus on the productivity of
research articles by academics in the science and engineering fields (inclusive of
psychology and the social sciences), we will similarly narrow the focus. In
other words, the results presented below are for the sub-sample of academics inscience and engineering.
Respondents were asked an extensive battery of questions on researchcontext and productivity. Several indicators of productivity were collected
including a question on numbers of research articles published in the last three
years; this question is the closest the survey comes to measuring articles
published in refereed journals and thus will be the focus of the analysis below.
There are inevitably limitations to this approach. The number of articles
published is self-reported, and there are possible societal differences in theinterpretation of this and other questions. So our attention will be on relative
differences, rather than absolute scores.

The recent pattern
Indeed there are big societal differences in the level of average research
productivity with Korea reporting a publishing rate that is two and a half times
greater than that of the U.S. Pulling down the U.S. average is the fact that a
relatively large proportion of U.S. academics have not published a single article
over the past three years; the failure to publish is interesting in view of the U.S.
myth of publish or perish. The U.S. publication rate is closer to Brazil orPortugal than that of most of the other advanced economies included in the CAP
survey.
Table 1. International comparison of research article productivity 2007*
Article Average
2007% None
2007

Korea

11.59

1.9

Hong Kong

10.6

7.1

Japan

9.71

Country

Article Average
2007% None2007

Portugal

5.64

19.3

Finland

5.5

21.1

11.3

Norway

5.22

18
26.2

Country

Germany

9.3

13.4

USA

4.95

China

9.2

15.8

Malaysia

4.77

29.3

Italy

8.8

6.2

Brazil4.74

21.4

Australia

7.25

11.4

Argentina

4.31

26.6

UK

6.88

10.9

Mexico3.16

40.7

Canada6.6

10.9

S. Africa

3.02

28.5

Russia－－William K. Cummings

31

Page

Of the 20 countries currently in the CAP study, 17 have completed theirdata collection and are included in the international data file. As it would be
too confusing at this point to compare all of these countries, we will select twothat are relatively low in average productivity (the U.S. and Australia), two thatare intermediate (Japan and Hong Kong), and one that is high (Korea).

Accounting for individual productivity
The research literature suggests a variety of factors that are thought to be
associated with individual productivity as highlighted in Table 2. The empiricalevaluation of these factors tends to come from analytical studies of particular“national” systems. The CAP data set allows an additional “hierarchical” levelof comparison, that is, the comparison between nations.
Model. There are different ways to introduce the national level into an analysis.
Lately it is popular to utilize a hierarchical model. A longstanding alternative isthe simple direct comparison of national regressions. We have elected the latterapproach, at least for this stage of the analysis, as we think it allows a more
explicit comparison of key factors. Also, it is more understandable for ageneral audience.
Dependent variable. For the dependent variable in the analysis, we transformed
the reported number of articles over the past three years to the natural log of total
articles plus one. This procedure was selected to approximate to a more normal
distribution of publications for each national sample.
Independent variables and data. For the independent variables, drawing on the
research literature (especially the U.S. literature) we selected the variables
highlighted in Table 2. For many of these variables, there are inconsistencies in
the literature which we seek to highlight in Table 2. For example, some studies
suggest that productivity declines with increasing age while others suggest the
opposite.
Some suggest females are less productive than their malecounterparts while others find no difference.
It is possible to create a table with each variable, our indicator, and a briefsummary of findings from the literature (Table 2).

32Comparing the Academic Research Productivity of Selected Societies

Page

Table 2. Presumed direction of impact of the selected independent variables
Concept

Presumed
CAP
Carnegie
Direction of
Variable No. Variable No. Impact

FemaleF1

Foreign
Born

F9_B_1

Professor

Academic
Rank

9

F

Tenured

A11

11b

F

FullTime

A7a

11a

F

AverageAge

2007-F2

2

ResInclined

B2

40

TeReComp

B5_7

F

ResOriginal

B5_1

F

Argument

Sources

Personal
1?
F

Motivation
F

SupportResFunds

B3_12

ResEquip

B3_4

24d

F

F

ResLabs

B3_3

24c

F

Research
Hrs/Normal
Wk

B1_2

18

F

CollabInt

D1_4

65a

F

44

F

64a

F

EffortConnections
CollabDom
PublishFor

D5_4

Commercial
Res

D2_3

F

RestrictPub

D6_1

U

RestrictPri

D6_2

U

Res
Stressed

E6_5

F

Policies

Summary statistics. Table 3 presents the distributions (or for the case of age andresearch hours per week, the averages) for the selected countries. Table 4
compares these statistics in terms of relative national rank, with a low ranking
representing a value favorable to research productivity and a high value an
unfavorable ranking. What stands out is the predominance of unfavorable
rankings for the U.S.

William K. Cummings

33

Page

Comparing the regression coefficients. The variables in Table 3 were entered intoa multiple linear regression, and the beta coefficients are reported in Table 5.
Overall the model provides a good fit for the five selected nations. The
adjusted values of r2 in all cases are above 20% which is respectable for ananalysis of this kind, and in three instances the value for r2 is close to or above
40%.
Table 3. Proportion (%) who have the listed attribute
US

Japan

Korea

HK

Australia

Personal
Female

36.7

5.3

18.1

28.8

49.6

Foreign Born

20.4

2

0.2

33.8

37.5

Professor

66.9

85.3

64.8

49

24.2

Tenured

60.1

71.2

5

36.6

48.9

FullTime

94.3

99.4

100

93.5

96.6

52

51.8

45.5

45.9

47.3

Res Inclined

47.6

73.6

69.1

64.6

58.1

Te Res Comp

66

27.8

65.4

51.5

41.1

Res Original

68.1

75.1

74.4

81

53.7

Res Funds

16.9

18.9

14.9

25.7

18.8

Res Equip

30.6

32.1

25.4

47

28.8

Res Labs

28.4

25.3

25.9

40.7

25.6

Research hrs/normal week

13.6

17.1

18.3

16.3

14.1

Collab Int

32.7

25.4

34.6

56.9

44.1

Collab Dom

57.1

53.3

69.4

52.4

49.3

Publish Foreign

22.5

35.2

60

69.7

39.8

Commercial Res

14.1

24.2

24.5

10.4

12.8

Restrict Pub

7

30.7

45.8

13.6

10.8

Restric Pri

7

19.6

28.8

8.4

9.9

Res Stressed

44

56.7

32.9

63.9

34.5

Average Age (years)
Motivation

SupportEffortConnections

Policies

34

Comparing the Academic Research Productivity of Selected Societies

Page

Table 4. Rank order of factors favorable for publishing research articles in fivecountries
US

Japan

Korea

HK

Australia

Female

4

1

2

3

5

Foreign Born

3

4

5

2

1

Professor

2

1

3

4

5

Tenured

2

1

5

4

3

FullTime

3

2

1

4

5

Average Age

5

4

1

2

3

Res Inclined

5

1

2

3

4

Teach Res Comp

1

5

2

3

4

Res Original

4

2

3

1

5

Personal

Motivation

SupportRes Funds

4

2

1

5

3

Res Equip

3

2

1

5

4

Res Labs

2

5

3

1

4

Research Hrs/Normal Wk

5

2

1

3

4

Collab Int

4

5

1

3

2

Collab Dom

2

3

1

4

5

Publish Foreign

5

4

1

3

4

Commercial Res

3

2

1

5

4

Restrict Pub

1

4

5

3

2

Restrict Pri

1

5

4

3

2

Res Stressed

3

2

5

1

4

3..4

4..7

9..3

3..2

1..2

EffortConnections

Policies

Number of 1st & 2nd rankings

2

Adjusted R
1
0.3595

Standardized
Coeff
Sig.
Beta
Std. Error(Constant)0.65
Age_07-0.03
0.45
Research (B)
0.16
0.00
Female-0.01
0.86
ForBorn-0.04
0.22
ResInclined
0.24
0.00
TeReComp
0.02
0.65
ResOriginal
0.04
0.26
University
0.09
0.01
ResStressed
0.06
0.10
ResFunds-0.02
0.49
ResEquip
0.02
0.64
ResLabs
0.01
0.74
Professor
0.14
0.01
Tenured
0.02
0.75
FullTime
0.01
0.67
CommercialR
-0.03
0.40
RestrictPub
0.01
0.73
RestrictPri
-0.01
0.89
CollabInt
0.11
0.01
CollabDom
0.11
0.00
PublishFor
0.12
0.00

Model

Model Summary-US

0.00
0.02
0.06
-0.01
0.12
-0.09
-0.03
0.08
0.05
0.03
0.14
0.15
0.26

0.93
0.61
0.12
0.69
0.00
0.01
0.37
0.01
0.11
0.38
0.00
0.00
0.00

Standardized
Coeff
Sig.
Beta
Std. Error
0.03
0.04
0.24
0.07
0.02
-0.06
0.06
-0.01
0.72
0.12
0.00
-0.01
0.64
0.01
0.62
0.26
0.02
0.07
0.23
0.47
0.87
0.09
0.68
0.85
0.02
0.00
0.00

0.05
0.10
0.12
-0.08
0.04
0.01
0.07
0.02
0.01
0.10
0.22
0.20

Standardized
Coeff
Sig.
Beta
Std. Error
0.00
-0.06
0.30
0.03
0.49
-0.05
0.21
-0.04
0.30
0.13
0.00
-0.01
0.90
-0.03
0.44

Model Summary--Korea
Summary-Japan
2
Adjusted R
0.205698

Table 5. Regression summary

Model Summary-Japan
Summary-US
2
Adjusted R
0.273222

-0.07
-0.11
0.04
-0.01
0.24
0.15
0.00
0.07
0.00
0.02
0.17
0.10
0.22

0.14
0.02
0.39
0.85
0.00
0.01
0.99
0.09
0.98
0.74
0.00
0.04
0.00

Standardized
Coeff
Sig.
Beta
Std. Error
0.08
-0.05
0.33
0.09
0.05
-0.10
0.02
-0.05
0.23
0.14
0.00
-0.07
0.14
0.01
0.81

Standardized
Coeff
Sig.
Beta
Std. Error
0.14
-0.07
0.05
0.24
0.00
0.03
0.46
-0.04
0.21
0.09
0.02
0.00
0.96
0.06
0.07
0.09
0.01
-0.02
0.53
-0.02
0.58
0.04
0.34
-0.03
0.41
0.25
0.00
0.18
0.00
0.07
0.04
0.03
0.34
-0.03
0.44
0.06
0.10
0.16
0.00
0.13
0.00
0.15
0.00

Model Summary--Hong Kong
Summary--Korea
Summary--Hong Kong
2
2
Adjusted R
Adjusted R
0.363217
0.441384

William K. Cummings
35

36

Comparing the Academic Research Productivity of Selected Societies

Page

It is notable that, regardless of the society, the same sets of variables tend tobe significant.
This pattern is perhaps better illustrated in Table 6 which highlights thosevariables that make a significant contribution at the .01 level (indicated by two++’s) and at the .05 level (one +); the sign indicates whether the direction of therelation is positive or negative.
Table 6. Variables that have statistically significant contributions in predicting
article productivity of STEM academics
R-Squared

US

Japan

Korea

Hong Kong

Australia

0.36

0.27

0.21

0.36

0.44

Age_07
Research Hrs/Wk−++

Female

++

++

−

−−

++

Foreign Born
Res Inclined

++

++

++

++

Teach-Res CompRes Original+

University++

Res Stressed+++

Res Funds++

Res Equip+−−

Res Labs
Professor++

Tenured

++

++

++

−−

++

++

++

+

FullTime
Commercial Res
Restrict Public
Restrict Private+

Collaborate Int

++

++

++

++

++

Collaborate Dom

++

++

++

++

++

Publish Foreign

++

++

++

++

++

In sum, the preference for research over teaching, the number of hours
devoted to research, the tendency to engage in both domestic and international
collaboration in research work, and the practice of publishing in international
journals are the most important factors in accounting for differential research
productivity across the five countries. An increased score on any or all of theseis a means towards increasing average individual research productivity.

William K. Cummings

37

Page

Looking backwards
With the above model in mind, what can be said about recent trends inaverage productivity? The 1992 Carnegie survey posed the identical question
about the number of research articles published over the past years as did the
CAP survey. Table 7 adds the 1992 figures to those presented in Table 1 for2007. In most of the countries for which data is available for the two periods,
the averages are up, but for the U.S. they are down.
Table 7. STEM articles, country averages
ArticleAverage92

ArticleAverage
2007

USA

6.59

4.95

UK

5.18

6.88

Country% None92% None
2007

D

8.4

26.2

U

U

27.8

10.9

D

Direction

Direction

Germany

4.82

9.3

U

29.9

13.4

D

Australia

4.87

7.25

U

26.2

11.4

D

Japan

8.51

9.71

U

11.9

11.3

D

Korea

6.94

11.59

U

7

1.9

D

Hong Kong

5.01

10.6

U

23.8

7.1

D

Russia3.46

Brazil

2.37

4.74

U

52

21.4

D

Mexico

1.66

3.16

U

62.6

40.7

D

24.1

Argentina

4.31

26.6

China

9.2

15.8

Canada

6.6

10.9

Malaysia

4.77

29.3

Portugal

5.64

19.3

Finland

5.5

21.1

Italy

8.8

6.2

Norway5.22

18

S. Africa

3.02

28.5

What accounts for the downward trend in the U.S. and the positive trend inseveral of the other countries? Again, for several of the independent variables
shown to be related to individual productivity, there are identical measurements
for both 1992 and 2007. Tables 8a, 8b and 8c compare the summary statistics
for these variables for our five countries, first in terms of actual magnitude forthe two time periods and then in terms of the changes in this magnitude from38

Comparing the Academic Research Productivity of Selected Societies

Page

1992 to 2007. For example, an increase in the proportion of academics who
say they are inclined to do research is considered a change favorable to research
productivity. Similarly an increase in the average weekly number of hours
devoted to research is considered a favorable change.
Table 8a. Percentage (or average) of respondents showing the listed attributein 2007
US

Japan

Korea

HK

Australia

Res Inclined

47.6

73.6

69.1

64.6

58.1

Res Equip

30.6

32.1

25.4

47

28.8

Res Labs

28.4

25.3

25.9

40.7

25.6

Research
Hrs/Normal Wk

13.6

17.1

18.3

16.3

14.1

Motivation
SupportEffortTable 8b. Percentage (or average) of respondents showing the listed attributein 1992
US

Japan

Korea

HK

Australia

Res Inclined

58.4

78.9

66.4

66

55.1

Res Equip

58.8

12.9

10

50.7

32

Res Labs

57.9

11.8

9.7

55

35.7

Research
Hrs/Normal Wk

18.5

22

17.6

14.9

14.7

Motivation
SupportEffortTable8c. Direction of change, favorable (F) or unfavorable (U) to increased
research productivity, 1992-2007
US

Japan

Korea

HK

Australia

Res Inclined

U

U

F

N

F

Res Equip

U

F

F

N

N

Res Labs

U

F

F

U

U

Research
Hrs/Normal Wk

U

U

F

F

U

Motivation
SupportEffort* Where difference is less than 5%, change considered neutral

William K. Cummings

39

Page

For all of the listed attributes for which data is available for the two time
periods, the values for the U.S. are down in 2007 relative to 1992. In contrast,
all of the values are either up or neutral in the case of Korea; and in the threeother countries there is a mixed pattern.

Conclusion
It would appear that over the past 15 years that there have been some
important shifts in the attractiveness of research environments and in research
productivity. The environment is lower in the U.S. as is average research
productivity. In contrast the environment has considerably improved in Korea
as has productivity. The three other countries covered in our analysis lie inbetween. Our analysis does not catch all facets of this change. For example,
the government of the Republic of Korea has placed a high priority on promoting
academic productivity and has significantly increased the resources available foracademic research; in contrast, conditions facilitating research have experienced
little improvement in the U.S. Again, promotion and tenure procedures havebecome much more rigorous in Korea whereas they have possibly relaxed in the
U.S. A major finding of our analysis is the importance of collaborative
relations for stimulating research productivity. Clearly collaboration, both
domestic and international, is receiving much emphasis in Korea and the other
Asian systems whereas collaboration, at least of the international variety, has notreceived as much emphasis in the U.S.; this difference is one of several where
the U.S. academy does not seem to be transforming itself with the same pace as
its Asian neighbors. Insofar as research productivity is an important priority ofnational policy, this study suggests the importance of reviewing current practice,particularly in the U.S.

40

41
RIHE International Seminar Reports, No.15, 2010 Page

Teaching and Research in Germany: narrowing thegaps between institutional types and staff categories?

Ulrich Teichler

1. The varying functions of academics
The Humboldtian “idea” of the university, among others, praises a close
link between teaching and research. It is based on the beliefs that teaching ismore creative and qualitatively more demanding, if the teachers are concurrently
involved in research, and that research benefits if the scholars are involved inteaching. This belief in the virtue of a close link between teaching and research
formulated by Wilhelm von Humboldt was not only essential for the foundationof the University of Berlin in 1810, but it spread subsequently all over the world.
For example, the European University Association only accepts institutions ofhigher education as members that are characterized by a close link between
teaching and research. The concept of the “research university” in the U.S. isbased on a similar link, even though the Humboldtian idea was taken up
primarily as a concept suitable for graduate education; it has had an enormous
influence as a role model all over the world.
One has to note, however, that a close link between teaching and researchdoes not apply equally to the higher education and research system as a whole, toall institutions of higher education, and to all academic staff categories; in those
respects, we observe differences by country. The academic profession isdivided in many respects: The striking disciplinary “tribes” vary as far as
theories, methods and “culture” are concerned. While some institutions hold aclose link between teaching and research in high esteem, other institutions arealmost exclusively responsible for teaching; moreover, types of higher education
Professor, International Centre for Higher Education Research, University of Kassel,
Germany, e-mail: teichler@incher.uni-kassel.de42

Teaching and Research in Germany

Page

institute might not only differ as regards the relationships between teaching andresearch, but also in their conceptual thrust: often, institutions responsible forboth teaching and research consider themselves theoretically oriented, while
those solely or predominantly responsible for teaching see their strength in theapplication of knowledge. Moreover, junior academic staff and senioracademics in many countries seem to have little in common with respect to job
security, composition of tasks and influence in academia. Last but not least thecurrent popularity of “rankings” of “world-class universities” suggests that theidentity of academics ought not to be primarily based on the academic profession
as a whole or on the respective disciplines, but rather on the individual
institution similarly to the often named “company spirit” of Japanese companies
in the “golden age” of life-time employment for a few decades after World War
II. These varied divides challenge the assumption that “the” academic
profession (i.e. a single academic profession) really exists.
The project “The Changing Academic Professions” (CAP) does not address
the characters of individual academic disciplines; if this had been the case,specific questions would have been asked about the perception of the characterof individual disciplines. The CAP project also does not address the possibly
emerging divides between individual institutions of higher education (apart fromthe question of whether the respondents feel affiliated to their discipline, theirdepartment and their institution). But the CAP project provides ample
opportunities to analyse the extent to which senior and junior staff are segmented
or have elements in common, as well as how far academics at universities with aclose link between teaching and research differ from those at other institutions ofhigher education.
Actually, Germany is an interesting case in this respect, because it is acountry where – according to the available literature – the scholars’ involvementin teaching versus research varies substantially by institutional type and by staff
category (see Teichler & Bracht, 2006; Teichler, 2007; Teichler, 2008; cf. also
Kehm, 1999; Simon, Knie & Hornbostel, 2010). The Humboldtian concept ofthe virtue of a close link between teaching and research applies closely eventoday most clearly to the work tasks of university professors: they have ateaching load of 8-9 hours per week during the lecture period; this is based on
the assumption that the overall time available during a year on teaching andteaching-related activities is more or less equal to that available for research andresearch-related activities. The teaching load is almost uniform for German
university professors. The regulations set by the individual Länder vary only
between 8 and 9 hours. The number of actual teaching hours might beUlrich Teichler

43

Page

moderately reduced if the professor has to take care of large numbers of students,and only few professors get their teaching load reduced for other purposes.
But such an idea of a balance of teaching and research does not apply toother categories of academics in Germany. We have to consider three othercategories in this context.
First, junior academic staff at universities in Germany, by far more
numerous than university professors, are involved to a lesser extent in teaching.
Junior academics, who are paid from the regular university budget, often are
expected to teach about half as many weekly hours as university professors; they
spend most of their time on research, on the preparation of a dissertation, andeventually of Habilitation as a grand piece of research qualifying for a call to aprofessorial position. A stronger involvement of junior academic staff inresearch than in teaching is viewed as essential in Germany in order to prepare
for a proper link between teaching and research on the part of the professors.
In addition, many young academics at German universities are employed on thebasis of external research grants, i.e. exclusively for undertaking research;however, they might offer individual courses if they wish to do so and if theirsupervisors do not disagree.
Second, when a substantial expansion of enrolment was accepted in the
1960s as desirable or inevitable, most actors and experts in Germany agreed thatthe close link between teaching and research as customary at universities could
not be preserved for the higher education system as a whole. From 1970
onwards, Fachhochschulen were established as a second institutional typeprimarily through the upgrading of former engineering colleges and higher
vocational training schools. At the these institutions, calling themselves“universities of applied sciences” in the English language since the early 1990s,
professors are expected to teach 18 hours per week even over a slightly longer
lecture period than that at universities. Professors of these institutions have
only an optional research role, and they might get only a small reduction of theirteaching load if they are highly active in research. It should be added here thatthe number of junior staff at universities of applied sciences is very small,because these institutions do not educate their future professors themselves;rather, in order to be appointed as a professor at a Fachhochschulen, a person has
to have acquired a doctoral degree at a university and has to have been
professionally active for at least five years after the award of a doctoral degree,of which three of the years should have been outside academia in a professional
area close to his or her future teaching. Moreover, the infrastructure ofFachhochschulen for research activities is quite weak as compared to that at

44

Teaching and Research in Germany

Page

universities.
The importance of these differences can be illustrated further by thefollowing facts. There is no common word for the “academic profession” in
the German language at all. Rather, academics are divided into occupational
categories: “Hochschullehrer” and “wissenschaftliche Mitarbeiter”. Moreover,there are distinct titles of “university professors” and “professors” (i.e. those atother institutions of higher education). Finally, there are separate membershiporganisations for university professors (Hochschulverband) and for professors at
Fachhochschulen (Hochschullehrerbund), neither of them accepting junior staff
as members.
Third, there is a broad range of public research institutes in Germany
exclusively devoted to research. The institutes, under the umbrella of four
associations – Max Planck, Leibnitz, Fraunhofer and Helmholtz associations,vary in their emphasis on basic or applied research, and in typical size as well as
in the disciplinary dominance. Most persons in the director rank at these
institutes are appointed also as special-status professors at a university nearby.
In these cases, the salary is paid by the research institute, the professor has arelatively small teaching obligation but he or she can make sure that the doctoralcandidates of his or her research institute are accepted on terms equal to those of
the university, and he or she might form groups of doctoral candidates and young
researchers across the institutional divide. The junior staff of the research
institutes, like those at universities paid by external research grants, might teachvoluntarily individual courses at a university.
In sum, the ideal of a close link between teaching and research is held inhigh esteem in Germany. In reality, however, it is only a small minority of
about 15% of all academics in the higher education and public research system
who are expected to have a real balance between these two functions. Others
are predominantly researchers or predominantly teachers whereby the respective
alternative function might be mandatory, on a smaller scale, or even only
voluntary.
The comparative research project “The Changing Academic Profession”(CAP) provides, first, the opportunity of examining the extent to which senior
and junior academics as well as academics at universities and those at otherinstitutions of higher education have much in common or are clearly different
and of exploring the extent to which academics in Germany differ from those inother countries in those respects. Second, a comparison between the findingsof the Carnegie Study on the Academic Profession undertaken in 1992 and thoseof the CAP undertaken in 2007, makes it possible to measure the extent ofUlrich Teichler

45

Page

change that occurred within more than a decade as long as the questions posed
were identical or had a similar form.
One could assume, for example, that the differences between academics atuniversities and those at other higher education institutions become smaller as aconsequence of an “academic drift” on the one hand, i.e. a tendency of the lessprestigious institutions to copy the character of the more prestigious ones, or as aconsequence of increasing pressures exerted on the universities to provide more
visibly useful results. Similarly, one could assume that the frequently
advocated policies of reducing long periods of uncertainty and dependency of
junior advocated staff have succeeded in reducing the divide between junior andsenior academics. Quod esset demonstrandum.
The subsequent analysis takes into consideration the German case incomparison to eight other advanced countries participating in the CAP study:
Finland, Norway, Italy, Portugal, the United Kingdom, Japan, the U.S., andAustralia. The comparison between 1992 and 2007, however, can refer only tothe four other countries participating in both surveys: the United Kingdom,Japan, the U.S., and Australia. The analysis is based on the CAP data-set ofAugust 2009.

2. The findings of the Carnegie study
The comparative study on the academic profession, undertaken in 1992 on
the initiative of the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching,provided information for the first time that has allowed us to examine whether
the respective teaching and research functions according to institutional type andstaff categories in Germany has changed similarly to other countries or has beenunique to Germany. Unfortunately, however, the major publications of theCarnegie Foundation’s study in two volumes (Boyer, Altbach & Whitelaw, 1994;
Altbach, 1996) as well as most country reports have addressed only the totalityof academics in the respective countries, thereby not paying attention to eventual
variations by institutional and staff categories. In contrast the report on theGerman academic profession in comparative perspective divided the respondents
into three categories: (a) university professors, (b) junior staff at universities, and(c) academics at other institutions of higher education (Enders & Teichler,
1995a; 1995b). As more than 90% of the academics at German universities ofapplied sciences surveyed in 1992 were professors, the responses of allacademics at those institutions in 1992 can be compared only to those of theprofessors at universities of applied sciences in 2007.

46

Teaching and Research in Germany

Page

It should be noted that the 1992 survey did not include academics at publicresearch institutes outside higher education. In 2007, they were included insome countries, among them in Germany. However, they are not taken into
consideration in the following analysis, because change over time cannot beanalyzed with respect to this category of academics.
In looking at the relevant results of the 1992 survey, let us first address the
distribution of working time according to teaching and research (cf. Teichler,2009).
・ University professors in Germany surveyed in 1992 spent a higher
proportion of their time during the lecture period on teaching than theircolleagues in the other four countries: 43% as compared to between 28%(Japan) and 37% (the Netherlands). However, taking the time budget
outside the lecture period into consideration, we note that German university
professors spent altogether slightly more time on research than on teaching
and thus have been very close to the ideal of a balance of time spent onteaching and research.
・ In contrast, junior academic staff at universities in Germany spent, together
with their Japanese colleagues, less time on teaching than their colleagues inother countries: 26% as compared to between 38% (United Kingdom) and
47% (Australia).
・ Finally, academics at other types of higher education institutions in Germany(at Fachhochschulen) spent substantially more time on teaching than theircolleagues in other countries: 69% as compared to between 42% (Japan) and
56% (U.S.).
As regards working time, thus, German academics were more strongly
polarized in 1992 according to institutional and staff category than academics inother advanced countries.
Second, academics’ preferences for teaching and research are noteworthy.
・ In most countries included here, we have noted a stronger leaning towards
research or a clear preference of research on the part of university professors.
In Germany, however, a preference for research was expressed in 1992 byonly 66% of the university professors, i.e. after the U.S. (58%) the second
lowest proportion compared to between 70% (Australia) and 91% (Japan).
The idea of a balance between teaching and research, thus, had beenabandoned in Germany to a lesser extent in favour of research than in manyother countries.

Ulrich Teichler

47

Page

・ Junior staff at universities in most countries analyzed had a slightly higher
preference for research than senior academics. Otherwise, the differencesby country were small except for a stronger emphasis on teaching on the partof the U.S. respondents.
・ Finally, academics at other institutions of higher education in Germany were
only in third place in expressing preference for teaching (lower than in the
Netherlands and Australia).
Thus, the polarization of the German academics in the three categories
addressed according to their official functions and according the time spent onteaching and research affected their preferences for teaching or research to alesser extent than one might have expected.
Third, the findings as regards overall job satisfaction are interesting withregard to Germany.
・ High job satisfaction was widespread in 1992 among university professors(2.3 on average on a five-point scale) and to a slightly lesser extent among
academics at other institutions of higher education (2.6). In both cases, therespondents from Germany were close to the average across all countries.
・ Junior academic staff at German universities were clearly less satisfied with
their job (3.1) than their colleagues in other countries (between 2.6 and 2.8).
Table 1. Assessment of the infrastructure for academic work, academics inadvanced countries 1992 and 2007 (arithmetic mean)*
DE

FI

NO

IT

PT

UK

AU

JP

US

University professors 2007
2.6
2.3
2.5
2.8
2.6
2.8
2.5
2.9
2.5
(University professors 1992)
(2.6)
.
.
.
.
(2.7) (2.7) (3.2) (2.4)
Junior academic staff at universities 2007 2.6
2.2
2.4
3.0
2.9
2.8
2.6
3.0
2.5
(Junior academic staff at univ. 1992)
(2.6)
.
.
.
.
(2.8) (2.7) (3.2) (2.7)
Professors at other HEIs 2007
2.7
2.3
2.6
.
2.7
3.0
2.6
.
2.4
Junior acad. staff at other HEIs 2007
2.5
2.4
2.4
.
2.9
3.1
2.8
.
2.6
(Academics at other HEIs 1992)
(2.9)
.
.
.
.
(3.1) (2.9) (3.2) (2.7)* On a scale from 1 = “Excellent” to 5 = “Poor”, average of eight items: Classroom,
technology for teaching, laboratories, research equipment and instruments, computer facilities,
library facilities, your office space, and secretarial support.

The authors of the German study have pointed out that the working
conditions – rated identically on average by university professors and junioracademic staff in Germany (see Table 1) – and the employment conditions(though the German junior staff frequently suffer part-time and short-term

48

Teaching and Research in Germany

Page

employment) could not explain completely the relatively low degree of job
satisfaction of the junior academic staff at German universities. They came tothe conclusion that the status gap and the degree of dependency of the junioracademics as regards their senior supervisors might have caused dissatisfaction.

3. Changes visible in 2007
The polarized settings of the different categories of academics in Germany
have not been static during the recent decades. Among others, those
responsible for public research institutes got interested in strengthening
cooperation with universities notably in doctoral training. Efforts were made as
well to get junior staff in universities better trained for future teachingassignments, among others through increased teaching responsibilities already intheir junior careers. Moreover, activities were undertaken to strengthen the roleof junior academics in various respects, for example through increased
opportunities for raising research funds and coordinating research on their own.
Finally, various measures were taken to increase the role of Fachhochschulen in
the area of research.
The findings of the comparative study “The Changing Academic
Profession” (CAP), undertaken in 2007 (or in some countries somewhat later),show some signs toward narrowing of this gap. This can be illustrated by acomparison of the responses to the three questions addressed above, which wererepeated identically in 2007 (cf. Jacob & Teichler, 2009).
As regards the distribution of working time, Table 2, in fact, shows areduction of differences between the three categories of respondents.
・ University professors in Germany spent substantially less time on teachingin 2007 than in 1992. While they had spent more time on teaching in 1992
than in the other four advanced countries, they spent less on teaching in2007 than in all of these countries except Australia. The time on teachingon the part of university professors in Germany was not moved towards
research, but rather to service and other academic activities.
・ Junior staff at universities in Germany hardly changed the proportion of timespent on teaching and research. Again, junior academics spent more timeon research than those of the other four countries (however, junior academic
staff from Finland and Norway, not represented in the 1992 study, spenteven a higher proportion of their working time on research).
・ Professors at other institutions of higher education in Germany spent about

Ulrich Teichler

49

Page

8% less of their time on teaching in 2007 than in 1992; correspondingly,
they increased the proportion of time spent on research by about 5%.
However, the proportion of time they spent on teaching remained the highest
in comparison to other advanced countries.
Table 2. Proportion of time spent on different activities, academics in Germany
1992 and 2007 (percentages)
At universities
Junior staff
Professors
1992
2007
1992
2007

At other HEIs
Acad.
Prof.
1992
2007

When classes are in session
Teaching

26

28

43

34

69

57

Research

49

43

29

31

12

19

Service

14

18

8

11

6

7

Other academic activities

2

6

5

8

2

5

Administration

6

9

16

16

12

12

100

101

101

100

101

100

Total
When classes are not in session
Teaching

12

13

20

16

44

29

Research

61

57

53

50

33

39

Service

15

18

9

12

11

12

Other academic activities

3

7

7

10

4

8

Administration

8

6

12

12

9

13

Total

99

110

101

100

101

101

Thus, altogether, the differences in the proportion of time spent on teachingand on research respectively by these three categories of academics declined
somewhat. However, they remained higher than in the other four advanced
countries.
As regards preferences for teaching or for research, we note that university
professors in Germany moved slightly towards a higher emphasis on research
while junior staff moved slightly towards a stronger emphasis on teaching (seeTable 3). Thus, the differences of preferences between these two categories
became smaller. Surprisingly, however, professors of other institutions ofhigher education in Germany moved in their preferences somewhat in the
direction of a stronger emphasis on teaching, even though their time budget, inreverse, shifted somewhat from teaching towards research. Altogether, theGerman respondents of these three categories did not change substantially ascompared to the other countries for which information is available for both 1992
and 2007.

50

Teaching and Research in Germany

Page

Table 3. Preferences in teaching and research, academics in Germany 1992 and2007 (percentages)
At universities
Junior staff
Professors
1992
2007
1992
2007

At other HEIs
Acad.
Prof.
1992
2007

Primarily in teaching

6

9

5

2

29

42

In both, but leaning towards teaching

22

2

30

20

49

35

In both, but leaning towards research

46

42

58

66

22

21

Primarily in research

26

27

7

12

0

2

Total

100

100

100

100

100

100

Table 4. Overall professional satisfaction of academics in advanced countries
1992 and 2007 (arithmetic mean)*
PT

UK

AU

JP

University professors 2007
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.1
2.3
(University professors 1992)
(2.4)
.
.
.
.
Junior academic staff at univ. 2007
2.5
2.3
2.3
2.4
2.6
(Junior academic staff at univ. 1992)
(3.1)
.
.
.
.
Professors at other HEIs 2007
2.3
2.2
2.3
.
2.4
Junior acad, staff at other HEIs 2007
2.7
2.3
2.3
.
2.9
(Academics at other HEIs 1992)
(2.7)
.
.
.
.
* On a scale from 1 = “Very satisfied” to 5 = “Very dissatisfied”

DE

FI

NO

IT

2.6

2.2

2.3

US
2.3

(2.5)

(2.3)

(2.4)

(2.3)

2.8

2.6

2.5

2.3

(2.8)

(2.8)

(2.5)

(2.7)

2.8

2.2

.

2.2

2.8

2.8

.

2.3

(2.5)

(2.3)

(2.4)

(2.3)

Finally, as regards job satisfaction, we note that professors in German
universities are slightly more satisfied in 2007 that their predecessors were in
1992 (+0.2), and that professors at Fachhochschulen are substantially moresatisfied (+0.4). One of the most striking changes from 1992 and 2007, can beobserved with regards to the overall satisfaction of junior staff at German
universities: They are strikingly more satisfied in 2007 (2.5) than in 1992 (3.1);
while they were least satisfied in 1992 among their colleagues from othercountries, they are close to the average in 2007. In sum, the job satisfaction ofGerman academics increased visibly over the years, while respective changes in
the other countries were small on average. Accordingly, the differences
between the different categories of respondents from Germany declined
substantially.
Altogether, the differences in Germany between senior and junioracademics as well as the differences between academics at universities and thoseat other institutions of higher education seem to have become smaller. As
regards the time spent on teaching and on research, however, they still remainedlarger than the corresponding times in the advanced countries participating inboth comparative surveys.

Ulrich Teichler

51

Page

4. Selected aspects of teaching
The CAP study aimed to establish the diversity of activities undertaken byacademics. In 2007, they posed a list of seven teaching activities other than theusual classroom instruction: individualized instruction, learning in projects ∕project groups, practice instruction ∕ laboratory work, ICT-based learning ∕computer-assisted learning, distance education, face-to-face interaction withstudents outside of class, and electronic communication with students. As
Table 5 shows, German academics clearly are least involved in these varied
teaching activities, followed by Japanese academics. In contrast, a broad rangeof teaching activities is customary in Finland, the United Kingdom, Australia andthe U.S.
Table 5. Involvement in varied teaching activities, academics in advanced
countries 2007 (arithmetic mean)*
DE

FI

NO

IT

PT

UK

AU

JP

US

University professors

2.6

4.3

4.0

3.8

3.2

4.5

4.0

3.3

4.0

Junior academic staff at universities

2.0

3.6

3.3

3.7

3.6

4.0

4.2

2.9

3.9

Professors at other HEIs

3.2

5.1

3.8

.

3.4

4.8

4.1

.

4.2

2.6
4.8
3.0
.
3.6
4.0
4.6
.
4.3
Junior academic staff at other HEIs
* Average number of seven teaching activities named other than regular classroom teaching

Similarly, only a few German and Japanese academics are involved in thedevelopment of course material.
However, the proportion of German
professors at universities and other higher education institutions involved incurriculum ∕ program development is close to the average of advanced countries,
while junior staff at German higher education institutions are less involved inthese activities than their colleagues from other advanced countries.
In addition, academics were asked to state the extent to which their teachingactivities are regulated or exposed to more or less clear expectations. Fourthemes have been addressed in this context: student numbers in classes and to besupervised as well as success rates and time spent on consultation (a similar
question as regards teaching load is not included here because it was not asked in
the German questionnaire).
Table 6 shows that Germany belongs to a group of four countries (Germany,
Finland, Italy and Japan) where regulations or clear expectations of that kind are
relatively rare for university professors; in contrast, they are most frequent in the
United Kingdom and Australia. Altogether, those regulations and expectations

52

Teaching and Research in Germany

Page

apply more often to professors of other higher education institutions, but, again,
Germany belongs to those countries where those regulations and expectations
are least customary; in contrast, they are most frequent in Australia as well asquite frequent in Portugal and the United Kingdom.
Table 6. Regulations and expectations as regards teaching set by higher
education institutions, professors at universities and other higher
education institutions in advanced countries 2007 (percentages;
multiple responses)
DE

University professors
Number of students in your classes
42
Number of grad. students for supervision 19
Percentage of students passing exams
19
Time for student consultation
14
Total
93
Professors at other HEIs
Number of students in your classes
57
Number of grad. students for supervision 31
Percentage of students passing exams
20
Time for student consultation
15
Total
123

FI

NO

IT

PT

UK

AU

JP

US

33

26

37

46

51

51

21

64

33

48

13

15

52

63

16

23

7

14

4

7

29

19

12

6

25

56

38

53

61

42

40

46

97

145

92

120

193

176

89

139

49

43

.

62

57

62

.

66

9

39

.

21

29

62

.

8

16

28

.

13

19

18

.

4

52

29

.

68

54

67

.

62

126

139

.

164

159

209

.

140

As the final example of information selected in the domain of teaching,
Table 7 shows the responses to a list of possible approaches in regard to teachingother than those of emphasising the value of the academic subject matter and thequality of teaching and learning as such. We suggest these approaches can becharacterised under five headings.
・ Practice-oriented approach: “Practically oriented knowledge and skills areemphasized in your teaching”;
・ International approach: “In your courses you emphasize international
perspectives or content”;
・ Value-oriented approach: “You incorporate discussions of values and ethics
into your course content”;
・ Honesty approach: “You inform students of the implications of cheating or
plagiarism in your courses”;
・ Meritocratic approach: “Grades in your courses strictly reflect levels ofstudent achievement”.
Obviously, German academics have a strong practice-oriented approach.
This is most pronounced at other institutions of higher education where theyUlrich Teichler

53

Page

adhere to it more closely than academics from other countries, but also atuniversities, where academics from German and Portuguese universities
emphasize a practice-oriented approach most strongly. In addition, university
professors in Germany adhere strongly to an international approach, while this isless emphasized by other academics in Germany. Finally, no other approaches
are high on agenda of academics in Germany.
Table 7. Teaching approaches,(percentage*)academics

DE

FI

NO

in
IT

advancedcountries

PT

AU

UK

JP

University professors
Practice-oriented approach
75
31
49
54
75
69
65
52
International approach
79
63
69
62
90
66
75
56
Value-oriented approach
57
53
45
40
71
69
67
50
Honesty approach
53
41
36
32
78
94
82
51
Meritocratic approach
72
95
78
79
55
87
87
59
Junior academic staff at universities
Practice-oriented approach
77
48
51
54
77
67
76
58
International approach
50
46
60
60
82
60
65
41
Value-oriented approach
36
41
36
34
71
70
68
42
Honesty approach
41
38
36
28
88
86
82
44
Meritocratic approach
59
89
71
81
53
79
78
50
Professors at other HEIs
Practice-oriented approach
93
79
57
.
81
83
81
.
International approach
60
52
61
.
68
66
77
.
Value-oriented approach
54
53
39
.
73
87
78
.
Honesty approach
58
60
41
.
72
97
89
.
Meritocratic approach
80
98
80
.
47
79
81
.
Junior academic staff at other HEIs
Practice-oriented approach
99
80
70
.
82
71
78
.
International approach
40
45
64
.
75
87
65
.
Value-oriented approach
21
57
48
.
62
75
78
.
Honesty approach
81
55
60
.
75
93
91
.
Meritocratic approach
76
95
52
.
51
89
82
.
* Responses 1 and 2 on a scale from 1 = “Strongly agree” to 5 = “Strongly disagree”

2007
US
68
51
67
81
85
74
46
66
84
87
72
51
73
89
87
76
52
78
82
86

5. Selected aspects of research
In describing research at institutions of higher education in Germany incomparative perspective according to the academics’ views, we can consider first
the institutional environment. In the respective question, respondents wereasked to assess the extent to which a fund-raising orientation, a utility orientation

54

Teaching and Research in Germany

Page

and an interdisciplinarity orientation prevails at their institution.
were phrased in the questionnaire as follows.

The items

・ Fund-raising orientation: “The pressure to raise external funds has increased
since my first appointment”;
・ Utility orientation: “Your institution emphasizes commercially-oriented orapplied research”;
・ Interdisciplinarity orientation: “Interdisciplinary research is emphasized at
my institution”.
As Table 8 shows, a fund-raising orientation seems to be strong in all
countries. The relatively low percentages in the case of the U.S. might be dueto the phrasing of the question, i.e. to the increase since the respondents’appointment, because the fund-raising orientation seems to have a longer
tradition in the U.S. than in the other countries surveyed.
Table 8. Assessment of the research environment at institutions of higher
education, academics in advanced countries (percentages*)
DE

FI

NO

IT

PT

UK

AU

University professors
Fund-raising orientation
94
88
87
81
87
89
95
Utility orientation
32
39
34
37
45
56
61
Interdisciplinarity orientation
71
66
48
37
60
68
69
Junior academic staff at universities
Fund-raising orientation
78
73
66
71
84
75
82
Utility orientation
32
38
33
35
39
51
66
Interdiscplinarity orientation
53
61
51
38
52
68
65
Professors at other HEIs
Fund-raising orientation
93
80
86
.
80
69
96
Utility orientation
71
80
40
.
32
82
60
Interdiscplinarity orientation
37
75
44
.
34
58
75
Junior academic staff at other HEIs
Fund-raising orientation
79
82
81
.
62
79
86
Utility orientation
76
66
34
.
39
78
58
Interdiscplinarity orientation
46
63
48
.
30
83
58
* Responses 1 and 2 on a scale from 1= “Strongly agree” to 5= “Strongly disagree”

JP

US

79

73

29

44

43

64

74

72

20

49

45

56

.

51

.

18

.

40

.

56

.

26

.

41

A utility orientation is least often reported for universities in Japan. It
seems to be below average in most European countries. The strongest
emphasis on commercial or applied research at universities seems to prevail inAustralia and the United Kingdom, followed by the U.S.
The situation is different at other institutions of higher education. On theUlrich Teichler

55

Page

one hand, a high utility orientation is reported for Germany and Finland, wherethese institutions have a tradition on applied emphasis in contrast to thetheoretical emphasis of the universities. On the other hand, a utility orientationis hardly observed with respect to other institutions of higher education in the
U.S.
Finally, more than half of the respondents on average state thatinterdisciplinarity is strongly emphasized at their institution of higher education.
This seems to be least emphasized at universities in Italy and Japan as well as atother institutions of higher education in Germany and the U.S. By and large,
we note that the perceptions of junior academic staff of each country do notdiffer substantially from those of the professors of the same institutional type.
Second, the questionnaire survey has addressed the academics’ own viewson the character of research and scholarship. They were asked to characterize
the role they see for research and scholarship as oriented towards original
research, as synthesis of findings, as application and as societally relevant. The
actual phrasings in the questionnaire are as follows.
・ Original research: “Scholarship is best defined as the preparation andpresentation of findings on original research”;
・ Synthesis of findings: “Scholarship includes the preparation of reports thatsynthesize the major trends and findings in my field”;
・ Application: “Scholarship includes the application of academic knowledge
in real-life settings”;
・ Societal relevance: “Faculty in my discipline have a professional obligation
to apply their knowledge to problems in society”.
Table 9 shows that scholars at universities on average emphasize original
research more strongly, while scholars at other institutions of higher education
are more inclined to emphasize application. Thereby, junior academic staff
hold similar views to the professors of the same type of higher education
institutions.
But Table 9 shows as well that there are no divided worlds between the two
types of higher education institutions. They differ gradually with respect tooriginal research and application, and they hardly differ with respect to theappreciation of syntheses of findings or to the societal relevance of academic
work. But there are differences by country. Academics in Germany differ intheir views as regards original research and application more strongly according
type of higher education institutions than academics of the other countries
surveyed.

56

Teaching and Research in Germany

Page

Table 9. Views regarding research and scholarship, academics in advanced
countries 2007 (percentages*)
DE

FI

NO

IT

PT

UK

AU

University professors
Original research
83
68
92
73
81
68
76
Synthesis of findings
61
69
56
45
59
68
71
Application
62
74
59
57
77
69
67
Societal relevance
61
65
50
62
73
58
67
Junior academic staff at universities
Original research
69
61
86
74
74
66
69
Synthesis of findings
67
59
61
49
62
63
65
Application
67
84
65
64
76
65
75
Societal relevance
44
58
51
61
73
59
60
Professors at other HEIs
Original research
56
54
88
.
80
57
68
Synthesis of findings
72
75
68
.
57
59
67
Application
87
92
56
.
88
83
67
Societal relevance
63
78
56
.
66
73
71
Junior academic staff at other HEIs
Original research
49
35
81
.
64
44
59
Synthesis of findings
83
54
63
.
47
60
68
Application
84
91
70
.
80
55
78
Societal relevance
75
64
74
.
68
75
70
* Responses 1 and 2 on a scale from 1= “Strongly agree” to 5= “Strongly disagree”

JP

US

78

74

81

72

76

81

65

63

72

61

77

64

77

76

75

68

.

57

.

71

.

83

.

67

.

62

.

67

.

80

.

66

Finally, information ought to be provided here about the results of researchwork. The academics surveyed in this study were asked to give the numbers of
publications of various types completed in the past three years.
University professors on average in the advanced countries surveyed in2007 report that they have been responsible or have contributed with others to
・
・
・
・
・
・

0.9 books,
the editing of 0.6 books,
10.1 articles for books and journals,
1.9 research reports,
7.5 papers at conferences, and
1.9 articles for newspapers and magazines.

In Table 10, books are counted as three points, articles in academic journals
and books as well as research reports as two points, and finally papers presented
at conferences as well as articles written in newspapers and magazines as one
point. One might challenge this weighting, and we have to bear in mind thatthe number of publications reported cannot be classified according to selectivity

Ulrich Teichler

57

Page

or quality. Yet, this might be the best approximation of academic productivity
possible in the framework of this study.
Table 10. Number of publications completed in the last three years, academics inadvanced countries 1992 and 2007 (arithmetic mean of points)*
DE

FI

NO

IT

PT

UK

AU

JP

University professors 2007

56

38

27

40

44

38

49

35

US
28

(University professors 1992)

(33)

.

.

.

.

(29)

(39)

(53)

(27)

Junior academic staff at univ. 2007

20

16

12

29

23

15

21

25

18

(Junior academic staff at univ. 1992)

(14)

.

.

.

.

(20)

(16)

(39)

(14)

Professors at other HEIs 2007

19

10

21

.

41

29

32

.

9

Junior acad, staff at other HEIs 2007

9

7

8

.

16

15

16

.

8

(Academics at other HEIs 1992)

(9)

.

.

.

.

(8)

(15)

.

(12)

* 3 points each for scholarly books (co)authored and co(edited); 2 points each for articles
published in academic books or journals and research reports, 1 point each for papers
presented at conferences and articles written in newspapers/magazines

The average points of German university professors surveyed in 2007 are
Also Australian professors report a high number ofthe highest (55).
publications (49). The points range in the other countries from 28 in the U.S. to
44 in Portugal. Junior academics at universities publish about half as much asprofessors of the same institutional type, whereby the highest number of points isreported by junior staff from Italy (29) as compared to between 12 (Norway) and25 (Japan), with Germany (20). Professors at other higher education institutions
publish approximately as much as junior academic staff at universities; thehighest numbers of points are reported by respondents from Portugal (41), while
for other countries the scores range from 9 in the U.S. to 29 in the United
Kingdom (Germany 19). Finally, junior academic staff at other institutions
publish on average about half as much as professors at these institutions as well
as junior academic staff at universities, thereby ranging from 7 (Finland) to 16(Portugal and Australia) with Germany (9).
There have been substantial changes in the quantity of publications between
1992 and 2007.
In Germany, the quantity of publications increased
substantially; we also note somewhat of a growth in Australia and the United
Kingdom. On the other hand, the quantity of publications remained more orless equally low in the U.S., and it declined in Japan from the highest level in1992 to about average in 2007.

58

Teaching and Research in GermanyPage

6. Concluding observations
The Carnegie Study on the Academic Profession showed for 1992 that thedifferences between the categories of academics according to occupational rank
and institutional type have been more substantial in Germany than in the otheradvanced countries surveyed both in 1992 and 2007, notably as regards teachingload and the proportion of the working time spent on teaching versus research.
However, the German university professors held teaching in 1992 more highly inesteem than one had expected from the image of strongly research-minded
German professors and they actually spent substantial time on teaching. The
1992 study also showed that junior and senior academics at universities hadmuch in common in their general academic values as well as in their assessmentof the quality of the working conditions. One striking difference in 1992 is
worth mentioning though: junior academic staff at German universities werethen least satisfied with their jobs.
From 1992 to 2007, we observe a narrowing of the gap between the
different categories of academics in Germany in some aspects, but notconsistently throughout. For example, differences in the time spent on teachingversus research have declined, though remaining higher than in other countries.
Also, the preferences stated for teaching and research have become more similar
on average for the different staff categories in Germany. Finally, the overall job
satisfaction of German academics has increased more strongly than in othercountries, whereby the ratings of the various staff categories have become moresimilar over time.
Looking in general at some of the findings provided here on academics inadvanced countries in 2007 we note that German academics are least involved invarious teaching activities apart from the usual lecturing. They are lessexposed than their colleagues from other countries to standardizing expectations
as regards the processes and the outcomes of teaching. In those two respects,
there are no major differences of responses by the various staff categories inGermany. With regards to a practice-orientation in teaching, we note a clearlystronger emphasis on the part of German academics at other institutions than
German academics at universities, whereby the differences between professors
and junior staff are low; however, academics at both types of higher education
institutions in Germany are more likely to appreciate practice-oriented teaching
and learning than their colleagues at similar types of institutions in most othercountries surveyed.
As regards research, it does not come as a surprise to find that an applied

Ulrich Teichler

59

Page

orientation of the higher education institution is more frequently reported byprofessors from other higher education institutions in Germany than by thosefrom universities. Similarly, academics in the former institutions consider
themselves more often responsible for application and less often for original
research than academics from universities. In both cases, the differences of
responses by senior and junior staff of each of the institutional types are
relatively small. However, the gap between the institutional types in theserespects is smaller in Germany than in most other countries.
Academic productivity, measured in terms of publications, differs
substantially by staff categories. In Germany, university professors publish
about twice as much as junior staff at universities and professors at other higher
education institutions and about four times as much as junior staff at other higher
education institutions. These differences are in some respects bigger than inother countries. It is worth noting that Germany is among the countries with aclear increase of publications from 1992 to 2007, whereby the substantial
increase of publications by university professors in Germany, which brings themup to the highest level of the countries analysed in 2007 is the most striking
result.
Altogether, we note that the academics’ situation and activities in teaching
and research differ substantially by country. Germany is the country wheresuch differences between junior and senior staff as well as between those activeat universities and Fachhochschulen were most pronounced; the differences
became smaller in some respects over the period analysed. But they remained
substantial in a comparative perspective. The question remains open: does itmake sense to speak of a single academic profession?

References
Altbach, P.G. (ed.) (1996). The International Academic Profession: Portraits of 14 Countries.
Princeton, NJ: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.

Boyer, E.L., Altbach, P.G., & Whitelaw, M.J. (1994). The Academic Profession: An
International Higher Perspective. Princeton, NJ: Carnegie Foundation for the

Advancement of Teaching.

Enders, J., & Teichler, U. (1995a). Berufsbild der Lehrenden und Forschenden an

Hochschulen. Bonn: Bundesministerium für Bildung, Wissenschaft, Forschung und
Technologie.

Enders, J., & Teichler, U. (1995b). Der Hochschullehrerberuf im internationalen Vergleich.

60

Teaching and Research in Germany

Page

Bonn: Bundesministerium für Bildung, Wissenschaft, Forschung und Technologie.

Jacob, A.K., & Teichler, U. (2009). The Changing Employment and Work Situation of the
Academic Profession in Germany. In RIHE (ed.), The Changing Academic Profession

Over 1992-2007: International, Comparative, and Quantitative Perspectives. (RIHE
International Seminar Reports No.13, pp.253-269), Higashi-Hiroshima, Japan: RIHE,
Hiroshima University.

Kehm, B.M. (1999). Higher Education in Germany. Bucarest and Wittenberg: CEPES andInstitut für Hochschulforschung.

Simon, D., Knie, A., & Hornbostel, S. (eds.) (2010). Handbuch Wissenschaftspolitik.
Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.

Teichler, U. (2007). Germany and Beyond: New Dynamics for the Academic Profession. In W.
Locke, & U. Teichler (eds.), The Changing Conditions for Academic Work and Careers

in Selected Countries (Werkstattberichte Nr.66, pp.15-38). Kassel: International Centre
for Higher Education Research Kassel, University of Kassel.

Teichler, U. (2008). Academic Staff in Germany: per aspera ad astra? In RIHE (ed.), The
Changing Academic Profession in International Comparative and Quantitative
Perspectives(RIHE

International

Seminar

Higashi-Hiroshima: RIHE, Hiroshima University.

Reports

No.12,

pp.131-152).

Teichler, U. (2009). Biographies, Careers and Work of Academics. In RIHE (ed.), The

Changing Academic Profession Over 1992-2007: International, Comparative, andQuantitative Perspectives (RIHE International Seminar Reports No.13, pp.57-78).
Higashi-Hiroshima: RIHE, Hiroshima University.

Teichler, U., & Bracht, O. (2006). The Academic Profession in Germany. In RIHE (ed.),Reports of Changing Academic Profession Project Workshop on Quality, Relevance, andGovernance in the Changing Academia: International Perspectives (pp.129-150).
Higashi-Hiroshima: RIHE, Hiroshima University.

61

Presentations

62

61
RIHE International Seminar Reports, No.15, 2010 Page

Teaching and Research in a Changing Environment:
academic work in Italy

Michele Rostan

1. Introduction
Italian academics display a rather traditional attitude towards therelationship between teaching and research. Most of them are interested in bothteaching and research (86%), although a preference leaning towards research isprevalent (64%)1. Further, they disagree or strongly disagree with the view thatteaching and research are hardly compatible with each other (67%). Interest in
both teaching and research is slightly more widespread among full andassociated professors (88%) than among researchers ∕ assistant professors (82%),
and increases slightly with age (from 82% in the age group of those up to 45
years, to 89% in the age group over 55 years). Taken for granted the interest in
both activities, preferences leaning towards research or towards teaching diverge
as time goes by: the former decreases as academics get older while the later
increases. Disagreement on the incompatibility between teaching and researchis stronger among full professors (75%), than among other academics (associate
professors, 68%; researchers ∕ assistant professors, 58%) and is less pronounced
among younger academics (61%), than among academics of the other age groups(46-55 years, 70%, and 56 or more, 72%).
Italian academics‟ attitude towards the relationship between teaching andProfessor, Centre for Study and Research on Higher Education Systems, University of Pavia,
Italy, e-mail: michele.rostan@unipv.it
1
Italian academics‟ time budget is consistent with their preferences. When classes are insession, 41% of their time is dedicated to teaching and 37% to research. When classes are
not in session, time for research increases to 59%, while time for teaching activities decreases
to 18%. Time dedicated to other activities (administration, service, other academic activities)
is fairly stable ranging from 22% to 23%.


62

Teaching and Research in a Changing EnvironmentPage

research makes them quite different from their colleagues of other European
countries (Tables 1.1 and 1.2). They are much more interested in both teaching
and research than those elsewhere, the percentage of academics interested inboth teaching and research − but with a preference leaning towards research − ishigher in Italy, and Italian academics, together with their Norwegian colleagues,
express stronger disagreement with regards to the incompatibility between
teaching and research.
Table 1.1 Academics preferences in teaching and research by country (%)
FI

DE

IT

NO

UK

Total

Primarily in teaching
7
8
2
2
9
5
In both, but leaning towards teaching
14
22
22
16
23
19
In both, but leaning towards research
43
41
64
51
41
50
Primarily in research
36
29
12
31
27
25
( N = 5400 )CAP survey B2: Regarding your own preferences, do your interests lie primarily in teachingor in research?

Table 1.2 Views on the relationship between teaching and research by country (%)
FI

DE

IT

NO

UK

Total

Academics who disagree or strongly disagreewith the view that teaching and research are
34
43
67
64
57
54
hardly compatible with each other( N = 5313 )CAP survey B5: Please indicate your views on the following (Scale of answer 1 = Strongly
agree to 5 = Strongly disagree; only answers 4 and 5)

This evidence collected through the CAP international survey suggests that
Italian academics, especially professors and older academics, more than those inother countries still endorse the Humboldtian tradition of a strict link between
teaching and research (“Einheit von Forschung und Lehre”), possibly as a resultof an institutional environment, and thanks to structural conditions, which haveremained unchanged for a long time. Yet, in the last 10-15 years theinstitutional and structural environment of the Italian academic profession haschanged both in the field of teaching and in the field of research. Thus, weshould briefly review these changes, and try to analyse their impact on academic
work in Italy2.
2

We present data both from the international version of the questionnaire and from an ItalianMichele Rostan

63

Page

2. The reform of study programmes
The reform of study programmes, started in 1999, represents one of the
major changes in the Italian higher education system in recent times. The long
lasting national framework, mainly based on one long cycle of study (corsi dilaurea lasting 4-6 years) and on one degree (the laurea), has been completely
replaced by a European framework, promoted by the Bologna Declaration, basedon two cycles of study following a bachelor ∕ master scheme or − as it is known
to the Italian public − by reference to the length of the two cycles, a “3 plus 2”
scheme leading to two degrees (the new laurea and the new laurea specialistica,
later renamed laurea magistrale). Only doctoral programmes, introduced in
1980, and professional study programmes regulated by European directives(medicine, dentistry, pharmacy, and veterinary medicine) were left unchanged.
As a consequence, the reform gave a strong push towards a steeper verticalcurricular differentiation within Italian higher education.
The reform pursued several goals:
・ to increase the proportion of the population earning a higher education
degree, as this proportion was, and still is, one of the lowest amongdeveloped countries;
・ to reduce actual study duration, which was far exceeding the legal duration;・ to reduce the number of drop-outs, which had grown dramatically following
the quantitative expansion of the university system;・ to enhance student mobility, by both introducing a credit system (theEuropean Credit & Transfer System) and offering opportunity to enrol in asecond level study programme at an institution different from the one fromwhich a student graduated at the first level, fostering, as a consequence,
inter-institutional competition.
Reform has also had other complementary aims. The more important havebeen to enhance the relations between universities and the world of work, andgraduate employability, providing employers with better information on
graduates, strongly developing stages and internships, fostering cooperation in
version providing data which were not included in the international data set. Italianacademics are compared to their more similar (or least dissimilar) colleagues of four other
European countries, that is, academics working in universities, including also some differencesin disciplines. Results from descriptive analyses (both one and two variables) are presented
applying to data weights that take into account academic rank, discipline, gender and type of
institution (W_TOTAL).

64

Teaching and Research in a Changing EnvironmentPage

curricula development with industries and other stakeholders, andacknowledging students‟ previous job experiences as part of their curriculum.
Two further elements, looking at the background to the reform and its
implementation, need to be considered in order to gain a better understanding of
it. First, the reform of study programmes has to be considered as a further step
towards university autonomy. Although university autonomy was stated in the
Italian Constitution of 1946 (see Costituzione della Repubblica Italiana, sect.33),
only in 1989 did Government propose and Parliament approve the law thattranslated the constitutional principle into practice. Law n.168 ∕ 1989 defined
five types of university autonomy (didactic, scientific, organisational, financial
and book-keeping) and started the process of university “autonomisation”. The
first step of the process consisted in the 1993 reform of university financing
which gave universities financial autonomy (Law n.537 ∕ 1993, sect.5). The
second step, starting in 1995 (Law n.236 ∕ 1995, sect.6), consisted not only ingiving universities the right to issue their own statutes and regulations but also
the obligation to do so. Last came didactic autonomy. The Ministry‟s
University Decree n.509 ∕ 1999 restructured university study programmes,
established new degrees, and provided a general framework for the
implementation of didactic autonomy: normative tools to organise study
programmes and to regulate access, definition of groups of study programmes,
curricular frames for each group, and a credit system.
The implementation of the reforms can be divided into three phases.
1. By the academic year 2001 ∕ 2002, about 2,800 new first-cycle study
programmes were ready to start, a few more than the 2,600 programmes ofthe old system. Students were given three options: to complete their study
within the old study programmes if they enrolled before the reform; totransfer from the old study programmes to the new ones; to enrol in the new
study programmes if they were new comers. As a consequence, for sometime (3-5years) two parallel study tracks were provided by universities totheir students.
With few exceptions, starting in the academic year 2002 ∕ 2003, universities
began to offer also about 2,400 second-cycle study programmes. As aconsequence, in few years the overall didactic supply of Italian universities
arose to 5,000-5,500 study programmes.
Although the reform aimed at giving single institutions the leadership in its
implementation by enhancing their role as corporate bodies, in fact
implementation was carried out mainly at Faculty level (that is, the mostMichele Rostan

65

Page

important academic unit in the Italian system) by committees composed ofacademics under the coordination of the Conferences of Faculty Deans, aninstitutional body acting at the national level. No − or very little − extra
resources were provided either by the Government or by single institutions tofinance the reform implementation.
2. While implementation of the reform stemming from the Decree n.509 ∕ 1999
was on its way, Government approved a so-called “reform of the reform”
without any serious attempt to evaluate the ongoing implementation process.
A new decree, the Ministry of University Decree n.270 ∕ 2004, replaced theold one substantially maintaining the main guidelines of the original reform
yet introducing some novelties. A sharper separation between the twocycles of study programmes was introduced, the second level degree wasrenamed laurea magistrale, a common first year of study was set for
first-cycle study programmes belonging to the same or similar groups, thepossibility to differentiate first-cycle study programmes according to theirfunction (academic vs. vocational) was offered, and some exceptions to thegeneral rules were established in order to meet strong pressures to provide
programmes as similar as possible to the old ones in the field of legal
professions.
The implementation of the “reform of the reform” has not beenstraightforward. Only in 2007 were decrees and guidelines to steer the
re-organisation of study programmes according to the new requirements
provided.
Government intended to take the opportunity of theimplementation of the Decree n.270 ∕ 2004 to rationalise didactic supply by
the universities, and to overcome some major weaknesses deriving from theimplementation of Decree n.509 ∕ 1999: proliferation of study programmes,
fragmentation of curricula and courses, high number of examinations andexcessive work-load for students, excessive use of non-academic teaching
staff relying on fixed-term contracts, and barriers to student mobility.
As a matter of fact, when the Italian CAP team approached academics
seeking responses to the questionnaire, deans, professors, and researchers
were back at Faculty level to re-organise once again study programmes inorder to provide a new and rationalised didactic supply by the academic years
2009 ∕ 2010 or 2010 ∕ 2011.
3. The process of implementation of the reform of study programmes has not
yet ended. In September 2009, the Ministry of University announced newmeasures to correct some of the outcomes of the second phase. The

66

Teaching and Research in a Changing Environment

Page

Ministry aims to further reduce the number of study programmes 3 , theproportion of first-level graduates enrolling in second-cycle programmes, thenumber of universities‟ branches established at regional level, and at
providing students with more qualified teaching and support, moving towards
the accreditation of university study programmes, and fostering a higher levelof effectiveness and efficiency in the entire higher education system. Verylikely, universities and academics will need to further restructure theirdidactic supply in the near future in the frame of a process that seems to be
characterised by strong tensions between academics, universities, andgovernment on resources, autonomy, its uses and misuses 4.

3. The evaluation of the reform
According to CAP data5, Italian academics evaluate negatively the reformof study programmes. Most of them (77%) express a substantially negativeevaluation of it with small differences across academic ranks and age groups but
some interesting variation across disciplines (Table 3.1). The attitude towards
the reform is less negative among academics belonging to the social sciences,business administration, economics, and the medical sciences, while it is mostnegative among academics belonging to law, the life sciences, and agriculture.
Opposition to the reform was especially strong among jurists who, as has been
indicated, managed to change some features during the second phase of its
implementation.
Besides the general evaluation of the reform, academics were asked toexpress their view on several specific aspects of the reform. Table 3.2 showsthese aspects ranked by the degree of agreement expressed by academics. It iseasy to see that a more or less strong agreement refers to four aspects that can beconsidered as side effects of the reform, while a slight disagreement is addressed
3

The Ministry argues that it is necessary to take into account not only the above mentioned
5,500 study programmes but also their internal articulation in specific segments bringing thetotal number of offered courses to 8,250.
4
It has to be noted that on November 25, 2009, government has presented to parliament avery broad and ambitious project of university reform regarding institutions‟ internalorganisation, the quality and efficiency of the whole higher education system, and academics‟
recruitment and status. As a consequence, extremely relevant changes within Italian higher
education might be occurring in the near future. Given the state of public finances, thisreform, as others before it, is expected to be carried out without additional burden for the Statebudget.
5This section was included only in the Italian version of the questionnaire.

Michele Rostan

67

Page

to aspects referring to a selected set of reform goals. Especially important is tostress that more than 3 out of 4 Italian academics (79%) argue that the reform
has increased their organisational and managerial work, and that almost 2 out of
3 argue that it has increased their teaching work-load (64%), with very small
differences by academic rank, and age group, and small differences acrossdisciplines.
Irrespectively of the evaluation on the ability of the reform to meet its goals,
according to academics it has had a strong impact on their work.
Table 3.1 Italian academics expressing a substantially negative evaluation of
the study programmes reform by discipline%

Humanities, arts, teacher training and education science75
Social and behavioural sciences
65
Business and administration, economics
66
Law
88
Life sciences
85
Physical sciences, mathematics, computer sciences
81
Engineering, manufacturing and construction, architecture
76
Agriculture
83
Medical sciences, health related sciences, social services
68
Total
77
( N = 1595 )F2 (IT Questionnaire) All in all, your evaluation of the study programmes
reform is ...(Substantially positive; Substantially negative)

Table 3.2 Italian academics’ views on several aspects of the study programmes
reform (means)scale points
N
The reform ... has produced a lowering of students’ overall preparation
1.78
1,621
The reform ... has increased academics' organisational & managerial engagement
1.90
1,613
The reform ... has increased academics' teaching work load
2.22
1,594
The reform ... has increased students' work load
2.86
1,587
The reform ... has shorten the time needed to earn a degree
3.23
1,642
The reform ... has reduced the number of drop-outs
3.25
1,622
The reform ... favours student mobility at the national level
3.65
1,635
The reform ... favours student mobility at the international level
3.75
1,633
The reform ... has enhanced the links between higher education and the world of work
3.91
1,616
F1 (IT Questionnaire) Please indicate your views on the following: The reform of study
programmes, known as the “3 plus 2” reform ... (Scale of answer 1 = Strongly agree to 5 =Strongly disagree)68

Teaching and Research in a Changing EnvironmentPage

4. Teaching work environment, work-load, and responsibilities
The reform of study programmes has been carried out under unfavourable
conditions as far as teaching resources are concerned. According to CAP data,
Italian academics‟ evaluation of teaching facilities, resources, and support
personnel is not very positive, and Italian academics‟ teaching work environment
appears to be worse than those in other European countries in several respects(Table 4.1). Except for library staff, only a minority gives a positive evaluation
to it (Table 4.2).
Table 4.1 Evaluation of teaching facilities, resources, and personnel by country(means)
FI

DE

IT

NO

UK

Total

N

Classrooms
2.06
2.67
2.90
2.41
2.92
2.62
5,228
Technology for teaching
2.15
2.59
2.94
2.33
2.72
2.60
5,151
Library facilities and services
2.10
2.60
2.54
1.98
2.53
2.37
5,343
Teaching support staff
2.77
3.37
3.74
3.59
2.94
3,35
4,748
CAP survey B3: At this institution, how would you evaluate each of the following facilities,
resources, or personnel you need to support your work? (Scale of answer: 1 = Excellent to 5 =Poor)Table 4.2 Academics positively evaluating teaching facilities, resources, andpersonnel by country (%)
Classrooms
Technology for teaching

FI

DE

IT

NO

UK

Total

N

74

49

37

59

37

49

5,225

70

53

36

61

42

50

5,150

Library facilities and services
73
50
53
77
53
60
5,343
Teaching support staff
43
26
15
22
35
26
4,749
CAP survey B3: At this institution, how would you evaluate each of the following facilities,
resources, or personnel you need to support your work? (Scale of answer: 1 = Excellent to 5 =Poor; only answers 1 and 2)

Table 4.3 Hours per week spent on teaching when classes are insession by country
FI

DE

IT

NO

UK

Mean
15
12
18
12
16
Median
12
10
16
10
15
CAP survey B1: Considering all your professional work, how many hours
do you spend in a typical week on each of the following activities? Hours
per week spent on teaching (preparation of instructional materials andlesson plans, classroom instruction, advising students, reading andevaluating student work)

Michele Rostan

69

Page

Table 4.4 Hours per week spent on teaching when classes are not insession by country
FI

DE

IT

NO

UK

Mean
5
5
7
Median2
2
6
CAP survey B1: as detailed in footnote to Table 4.3.

3

7

0

5

Table 4.5 Proportion of teaching responsibilities devoted to instruction by level
and country (%)
Undergraduate programs
Master programs
Doctoral programsContinuing professional education programs
Other programs

FI

DE

IT

UK

Total

23

38

53

59

45

53

54

38

25

42

17

5

6

11

8

2

2

2

3

3

4

1

1

1

2

Total
100
100
100
100
100
( N = 3807 )CAP survey C1: Please indicate the proportion of your teaching responsibilities during thecurrent academic year that are devoted to instruction at each level below and theapproximate number of students you instruct at each of these levels
Note: question was not asked in Norway

Table 4.6 Approximate number of students academics instruct by level andcountry (means)
FI

DE

IT

NO

UK

Total

N

Undergraduate programs
51
71
90
63
82
78
3,182
Master programs
34
37
39
25
24
34
3,291
Doctoral programs
9
8
8
6
5
8
1,478
Continuing professional
17
17
50
20
29
34
629
education programs
Other programs
21
36
41
39
35
33
373
CAP survey C1: as detailed in footnote to Table 4.5. Question was asked in Norway

Further, Italian academics‟ teaching work-load, hours per week spent
preparing instructional materials and lesson plans, in classroom instruction,
advising students, reading and evaluating student work, is heavier than that of
their colleagues in other European countries both when classes are in session andwhen they are not (Table 4.3 and 4.4).
At the time of the CAP survey, when the new structure of study
programmes was completely in place, Italian academics‟ teaching
responsibilities appear to be concentrated on undergraduate or first-cycle

70

Teaching and Research in a Changing Environment

Page

programmes where it is more likely to face higher numbers of students toinstruct (Tables 4.5 and 4.6). Although their conditions are similar to those of
their British colleagues, Italian academics‟ overall teaching responsibilities
appear to be heavier than elsewhere.
All in all, it can be said that the reform of study programmes following the
Bologna Process of harmonisation of European higher education has increased
Italian academics‟ teaching duties bringing their teaching work load andresponsibilities to levels similar to those of their British colleagues but higher
than those of their colleagues in other European countries. This process has
occurred under working conditions which are very different from what we findin the Nordic countries but more similar to those in other big European countries
such as Germany and the United Kingdom.

5. Continuities and changes in the national research system
The Italian research system is characterised by two main features: 1) a rateof R&D expenditure on GDP which is still one of the lowest among developed
countries6; 2) recent changes in the structure and rules of the research system,
starting in the „90s and aiming at re-organising the network of public research
entities, introducing competitive allocation of research funds, widening andenhancing Italian researchers‟ participation in international − and especiallyEuropean − projects, and fostering or strengthening links between researchorganisations and industry. Some of these changes have had, and still have, a
direct impact on university research. Five of them are worth mentioning: 1) the
reform of university research financing; 2) the slowly increasing importance ofevaluation of research projects and outputs in the allocation of the fund forordinary financing of universities 7; 3) a package of policy measures promoting
stricter links between academics and the economic sector; 4) reform ofintellectual property rights legislation; and 5) establishment of university
technology transfer offices as a consequence of points 3) and 4) and other policy
measures.
1) For almost two decades (1981-1997), the annual funding for research
provided by the Ministry of University to universities was divided into two parts:
6

The rate of private expenditure on R&D, measuring the economic sector‟s direct
involvement in research activities, is also one of the lowest among developed countries.
7
This fund, currently amounting to about €7 billion, is the main source of funding foruniversities.

Michele Rostan

71

Page

60% of it was distributed by ministerial order to universities who in turnassigned individual funds to their academics, and 40% of it was allocateddirectly by the Ministry to national research projects, so-called “research projectsof national interest and of relevant interest for the development of science”(PRIN), on the basis of proposals put forward by special committees within the
National University Council (CUN), an academic-based elective body
representing academics‟ interests and requests (President of the Republic Decreen.382 ∕ 1980, sect.65). This state of affairs changed first in 1993 with the reformof university financing, as already mentioned, a major step towards universities‟
autonomy, which included the 60% quota within the fund for ordinary financing
of universities (Law n.537 ∕ 1993, sect.5); and second in 1997 with the reform of
the financing procedures for national research projects, which can be considered
as a key reform in the field of university research financing (Ministry of
University Decree n.320 ∕ 1997). Retrospectively, the situation of university
research financing before the 1997 reform can be summarised as follows:・ funds were allocated according to a de facto practice that ensured that eachacademic or group of academics proposing a research project would receive
some resources (so-called finanziamento a pioggia, where the reference torain, pioggia, recalls the fact that rain nurtures any kind of fields or plants
irrespectively of their quality);
・ ex-ante evaluation and selection of research projects were badly lacking;・ adequate financial statements and ex-post evaluation of funded projects werepractically absent;
・ researchers were neither stimulated to gather around major themes ofresearch nor they were encouraged to engage in projects with aninternational scope.
The 1997 reform aimed at:
・ strongly mitigating the dispersion of scarce public resources byconcentrating funds on fewer projects on the basis of merit;・ fostering institutions‟ research units‟ and academics‟ accountability andresponsibility through the co-financing of projects, requiring adequate
accounting, and stronger control over projects‟ implementation (timing,management etc.);・ implementing an effective ex-ante selective evaluation of research projects,
and an ex-post quality control on research products;
・ aligning Italian procedures to European directives.

72

Teaching and Research in a Changing EnvironmentPage

All in all, the reform aimed at turning the old system into a new system
based on the competitive allocation of research funds.
2) The distribution among universities of the fund for ordinary financing
established by the 1993 reform required the formulation of an allocation scheme.
Since approval of the reform, several schemes have been set up. One of them,first approved in 2004, stated that 30% of the fund had to be distributed on thebasis of evaluation of the results of scientific research activities. Yet even after
the first national research assessment exercise (VTR, Valutazione triennale dellaricerca, referring to the years 2001-2003) was carried out in the years 2004-2005,
providing for the first time ever an overall evaluation of the Italian research bybroad scientific areas and a first official ranking of the Italian higher education
system based on the evaluation of research products, in the period 2004-2008 theshare of the fund distributed according to the results of several assessment
activities was always very modest, less than 5% of the total (quite far from the
30% suggested by the allocation scheme). Within this share, the contribution ofassessment activities on research, either carried out ex-ante (like the ones
mentioned in point 1 above) or ex-post (like VTR), was even more modest.
Very recently, government has proposed (Law Decree n.180 ∕ 2008) andparliament has approved (Law n.1 ∕ 2009), an allocation of part of the fund(7%) for the ordinary financing of state universities, equal to little more than€500 million, to be increased in the future according to the quality ofuniversities‟ teaching and training, research, and management. Two-thirds ofthis allocation is to be assigned according to the quality of research measured bythree indicators: a) evaluations of research quality produced by the committee
for the evaluation of research activities (50%); b) the number of academics
participating in national research projects, such as projects of national interest(PRIN), which have been assessed positively (20%); c) universities‟ ability togain access to European research funds (30%). All in all, it can be said that theshare of the fund for ordinary financing of universities allocated according to theoutcomes of selective and competitive procedures based on the assessment of thequality of research, although still very limited, is increasing.
3) At the end of the 1990s, a policy package jointly produced by the Ministry of
University and the Ministry of Labour introduced three major innovations
concerning the linkages between universities and the economic sector. The
package (Legislative Decree n.297 ∕ 1999) promoted: 1) the temporary placementof academics and researchers within companies; 2) the creation of university
spin-off companies and university incubators; 3) the participation of academics

Michele Rostan

73

Page

as well as public research institutions‟ researchers in starting up new firms andgetting involved in commercial activities; 4) university ∕ industry collaborations
fostering industrial research projects both at national and trans-national levels
supported by public funding; 5) the creation of university consortia and research
centres; and 6) R&D policies involving regions, universities, and enterprises,
supported by central Government funding. It must be stressed that Italianacademics, as civil servants, were legally prevented from being involved inindustrial and commercial activities, with the exception of part-time academics,
in particular those belonging to the fields of law, medicine, engineering, andarchitecture, who were allowed to run professional activities. This kind of legal
constraint lasted until the 1999 Decree, which, pivoting on the enlargement of
university autonomy, deeply changed the normative framework by enacting afavourable regulative environment to support R&D projects, technology transferfrom universities, and a wider participation of academics in innovation
processes.
4) Related to the 1999 package is a set of measures deeply reforming theregulation of intellectual property rights (Law n.383 ∕ 2001, sect.7; Legislative
Decree n.30 ∕ 2005). The new legislation, on so-called industrial property rights(DPI), which are related to several innovations “among which there areinventions stemming from scientific research to be applied in industry”,
establishes that DPI can be secured only through patenting, and that the inventor∕ researcher is the exclusive owner of DPI, except when he or she is an employee.
This last norm does not apply to university and university employees. In fact
when the inventor ∕ researcher is a university employee, he or she remains the
only owner of the DPI. Universities, within their autonomy, are called toregulate licensing and relations with third parties. In any case, the university
inventor ∕ researcher has the right to receive at least 50% of the earnings or
royalties coming from the commercial exploitation of his or her invention. 8
5) The above innovations have brought the establishment of new technology
transfer offices (TTO) within Italian universities. According to NETVAL (theItalian Network for valorisation of the university research gathering 44
8

It has to be noted that very recently government has approved a reform of the legislation on
industrial property rights shifting the ownership of inventions stemming from university
research from university researchers and professors to their institution. Only if a university
does not secure a patent on an invention within six months can the author patent it by him or
herself. Parliament is called to adopt the reform within the summer of 2010.

74

Teaching and Research in a Changing Environment

Page

universities), by the year 2007, when the CAP survey was carried out, almost
80% of the existing 75 Italian universities had their own TTO. Of the Italian
universities‟ TTOs, 90% were engaged in supporting university spin-offs, andmanaging intellectual property rights, 70% were supporting and managing
licensing activities, while 45% were managing research contracts andcollaborations with industry.

6. Research work environment and research funding
Some of the features of the national research system briefly described in theprevious paragraphs are reflected in CAP data which also provide otherimportant information on Italian academics‟ research activities. Most of the
Italian academics (85% with small differences across disciplines) support theview that the organisation of university life and bureaucratic paper-work makes
it more and more difficult to dedicate oneself to research activities 9. Further,
Italian academics‟ evaluation of the research facilities, resources and personnel
provided by their institutions is quite negative, actually more negative (3 out of 4
respondents) than other European academics indicate for their research work
environment, and is especially negative looking at research funding coming fromtheir own university (Table 6.1). This last occurrence is the more unfortunate if
we consider that an academic‟s own institution, as a result of some of theinstitutional features described in the previous paragraphs, such as the quota of
the annual research funding assigned to universities by Government or theuniversity ∕ government co-financing of research projects of national interest, stillis the main source of research funds. On average, nearly half of Italianacademics‟ research funds come from their own institutions (Table 6.2). Thissituation might explain why also in Italy the pressure to raise external researchfunds has been increasing (Table 6.3).
Dependency on institutional research funds to finance Italian academics‟
research activities varies a lot across disciplines: on average, in the humanities
and the law field respectively 73% and 66% of academics‟ annual researchfunding comes from their own institution, while in engineering and architecture,and in natural sciences and agriculture the proportions are 33% and 43%.
Further, in these last sectors, where research is more costly, the pressure to raise
external funds appears to be higher.
9This item was included only in the Italian version of the CAP questionnaire.

Michele Rostan

75

Page

Table 6.1 Evaluation of research facilities, resources, and personnel by country(means)
FI

DE

IT

NO

UK

Total

N

Laboratories
2.46
2.61
3.18
2.67
2.79
2.84
3883
Research equipment and
2.43
2.53
3.15
2.58
2.89
2.79
4462
instruments
Research support staff
2.92
3.25
3.75
3.80
3.14
3.42
4767
Research funding
3.36
3.40
4.18
3.44
3.68
3.70
5116
CAP survey B3: At this institution how would you evaluate each of the following facilities,
resources or personnel you need to support your work? (Scale of answer: 1 = Excellent to 5
= Poor)Table 6.2 Average percentage of research funds by origin of funding andcountry
FI

DE

IT

NO

UK

Total

Your own institution
33
42
49
51
38
44
Public research funding agencies
34
28
18
30
28
26
Government entities
11
11
15
7
19
12
Business firms or industry
9
10
8
4
4
8
Private not-for-profit foundations ∕ agencies
10
7
5
5
8
7
Others323233( N = 3807 )CAP survey D7: In the current (or previous) academic year, which percentage of the fundingfor your research came from …

Table 6.3 Pressure to raise external research funds
FI

DE

IT

NO

UK

Total

The pressure to raise external research funds has increased since my first appointment% of academics who agree (answers 1 and 2)

76

81

77

76

80

78

degree of agreement (scale points, means)

1.86

1.79

1.89

1.86

1.74

1.84

( N = 4831 )CAP survey D6: Please indicate your views on the following (Scale of answer 1 = Strongly
agree to 5 = Strongly disagree)

During periods other than teaching sessions, research work-load per weekin activities such as reading literature, writing, conducting experiments,
fieldwork is greater in Italy than in other countries except Finland (Table 6.4).
When classes are in session and, as it has been shown, Italian academics‟
teaching work load is heavier than elsewhere, research work-load diminishes but
less than in two other countries (Table 6.5).

76

Teaching and Research in a Changing Environment

Page

Table 6.4 Hours per week spent on research when classes are not insession by country
Mean

FI

DE

IT

NO

UK

26

23

27

19

21

30
24
27
20
20
MedianCAP survey B1: Considering all your professional work, how many hours
do you spend in a typical week on each of the following activities? Hours
per week spent on research (reading literature, writing, conducting
experiments, fieldwork)

Table 6.5 Hours per week spent on research when classes are insession by country
FI

DE

IT

NO

UK

19

18

17

15

14

18
16
15
medianCAP survey B1: as detailed in footnote to Table 6.4.

10

10

mean

While in estimating academics‟ time budget reference to research activities
is quite generic, the CAP survey also provides a more detailed picture. In fact,
academics can be involved in scientific tasks related to research activities such as
preparing experiments and inquiries, conducting them, supervising a researchteam or graduate research assistants. They might also be engaged inadministrative and managerial tasks such as answering calls for proposals or
writing applications for research grants, managing research contracts andbudgets, purchasing or selecting equipment and research supplies. Finally,
research entails dissemination activities such as writing academic papers that
contain research results or findings, or being involved in the process oftechnology transfer. Table 6.6 shows that academic commitment to researchscientific tasks (that is people who are currently involved in all the three
mentioned activities) is greater in Italy and in Germany than elsewhere inEurope.
Further, academic involvement in research administrative &managerial tasks is greater in Italy than in the other selected European countries.
Finally, academic time devoted to one or both dissemination activities is less in
Italy than elsewhere. This state of affairs, especially the heavier administrative
burden, is possibly the result of the structural conditions in which Italianacademics work (see Table 6.1): fewer financial resources, unfriendly
institutional environment, poorer facilities and support.
Within the Italian academic body research commitment is very

Michele Rostan

77

Page

differentiated, clearly opposing the hard sciences (life sciences, physical sciences,mathematics, computer sciences, engineering & architecture, agriculture, andmedical sciences) to the humanities (humanities, arts & education science, andlaw) with the social sciences, business & economics in between (Table 6.7).
Table 6.6 Academics’ commitment to research activities by country (%)
FI

DE

IT

NO

UK

Total

… scientific tasks

29

36

37

24

31

33

… administrative & managerial tasks

21

28

36

18

26

27

89

91

84

88

95

88

Strongly committed to …

Committed to …
… dissemination of research results( N = 4933 )CAP survey D3: Have you been involved in any of the following research activities during
this (or the previous) academic year? (Preparing experiments, inquiries etc.; Conducting
experiments, inquiries etc.; Supervising a research team or graduate research assistants;
Writing academic papers that contain research results or findings; Involved in the process oftechnology transfer; Answering calls for proposals or writing research grants; Managing
research contracts and budgets; Purchasing or selecting equipment and research supplies)
Scientific tasks = Preparing experiments, inquiries etc.; Conducting experiments, inquiriesetc.; Supervising a research team or graduate research assistants
Administrative & managerial tasks = Answering calls for proposals or writing research grants;
Managing research contracts and budgets; Purchasing or selecting equipment and researchsupplies
Dissemination of research results = Writing academic papers that contain research results orfindings; Involved in the process of technology transfer

Table 6.7 Italian academics’ commitment to research activities by discipline (%)
SocialHumanities sciences,&business
Education&science Economics

Law

Engineering&
MedicalSciences Architecture sciences

Total

Strongly committed to …
… scientific tasks

15

28

4

48

37

46

37

… administrative & managerial tasks

21

22

24

43

45

42

37

67

88

50

92

93

82

84

Committed to …
… dissemination of research results( N = 1588 )CAP survey D3: Have you been involved in any of the following research activities during this (orthe previous) academic year? Defined as in footnote to Table 6.6

78

Teaching and Research in a Changing Environment

Page

7. Impact of environmental changes on internationalisation andlinks with the economic sector
The environmental changes described in section 5 were enacted to enhance
the internationalisation of Italian academics‟ research and to foster collaborations
with the economic sector. While CAP data cannot provide a precise assessmentof the changes that occurred in these two domains, nevertheless they can provide
a picture of the situation relative to what has happened in other European
countries, and point out differences among Italian academics.
7.1. Internationalisation of research efforts and results
According to several indicators (Table 7.1), international researchcollaboration with foreign colleagues is more widespread in Italy than inGermany but less than in Finland. Italian academics express stronger feelingson the international scope and orientation of their primary research than theirother European colleagues, while they appear less keen to publish in a foreign
language10 (obviously excluding the UK) or in a foreign country. Finally, they
employ in research a language other than their mother tongue about as much as
their Nordic colleagues and more than their German ones.
Table 7.1 Research efforts and results: indicators of internationalisation bycountry
FI

DE

IT

NO

UK

Total

N

Academics collaborating with international colleagues (%)

72

45

59

60

61

60

5,094

Emphasis of primary research is international in scope or orientation(means)2.38 2.76 1.97 2.24 2.40 2.30 4,601

Academics with no publications in the last three years …
… published in a language different from the language of instruction atyour current institution (%)

21

17

22

8

89

27

4,774

… co-authored with colleagues located in other (foreign) countries (%)

55

58

57

55

58

57

4,776

… published in a foreign country (%)

25

33

34

24

45

32

4,778

Academics employing a language other than their mother tongue in
research (%)

71

53

68

70

18

58

5,303

CAP survey D1: How would you characterize your research efforts undertaken during this (or theprevious) academic year? Do you collaborate with international colleagues? (yes)D2: How would you characterize the emphasis of your primary research this (or the previous)
academic year? (Scale of answer 1 = Very much to 5 = Not at all)
D5: Which percentage of your publications in the last three years were … published in a language
different from the language of instruction at your current institution; co-authored with colleagues
located in other (foreign) countries; published in a foreign country
F12: Which language do you primarily employ in research?
10

93% of them employ their mother tongue, that is Italian, as teaching language.

Michele Rostan

79

Page

Referring to the same set of indicators it is possible to realise how big are
disciplinary differences as far as the internationalisation of research is concerned.
While international collaboration is widespread not only within hard sciences but
also within humanities and arts, other indicators highlight the sharp difference
between hard sciences and the other disciplines with natural sciences being themost internationalised area and law the least internationalised (Table 7.2).
Table 7.2 Research efforts and results in Italy: indicators of internationalisation
by discipline
SocialHumanities sciences,&business
Education&science Economics

Academics collaborating with international
colleagues (%)
Emphasis of primary research is internationalin scope or orientation (means)
Academics with no publications in the last
three years …
… published in a language different from thelanguage of instruction at your current
institution (%)… co-authored with colleagues located inother (foreign) countries (%)… published in a foreign country (%)
Academics employing a language other thantheir mother tongue in research (%)

Law

Engineering&
Sciences Architecture

Medicalsciences

Total

N

53

46

48

71

59

51

59 1,635

2.02

2.25

2.28

1.84

1.90

2.01

1.98 1,411

48

37

64

6

13

11

21 1,653

83

71

90

37

58

58

57 1,654

51

50

64

17

28

37

33 1,653

43

58

21

81

70

80

68 1,636

CAP survey questions D1, D2, D5, and F12 as detailed in the footnote to Table 7.1

7.2. Links with the economic sector
As far as the economic valorisation of research results and direct links withthe economic sector are concerned, Italian academics‟ situation is similar to
those of their European colleagues, at times distant from the leading nation but
sometimes closer to it. Again, looking at the institutional environment in which
academics work, the Italian situation is similar to that of most of the othercountries, though at times remote from that of the leading nation. Finally,
considering the possible negative effects of links with the economic sector, in
Italy restrictions on the publication of results from privately-funded researchappear to be far less widespread than in Germany, where this effect seems to be
more serious, and external sponsors‟ or clients‟ influence over research activities
has the same moderate strength as in the other countries, except Norway (Table
7.3).

80

Teaching and Research in a Changing Environment

Page

Table 7.3 Indicators of academics’ links with the economic sector by country (%)
FI

DE

IT

NO

UK

Total

N

…whose primary research is commercially-oriented ∕ intended fortechnology transfer

20

17

15

14

16

16

4,265

… involved in the process of technology transfer

31

15

15

12

16

17

4,934

… who have secured one or more patents on a process or invention

5

10

6

3

4

6

4,972

26

12

17

10

16

4,214

33

31

19

34

30

4,722

32

36

33

52

38

4,831

18

14

9

12

14

4,736

Academics …

… who support the view that restrictions on the publication of results fromtheir privately-funded research have increased since their first18
appointment… who don't agree or weakly agree with the view that external sponsors
32
or clients have no influence over their research activities… whose institution emphasizes commercially-oriented or applied38
research% of external research funds coming from a private source

18

CAP survey D2: How would you characterize the emphasis of your primary research this (or theprevious) academic year? Commercially-oriented ∕ intended for technology transfer (Scale of answer
1 = Very much to 5 = Not at all; only answers 1 and 2);
D3: Have you been involved in any of the following research activities during this or the previous
academic year? Involved in the process of technology transfer (yes);
D4: How many of the following scholarly contributions have you completed in the past three years?
Patent secured on a process or invention;
D6: Please indicate your views on the following … Restrictions on the publication of results frommy privately-funded research have increased since my first appointment (Scale of answer 1 =Strongly agree to 5 = Strongly disagree; only answers 1 and 2); External sponsors or clients have noinfluence over my research activities (Scale of answer 1 = Strongly agree to 5 = Strongly disagree;
only answers 4 and 5); Your institution emphasizes commercially-oriented or applied research(Scale of answer 1 = Strongly agree to 5 = Strongly disagree; only answers 1 and 2);
D7: In the current (or previous) academic year, which percentage of the funding for your researchcame from … Business firms or industry, Private not-for-profit foundations ∕ agencies.

As might be expected, links with the economic sector vary considerablyacross disciplines. By far, engineers and architects are the most extensively
connected with the economic sector as their research is much morecommercially-oriented: they are much more involved in technology transfer,they secure patents more than others, the proportion of their research funds
coming from the private sector is higher, and they work in institutions, mainly
the polytechnics, that emphasise commercially-oriented or applied research.
Natural scientists (including agricultural scientists), and medical scientists comesecond, and those in other disciplines follow at times at a great distance. It‟sinteresting to note that in the medical field, the proportion of funds coming fromthe private sector is just the same as it is in the engineering and architecture areas.
Again in the medical field, increasing restrictions on the publication of results
coming from privately-funded research are more pronounced (albeit notMichele Rostan

81

Page

widespread), while the influence of external sponsors or clients is more
perceived in the humanities, together with engineering and architecture (Table
7.4).
Table 7.4 Indicators of Italian academics’ links with the economic sector by
discipline (%)
SocialHumanities sciences,&business
Education&science Economics

Law

Engineering&
Sciences Architecture

Medicalsciences

Total

N

Academics …
…whose primary research iscommercially-oriented ∕ intended fortechnology transfer… involved in the process of technology
transfer… who have secured one or more patents on
a process or invention… who support the view that restrictions on
the publication of results from theirprivately-funded research have increased
since their first appointment… who don't agree or weakly agree with theview that external sponsors or clients haveno influence over their research activities… whose institution emphasizes
commercially-oriented or applied research% of external research funds coming from a
private source

3

8

3

16

37

16

15 1,211

4

4

0

16

34

19

15 1,586

1

0

0

8

14

6

6

10

10

8

11

15

19

12 1,278

37

23

24

31

36

30

31 1,461

21

30

35

39

51

37

37 1,528

4

9

3

12

24

24

13 1,559

1,622

CAP survey questions D2, D3, D4, D6, and D7 as detailed in the footnote to Table 7.3

8. Conclusions and further themes for discussion
The brief overview provided in the previous paragraphs allows someconclusions to be drawn and the relationship of some possible themes fordiscussion on teaching, research to be highlighted.
Teaching
Following the reforms connected to the Bologna process, the teachingwork-load and teaching responsibilities of Italian academics have grown
becoming similar to those of their European colleagues. Instructional activities
are now distributed on three levels (bachelors, masters, doctors) although ahigher proportion of teaching responsibilities is dedicated to first-cycle
programmes. Italian academics‟ teaching work-load appears to be heavier,82

Teaching and Research in a Changing EnvironmentPage

possibly because of a higher number of students to instruct, poorer teachingfacilities, other institutional features such as the number of examinations perterm, which is generally higher than in other countries, and the troubled anddemanding implementation process of the study programmes‟ reform.
Looking at what happened in the last decade and partially investigated by
the CAP survey, at least two broad issues appear. First, the reform of study
programmes has reshaped the structure of Italian didactic supply but has left
unsolved several problems strictly linked to teaching. Four are worth
mentioning. While the reform has introduced a steeper vertical curriculardifferentiation, with a strong impact on teaching responsibilities, it has hardly
answered the problem of horizontal or functional curricular differentiation.
Although the “reform of the reform” has tried to tackle this problem, the balance
between, and the location of, academic and vocational functions within higher
education has not been clearly defined (except for the vocational programmes in
the medical and health sector, which have been restructured but already existed
before the reform).
The reform has had an immediate positive effect on some of the traditional
problems of the Italian higher education system such as the long duration ofstudies and the high number of drop-outs. Yet as the new study provision
settles down these problems tend to return as is reflected in the academics‟ views
reported in Table 3.2. Academics are aware also of another problem still to besolved: the links between higher education and the world of work, and graduates‟
employability. Although the reform has provided important contributions inthis domain (e.g. developing stages and internships), the long and troubled
transition from the old to the new system, and the supply for nearly a decade ofdifferent types of graduates (graduates holding the “old” degree after having
completed their study within the old programmes, “hybrid” graduates holding
the “new” first cycle degree but having transferred from an “old” programme toa “new” one, graduates holding the “new” first-cycle degree having completed a“new” programme, graduates holding a “new” second-cycle degree) have nothelped to enhance the already difficult links between supply and demand of thehighly qualified labour force. Finally, a fourth problem, probably connected tothe previous ones, has to be mentioned. The reform has reshaped the form of
university teaching but − at least up to now − it has hardly changed the substance,that is, its contents and methods. An example of this is the so-called“bonsaisation” of study courses (teaching units). As courses‟ duration had to be
reduced, it was considered enough simply to cut parts of the old courses almost
without any other substantial change. The old wine of traditional teaching wasMichele Rostan

83

Page

poured into new barrels largely missing the opportunity to rethink either thecontents or methods in order to translate into practice both the word and thespirit of reform.
A second broad issue refers to teaching as the battle ground for university
autonomy. What happened in Italy is an example of this. The reform of study
programmes was meant to offer limited but considerable autonomy touniversities. In fact, the reform was implemented by the academic body morethan by institutions. Academics effectively implemented it in a very short time
and with few resources; yet they also managed to promote and defend theirinterests triggering Government‟s reaction when both centre-left and centre-rightcabinets were in office. Academics‟ (and universities‟) answers to the first setof corrective measures have been considered unsatisfactory by Government whoplan to enact a second wave of corrective measures. In the process, university
autonomy on study programmes, didactics, and teaching has already been (andvery likely will again be) reduced. It can be argued that the tension between
autonomy and centralisation, a long lasting feature of the Italian higher
education system, is recurring. Whether re-centralisation of regulation ofuniversity teaching will bring positive outcomes or not is an issue open to further
debate and inquiry.
Research
The “Annual report on innovation” edited by the Rosselli Foundation
together with the Italian main daily newspaper Il Corriere della Sera provides ananalysis of the main industrialised countries‟ “innovative potential”. According
to it, in the year 2007 (when the CAP survey was carried out) all the European
countries used in this paper as terms of comparison, not to speak of
non-European countries such as the US and Japan, were more successful than
Italy in the overall “system of innovation” ranking. The ranking is based on an
innovation index summarising official data from the most reputable internationaland national organisations in seven broad areas: scientific and technologicalknowledge, ICT, human capital, financial support to research activities,
economic context, institutional context, and country infrastructure. In all theseareas, Italy lagged behind the other countries. Especially impressive are thevery low proportion of graduates in the population (although among young
people things are getting better), and the very low level of R&D expenditure as aproportion of GDP, to which we can add the very small numbers of researchers
in the labour force, and the limited share of total public expenditure foreducation provided to higher education. The gap is somewhat smaller with

84

Teaching and Research in a Changing EnvironmentPage

respect to technology transfer between university and industry, patenting, andventure capital.
This information helps to better assess the picture of Italian academic
research drawn from CAP data. Research work-load and commitment toscientific research tasks are quite high. Internationalisation of research
activities is quite good (less so for research results), and the extent of links withthe economic sector is similar to that found in other European countries althoughoften a step behind them. But, academic research is carried out in a lessfavourable work environment, research funding provided by institutions isperceived to be poorer than elsewhere, the share of research resources comingfrom external sources is smaller, research administrative and managerial tasks
are much more demanding, and are carried out in an unfriendly environment.
A comparison based on CAP data with Finland, which is at 3rd place in the2007 “system of innovation” ranking (after Sweden and Denmark and just before
the US), and at 2nd place in the 2008 ranking, is rather illuminating.
While the research work-load of respective academics is quite similar whenclasses are not in session, Finns dedicate more hours per week to research whenclasses are in session. On the other hand, there are more academics strongly
committed to scientific research tasks, and especially to research administrative
tasks, in Italy (though slightly less committed to dissemination activities).
Internationalisation of research is similar in the two countries but Finnish
academics collaborate more with international colleagues and publish more inforeign countries. While more or less the same proportion of academics workin institutions emphasising commercially-oriented or applied research, theproportions of Finnish academics whose primary research iscommercially-oriented or intended for technology transfer − and especially of
those directly involved in technology transfer − are higher (but the proportion of
Italian academics securing patents is slightly greater).
As far as resources are concerned, the differences between the two countries
fall always in the same direction. While in Finland academics‟ evaluation of
the research facilities provided by their institutions is on average always positive,
it is always negative among Italian academics. The gap is especially wide forresearch support staff and for research funding. Moreover, while on average in
Italy, half of academics‟ research funds come from their institution, this
proportion is only one-third in Finland where the proportion of external funds,
especially from public research funding agencies and government entities, ishigher.
This rough comparison suggest that the main source of academic research‟s

Michele Rostan

85

Page

problems in Italy lies in the organisation of research efforts at the institutional
level and in the limited funding of research activities at all levels. Both issues
cannot be simply confined within higher education but need to be placed in thewider frame of the relationship between higher education and Italian economy
and society.
The relationship between teaching and research
Evidence collected through the CAP survey regarding both teaching andresearch suggest that the traditional attitude of Italian academics towards therelationship between the two activities is under stress, or very likely will be so in
the near future.
On the one hand, teaching work-loads and responsibilities have increased,
and new efforts will be required to enhance teaching quality in the near future.
On the other hand, pressures to raise more external research funds, considerable
efforts spent in administrative and managerial research tasks, an unfavourable
research working environment, make it more difficult to gain time and resources
for research activities. Further the growing importance of teaching andresearch evaluation within the Italian higher education system, an issue
addressed by the CAP survey to which we have only referred briefly in this paper,
will add more pressure on academics and their work. Even though thetraditional view on teaching and research links is well rooted in the Italianacademy, and there are good reasons to continue to pursue it and to reshape it in
new and creative ways, still pressures to differentiate research vs. teaching
institutions, and research vs. teaching academic staff will probably increase in
the future challenging the Italian academic profession just as it has in othercountries. Sharp disciplinary differences, especially with regards to researchfunding and commitment, the degree of internationalisation, and links with theeconomy, suggest that these challenges will hit the Italian academic body in
different ways and to a different extent, triggering different reactions anddeepening the cleavages that already fragment the academic profession. Thus,a further theme for discussion and inquiry will be the ability of Italian
universities, slowly becoming more corporate entities, to face both the tension
between teaching and research, and the tensions among academic disciplines.

86

87
RIHE International Seminar Reports, No.15, 2010 Page

Teaching and Research in Higher Education in South
Africa: transformation issues
Philip Higgs, Leonie G. Higgs, Isaac M. Ntshoe
and Charste C. WolhuterIntroduction
As is characteristic of periods of political and social transition, South
African higher education is in considerable flux. Multiple initiatives areunderway as the new democratic government, the Council on Higher Education,
various stakeholder organizations, and some 23 universities attempt toreconstruct and transform South Africa’s higher education legacy in relation to
new policy goals, formulated through a long and extensive process of teaching,research, debate, and consultation.
Badat (1999) points out that the higher education transformation agenda has
its source in three related conditions. First, the inherited system was designed,in the main, to reproduce, through teaching and research, white privilege andblack subordination in all spheres of society.
Higher education wascharacterized by a lack of vision, a paralysis in policymaking, and problems oflegitimacy and other conflicts around governance. Further, it was fragmented
and divided along racial and ethnic lines, and reflected severe social inequalities
of race and gender with respect to student access and success and thecomposition of academic staff. Finally, major institutional inequities existed
Philip Higgs, Research Professor, School for Graduate Studies, The University of South
Africa, South Africa, e-mail: Higgsp@unisa.ac.za
Leonie G. Higgs, Professor, Department of Teacher Education, University of South Africa,
South Africa, e-mail: higgslg@unisa.ac.za
Isaac M. Ntshoe, Professor, Unit for Open and Distance Learning, University of South Africa,
South Africa, e-mail: ntshoim@unisa.ac.za
Charste C. Wolhuter, Professor, Department of Comparative Education, University of theNorth West, South Africa, e-mail: Charl.Wolhuter@nwu.ac.za88

Teaching and Research in Higher Education in South Africa

Page

between what are termed historically white institutions (HWIs) and historically
black institutions (HBIs). Thus, a key policy imperative is to transform higher
education so that it becomes more socially equitable internally and promotessocial equity more generally.
Second, whereas previously research and teaching were shaped by thesocioeconomic and political priorities of the apartheid separate development
program, higher education is now called on to address and respond to thedevelopment needs of a democratic South Africa. These needs are articulated
in a fourfold agenda which is directed to “meeting the basic needs of people,”“developing human resources,” “building the economy,” and “democratizing thestate and society.”
Finally, South Africa’s transition is occurring during a period that has
witnessed the emergence of a global economy and changes in the world capturedby the concept “globalization.” It is recognized that, in the words of Martin
Carnoy (1998), economic growth, is “increasingly dependent on knowledge andinformation applied to production, and this knowledge is increasingly
science-based.” Moreover, there is broad acceptance for Manuel Castells’
argument that “if knowledge is the electricity of the new informational
international economy, then institutions of higher education are the powersources on which a new development process must rely.” (Castells, 1993) Thus,a related challenge facing higher education is to produce, through research andteaching-learning programmes, the knowledge and human resources that will
enable South Africa to engage with and participate in a highly competitive global
economy.
Higher education policy development, from the National Commission on
Higher Education of 1995 to the Higher Education Act of 1997 and the white
paper on higher education entitled, “A Programme for Transformation of Higher
Education in South Africa,” has taken as its point of departure a triple challenge:
overcoming the apartheid legacy; contributing to reconstruction anddevelopment; and positioning South Africa to engage effectively with
globalization. As a result, the following policy initiatives have been drawn up
from identified higher education priorities:
・ development of a single, differentiated, and coordinated system;・ cooperative governance of the system, institutions, and partnerships;
・ increased and broadened participation within higher education to meethuman resource needs and advance social equity;
・ curriculum restructuring and knowledge production that are responsive tosocietal interests and needs;

Philip Higgs et al.

89

Page

・ quality assurance through assessment and promotion of quality andaccreditation of programmes;
・ incorporation of higher education programmes and qualifications within anational qualifications framework designed to promote articulation, mobility,
and transferability;
・ improved institutional planning and management and the development of
three-year institutional plans; and state funding on the basis of allocatedstudent enrolments and accredited programs with redress funding toovercome historical institutional inequity.
And yet, Badat (1999) notes that despite a high level of consensus aroundpolicy goals, instruments, mechanisms, and procedures for achieving policy
goals continue to be contested. But of even more concern to this paper is theeffect that achievement of such policy goals may be having on the role ofacademics in their teaching and research activities. In order to determine thiseffect, the following relevant data from the South African CAP questionnaire
were analyzed and interpreted to assess what impact present day policy directed
at the transformation of higher education in South Africa was having on theteaching and research activities of academics.

CAP data: teaching and research activities of South African
universities (N=805)
Question B1: Time spend on various academic activities
Table 1. Average hours per week
When classes are in session

When classes are not in session

Teaching

21.42

13.34

Research

10.51

17.17

Service

4.96

5.91

Administration

8.69

9.13

Other Activities

5.32

6.36

This set of data indicates:
・ academics have a heavy work load − amounting to 50.9 hours of work per
week when classes are in session, 51.91 when classes are not in session;・ academics have little time for research;・ academics have little involvement in service activities;
・ academics have a heavy administrative burden.

90

Teaching and Research in Higher Education in South Africa

Page

Question B2: Regarding your own preferences, do your interests lie primarily
in teaching or in research?
・・・・

18.7% primarily in teaching
35.44% in both, but leaning towards teaching
36.79% in both, but leaning towards research
9.61% primarily in research

These data indicate that academics are evenly spread overteaching-research continuum.

aQuestion B3: At your institution, how would you evaluate each of thefollowing facilities, resources, or personnel when it comes to supporting yourwork?
Table 2. Distribution of responses (%)
Good

Average

Poor

Classrooms

41

33

26

Technology for teaching

40

32

28

Laboratories

37

35

28

Research equipment and instruments

36

34

30

Computer facilities

61

25

14

Library facilities and services

71

17

12

Your office space

59

23

18

Secretarial support

37

25

38

Telecommunications (Internet, networks and telephones)

61

19

20

Teaching support staff

30

27

43

Research support staff

26

29

45

Research funding

31

32

37

The data indicate that:・ academics seem fairly satisfied with classrooms, laboratories, technology forteaching, research equipment, library services, computer facilities, officespace and telecommunications;・ however, it would seem that there is room for improvement when it comesto research funding, research support, teaching support and secretarial
services.

Philip Higgs et al.

91

Page

Statement B5: Views on scholarship
Table 3. Scholarship, teaching and service (%)
Agree

NeutralDisagreeScholarship is best defined as the presentation offindings on original research

65

27

8

Scholarship includes the application of knowledge inreal-life settings

76

18

6

Scholarship includes the preparation of reports thatsynthesize the major trends and findings of my field

67

25

8

Teaching and research are hardly compatible with each
other

21

19

60

Academic staff in my field have a professional obligation
to apply their knowledge to problems in society

66

24

20

The data suggest that:・ academics have a rather pragmatic view of scholarship insofar as they are of
the opinion that academics have a responsibility to apply their knowledge toproblems in society;・ academics regard, albeit not so strongly, scholarship as original/basic
research and as the synthesis of major trends in a field;
・ academics do not regard teaching and research as incompatible.
Statement C1: Indicate the proportion of your teaching and the average
number of students at each of the following levels
Table 4. Distribution of teaching time% instruction time
Means
Undergraduate
28.63%
Masters
23.52%
Doctoral
15.32%
Continual professional programmes
13.31%
Others19.22%

Average number of students per course
Means
195
20.34
3.02
76.4
54

The data indicate that academics have heavy teaching loads, taking into
account the average ∕ median class sizes at both undergraduate and postgraduatelevels.

92

Teaching and Research in Higher Education in South Africa

Page

Question C2: During the current or previous academic year, have you been
involved in any of the following teaching activities?
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・

Classroom instruction/lecturing: (proportion of positive responses) 85%
Individualized instruction: 69%
Learning in projects/project groups: 37%
Practice instruction/laboratory work: 31%
ICT based learning/computer-assisted learning: 24%
Distance education: 47%
Development of course material: 80%
Curriculum/program development: 65%
Face to face instruction with students outside of class: 76%
Electronic communications (e-mail) with students: 71%
The data indicate that:・ most academics are involved in classroom teaching and individualized
instruction; the high involvement in individual and additional instruction
reflects the unpreparedness of students for university study and increases theworkload of academics;
・ due to the technological divide in South Africa little use is made, and can bemade, of ICT for teaching and learning
Question C3: Does your institution set quantitative load targets or regulatory
expectations for individual faculty for the following?
・
・
・
・
・

Number of hours in the classroom: (proportion of positive responses) 48%
Number of students in your classes: 36%
Number of graduate students for supervision: 30%
Proportion of students passing examination: 41%
Time for student consultation: 46%

The data establish that academics do find themselves in a rather prescriptive
environment of managerialism, as many institutions set quantitative load targets
for the number of hours academics have to be in classrooms, number of students
they should teach, number of students they should have for supervision,
percentage of students that need to pass examinations, and the amount of timethey need to set aside for student consultation.

Philip Higgs et al.

93

Page

Statement C4: Activities and attitudes related to teaching
Table 5. Responses to statements on activities and attitudes related to teaching (%)
Agree

NeutralDisagree

70

17

13

54

27

19

47

28

25

75

18

7

59

26

15

70

19

11

85

10

5

74

18

8

41

25

34

7

10

83

Your research activities reinforce your teaching

64

21

15

Your service activities reinforce your teaching

48

31

21

You spend more time than you would like teachingbasic skills due to student deficiencies
You are encouraged to improve your instructional
skills in response to teaching evaluations
At your institution there are adequate training courses
for enhancing teaching quality
Practically oriented knowledge and skills areemphasised at your institution
In your courses you emphasise international
perspective or content
You incorporate discussions of values and ethics into
your course content
You inform students of the implications of cheating or
plagiarism in your courses
Grades in your courses strictly reflect levels of student
achievement
Since you started teaching, the number ofinternational students has increased
Currently, most of your graduate students areinternational

Amongst other things the responses indicate that academics feel they spend
more time than they should on teaching basic intellectual skills because of
student deficiencies.
Question D1: How would you characterise your research efforts during thisand the previous academic year?
・ Do you work individually ∕ without any collaboration on any of your research
projects: (proportion of positive responses) 51%
・ Do you have collaborators in any of your research projects: 49%
・ Do you collaborate with persons at other institutions in your country: 41%
・ Do you collaborate with international colleagues: 32%
The responses show that collaborative research within South Africa is quite

94

Teaching and Research in Higher Education in South Africa

Pagestrong (about half of respondents do such research), but fewer are involved
collaboratively with international colleagues. (less than a third of respondents)
Question D2: How would you characterise the emphasis of your primaryresearch for this and the previous academic year?
Table 6. Emphases of research (%)
1

2

3

4

Basic ∕ theoretical

20

30

29

13

8

Applied ∕ practically oriented

33

42

15

6

4

10

13

15

18

44

32

33

16

12

7

International in scope or orientation

24

27

25

12

12

Based in one discipline

16

23

19

21

21

Multi- ∕ interdisciplinary

29

32

18

12

9

Very much

Commercially oriented ∕ intended fortechnology transfer
Socially oriented ∕ intended for the
betterment of society

5

Not at all

Responses on a five point scale ranging from 1: very much to 5: not at all

These responses suggest that:・ academics lack a clear orientation in the conceptualization of their research
activities; the responses do not indicate any firm preference for research thatis basic ∕ theoretical, or practically ∕ commercially oriented;
・ academics cannot determine the disciplinary provenance of their research,that is, they span a wide range from research located in one discipline toresearch that is multi ∕ interdisciplinary.
Question D3: Have you been involved in any of the following research
activities during this or the previous academic year?
Percentage of yes responses:
・ Preparing experiments, inquiries, etc.: (proportion of positive responses)
17%・ Conducting experiments, inquiries, etc.: 18%
・ Supervising a research team or graduate research assistants: 30%

Philip Higgs et al.

・
・
・
・
・

95

Page

Writing academic papers that contain research results or findings: 58%
Involved in the process of technology transfer: 12%
Answering calls for proposals or writing research grants: 32%
Managing research contracts and budgets: 17%
Purchasing or selecting equipment and research supplies: 16%

The data indicate that while most academics do write academic papers
containing research results, few are involved in answering calls for proposals,
writing research grants, or in managing research contracts or budgets
Question D4: How many of the following scholarly contributions have you
completed the past three years?
・ Scholarly books authored or co-authored: 0.44
・ Scholarly books edited ∕ co-edited: 0.10
・ Articles in scholarly journals ∕ book chapters in scholarly books: 1.95
Proportions of respondents who produced one or more of the following in
the three year period before the survey:
・
・
・
・
・
・
・

Research report/monograph for a funded project: 62%
Presented a paper at a scholarly conference: 97%
Wrote a professional article for a newspaper or magazine: 72%
Secured a patent on a process or an invention: 10%
Wrote a computer programme for public use: 21%
Performed or exhibited an artistic work: 29%
Produced a video or film: 35%

From these responses it is evident that almost all academics do present
papers at scholarly conferences, and most write research reports. Few, however,are involved in securing patents or inventions, or in the writing of computer
programmes for public use.
Question D5: What percentage of your publications in the last three years were・ Published in a language different from the language of your current
institution?
・ Co-authored with colleagues located in the country of your current

96

Teaching and Research in Higher Education in South Africa

・
・
・
・

employment?
Co-authored with colleagues located in other foreign countries?
Published in a foreign country?
Published electronically or on-line?
Peer-reviewed publications?

Page

The answers show:
・ 45% of respondents have not published in a language different from thelanguage of instruction at their current institutions;・ 9% of respondents’ publications were co-authored with colleagues located inSouth Africa;
・ 51% of respondents’ publications were co-authored with colleagues inforeign countries;
・ 4% of respondents’ publications were published in a foreign country;
・ less than 1% of respondents’ publications were published electronically or
on-line;・ 50% of respondents’ publications were peer-reviewed.
The responses reveal a very low level of internationalisation in academics’
research activities
Question D7: In the current and previous academic year, which percentage ofyour funding for your research came from the following sources?
・ own institution: 78%
・ public research funding agencies and government entities: 22%
・ business firms or industries and private, not for profit agencies: less than 1%
Clearly, most research funding is derived from the respondents own
institutions, with little funding from outside institutions.
Question E3: By whom is your teaching and research regularly evaluated?
The results show that academics are generally part of a prescriptive
professional environment which witnesses to a significantly high level ofmanagerialism and scrutiny.

Philip Higgs et al.

97

Page

Table 7. Evaluation of teaching and research, ‘yes’ responses
Your teachingYour research

The peers in your department ∕ unit

40%

31%

The heads of your department ∕ unit

50%

41%

Members of other departments or units at this institution

17%

19%

Senior administrative staff at this institution

13%

15%

Your students

64%

5%

External reviewers

24%

45%

Yourself (formal self-assessment)

46%

39%

No one at or outside my institution

7%

7%

Question E6: To what extent does your institution emphasise the following
practices?
Table 8. Institutional importance of quality in assessing teaching and research
1

2

3

4

11%

29%

34%

14%

13%

7%

24%

31%

21%

17%

Very much
Considering the research quality when
making personnel decisions
Considering the teaching quality when
making personnel decisions

5

Not at all

These data reveal that despite heavy teaching loads taking up a substantial
amount of academics’ time, little attention is paid to teaching competence or
research achievement by institutions when appointing or promoting academic
staff.

Transformation issues in teaching and research activities in South
African universities
The CAP data presented above provide an overview of those salient features
which have impacted to a lesser or greater degree on the academic profession asa result of the transformation of higher education in South Africa. But what aresome of these transformational pressures that have impacted on the academic
profession in South Africa when it comes to teaching and research? The
following aspects appear to be significant.
・ The displacement of dominant disciplines. The areas of study, hitherto
dominated by historical and educational sciences, became rooted more in the

98

・

・

・

・

・

Teaching and Research in Higher Education in South Africa

Pagesocial and managerial sciences, with much more interest in the future than in
the past. The rise of academic planning, the economics of education and the
managerial concept of “systems” became more evident.
Goal formation for higher education. The setting of these goals for higher
education were directed at raising the general level of higher education
amongst the population and using higher education as vehicle for broadening
equality of opportunity. In setting these goals, the state influenced
indirectly the type of teaching and research agenda in the field of higher
education studies.
The broadening of access in higher education. Structural changes werebrought about in higher education to investigate new modes of access toknowledge (different program and course structures, contents and teaching
methodology) in order to attract a student cohort differing from thetraditional cohort with an advantaged background.
The destabilisation of the university in its classic form. In the past theuniversity tended to be cast in a cultural paradigm with its main purpose
being the definition and transmission of an elite cultivation of scholarshipand learning for its own sake. Transformational pressures, however, saw
the government steer higher education and more specifically the mission of
the universities towards those activities deemed in the national interest,
either through the allocation of extra resources, or mostly, the withdrawal or
reduction of previous levels of resource.
Efficiency at the point of exit. Issues of socio-political change, equality andquality introduced quantitative criteria, which not only monitored theprogress of students but were also concerned with institutional performanceor efficiency at the point of exit.
The micro-management of knowledge transmission. Many activities inhigher education teaching and research revolve around aspects of student
learning, methods and techniques of learning, and what can be termed themicro-management aspects of knowledge transmission that emphasize theuse of the managerial sciences.

These transformational pressures are linked to the inability of higher
education to meet the moral, political, social and economic demands of the new
South Africa. Strydom & Fourie (1999, pp.161-162) list the deficiencies inhigher education which generate these transformational pressures as being:・ The inequitable distribution of access and opportunity for students and staff
along lines of race, gender, class and geography. There are grossPhilip Higgs et al.

・
・

・

・

99

Page

discrepancies in the participation rates of students from different populationgroups, indefensible imbalances in the ratios of black and female staff
compared to whites and males, and equally untenable disparities between
historically black and white institutions in terms of facilities and capacities.
There is a chronic mismatch between the output of higher education and theneeds of a modernizing community.
Higher education has an unmatched obligation, which has not beenadequately fulfilled, to help lay the foundations of a critical civil society,with a culture of public debate and tolerance that accommodates differences
and competing interests.
While parts of the South African higher education system can claim
academic achievement of international renown, too many parts of the systemobserve teaching and research policies which favour academic insularity andclosed system disciplinary programs.
The governance of higher education at a system level is characterized byfragmentation, inefficiency and ineffectiveness, with too little co-ordination,
few common goals and negligible systemic planning.

Concluding remarks
This paper has tried to illustrate what factors in the transformation of higher
education in South Africa have led to significant changes in the academic
profession in its teaching and research mandate. If higher education is tocontribute to the reconstruction and development of South Africa, then theinequities, imbalances and distortions derived from its past and present structure
must be addressed, and higher education transformed to meet the challenges of a
new non-racial, non-sexist and democratic society committed to equity, justice
and a better life for all. In the current turbulent and insecure context, higher
education teaching and research have a vital role to play in the development andrestoration of the most powerful and consequential of all social institutions in thebuilding of a new South Africa.

References
Badat, S. (1999). South African higher education. Boston, MA: Centre for International
Higher Education, Boston College.

Carnoy, M. (1998). Higher education in a global innovative economy. Pretoria: University of

100 Teaching and Research in Higher Education in South Africa

Page

Pretoria.

Castells, M. (1993). The university system: Engine of development in the new world. In A.

Ransom, S-M. Khoo, & V. Selveratnam (eds.), Improving higher education indeveloping countries. Washingtin DC: World Bank.

South African CAP data base. (2007-2008). Potchefstroom, South Africa: University of theNorth West.

Strydom, A.H., & Fourie, M. (1999). Higher education in South Africa: Achievements,
conditions and new challenges. Higher Education, 38, 155-167.

101
RIHE International Seminar Reports, No.15, 2010 Page

Teaching and Research Activities of the Chinese
Academics

Futao Huang and Min LiIntroduction
It is generally acknowledged that the higher education system, including theacademic system, in the People’s Republic of China was modeled on that of theSoviet Union (He, 2007). One of the most remarkable characteristics of thismodel is that university faculty spend the huge majority of their time on teachingactivities: their major primary role is expected to be involvement with teaching,while research activities are conducted by researchers in research institutes
outside the universities. This was equally true in China prior to the 1980s.
However, radical changes have occurred in China, particularly since the latterpart of 1990s, when the policy of building up world-class universities wasdeveloped by government. Accompanied by other factors, the role of Chinese
academics has changed, especially the roles of those in the research-oriented andleading national public universities who are also asked to carry out research
activities. In recent years, China’s faculty have come to devote more and moreof their time to research and published more research, though their output varies
greatly by institution and by academic rank. This article addresses the teaching
and research activities of Chinese academics based on the major findings fromthe CAP survey, which was implemented in China in 2007. The article begins
by touching on the characteristics of China’s academics from a comparative
perspective. Then it discusses the major findings about teaching and research
activities of China’s academics by institution and by academic rank. The article
Professor, RIHE, Hiroshima University, e-mail: futao@hiroshima-u.ac.jp
Research Fellow, RIHE, Hiroshima University, e-mail: limin@hiroshima-u.ac.jp102 Teaching and Research Activities of the Chinese Academics

Page

concludes by arguing that the academic activities of China’s faculty are stillbasically teaching-oriented in comparison with both Japanese faculty and US
faculty, though there exist numerous differences in teaching and research
activities as well as views on scholarship and other academic activities byinstitution and by academic rank.
Numerous definitions are applied to the term “academic profession”
according to different contexts and research purposes. For example, it can beinterpreted in both a broad sense and a narrow sense. A definition of theacademic profession in a broad sense would embrace all persons who teach or
conduct research, or produce publications based on scholarly research at higher
education institutions or research institutes inside or outside colleges oruniversities. In a narrow sense, the academic profession is limited to faculty
members, including professors, associate professors, lecturers or assistantprofessors who are mainly involved with teaching and research activities inhigher education institutions. This paper places its emphasis on discussion of
the academic profession in this narrow sense (Huang, 2009).

Background of China’s academics: system, instrument and sampling
Outline of China’s higher education system
At present, Chinese higher education institutions can be categorized into
two major types: regular institutions and adult institutions. In December 2008,
there were 2,263 regular public higher education institutions, constituting thethree levels of postgraduate, undergraduate, and short-cycle programs. In theprivate sector, there were 640 higher education institutions, most of themproviding short-cycle programs; only two of them are four-year institutions withauthority to confer bachelor’s degrees (MOE, 2009). The public institutions are
generally divided into three sectors and are vertically administered and financedby one of three types of administrative authorities: (1) national public
universities, which are administered by the Ministry of Education (MOE) andother central agencies or departments; (2) local public universities, administeredby provinces and province-level municipalities, and (3) local public colleges,
which are basically established and administered by municipal authorities.
Most of the private institutions are monitored by provincial or municipal
governments, although no financial support is provided to them by thesegovernments. According to government statistics, in 2007 the gross enrollment
in higher education institutions amounted to nearly 23% of the cohort aged from18 to 21 (China Education Yearbook Editorial Board, 2008). In this paper, theFutao Huang & Min Li 103

Page

discussion is restricted to the regular institutions that comprise the national
public university, local public university and local public college systems.
Instrument and samplingWith respect to the instrument and sampling in the CAP survey in China, apaper survey was undertaken from early 2007 to October 2007 by the Chinese
team which was strongly supported by the Ministry of Education (Shen, 2008).
The sample of faculty (N=4,200) was selected from 10 national and 60 regional
institutions, stratified by region, discipline, and institution type (e.g. national or
local). The faculty response rate was 86% (N=3,618) and the institution
response rate, 97% (N=68). As Table 1 shows, by institution the number of the
respondents from national public universities, local public universities and local
public colleges was 463, 2,596 and 553 respectively constituting 12.8%, 71.9%,
and 15.3% respectively of the total. By academic rank (Table 2) the number ofthe respondents from professors, associate professors, lecturers, and assistantlecturers were 838, 1,205, 1,008, and 399 respectively corresponding to 24.3%,
34.9%, 29.2%, and 11.6% of the total respectively. By institution, the number
and percentage of respondents from local public universities account for thelargest group of the total; by academic rank, the number and percentage ofassociate professors provide the largest segment of the total.
Table 1. Distribution of respondents by institution
Numberpercentage

National Public University

463

12.8%

Local Public University

2,596

71.9%

Local Public College

553

15.3%

3,612

100%

Total

Table 2. Distribution of respondents by academic rank
Professor

Numberpercentage

838

24.3%

Associate professor

1,205

34.9%

Lecturer

1,008

29.2%

399

11.6%

3,450

100%

Assistant lecturer
Total

104 Teaching and Research Activities of the Chinese Academics

Page

Characteristics of China’s academics: comparative perspectives
This section identifies specific characteristics of China’s faculty incomparison with those in Japan and the US before a detailed analysis is made of
their teaching and research activities by institution and by academic rank.
There are two reasons why a comparative study is made among these three
countries. Firstly, both China and Japan are located in East Asia and theiracademic systems are developed from Western models. Second, since WWII,Japan has implemented its academic reforms by introducing many US ideas andpractices. Similarly, since the 1980s, the US academic system has also affectedmany aspects of the higher education systems in China.
In terms of the time budgets for teaching and research, as shown in Table 3,
faculty in China spend the largest proportion of their time on teaching activities,
greater than both Japan and US faculty, while spending the least time on service,administration and other academic work. In a major sense, Chinese faculty
belong to the most teaching-oriented type among the three countries.
Table 3. Time budgets when classes are in session – proportions of
average total time (%)
China

Japan

US

Teaching

47

40

44

Research

32

33

25

Service4810Administration

12

14

16

Other academic activities

4

6

6

3,036

1,343

1,112

Total sample size

Note: CAP, B1 Considering all your professional work, how many hours doyou spend in a typical week on each of the following activities?

Table 4. Preferences for teaching or research (%)
Interests:

China

Japan

US

Primarily in teaching

11

5

22

In both, but leaning towards teaching

42

23

34

In both, but leaning towards research

42

57

34

Primarily in research

5

14

10

100

100

100

3,237

1,383

1,145

Total
Total sample size

Note: CAP, B2. “Do your interests lie primarily in teaching or research?

Futao Huang & Min Li 105

Page

Table 4 indicates that among the three countries, the interests of the Chinese
faculty lie primarily in both teaching and research, but lean towards teaching;
they have the lowest primary research orientation of the three countries.
As suggested in Table 5, faculty in China spent the largest proportion of
their teaching time on undergraduate programs, and the lowest on graduate workat both master’s and doctoral programs. There is no difference in time spent on
continuing professional education programs (but relevant data is not available inJapan) and in other programs.
Table 5. Distribution of teaching time among academic programs (%)
China

Japan

instruction time in undergraduate
programs

81

74

62

instruction time in master programs

13

18

21

instruction time in doctoral programs

1

7

13

instruction time in continuing
professional education programs

2

n.a.

2

instruction time in other programs

2

2

2

2,958

1,326

1,112

Total sample size

US

Note: CAP, C1 “Please indicate the proportion of your teaching responsibilities in
the current academic year that are devoted to each level.”

Table 6. Emphasis of primary research activities (%)
China

Japan

Basic ∕ theoretical

78

66

50

Applied ∕ practically-oriented

86

69

68

Commercially-oriented/intended fortechnology transfer

50

22

15

Socially-oriented ∕ intended for the
betterment of society

63

31

54

International in scope or orientation

67

47

41

Based in one discipline

27

60

30

Multi- ∕ interdisciplinary

80

53

68

3,164

1,359

933

Total sample size

US

Note: CAP, D2 “How would you characterize the emphasis or your primaryresearch?”(5-point scale from 1, Very much to 5, Not at all, % responses 1 & 2)

106 Teaching and Research Activities of the Chinese Academics

Page

Table 6 shows that faculty in China place the strongest emphasis on applied∕ practically-oriented research and attach low importance to restricting research tothat based on one discipline. In most other aspects they appear to take morepositive attitudes than those in the other countries, notably in research that isinternational in scope or orientation.
In defining scholarship and other concepts relating to the academic
profession (Table 7), the views of Chinese faculty diverge somewhat from theviews expressed in the other countries. In regard to scholarship, Chinese
faculty emphasize original research the least strongly though they share with theothers the importance of its application in real-life settings and their obligation to
apply their knowledge to problems in society. In common with the othercountries, only a minority of respondents would not now seek to become
academics, though the proportion in China is double that elsewhere and also notfor advising a young person to join the profession.
Table 7. Views on some basic academic and professional issues (%)
China

Japan

US

Scholarship is best defined as the preparation andpresentation of findings on original research

54

77

69

Scholarship includes the application of academic
knowledge in real -life settings

82

75

81

This is a poor time for any young person to begin an
academic career in my field

39

8

20

If I had it to do over again, I would not become an
academic

21

12

10

Teaching and research are hardly compatible with each
other

42

51

12

Faculty in my discipline have a professional obligation
to apply their knowledge to problems in society

70

65

67

Total sample size

3,544

1,381

1146

Note: CAP, B5 “Please indicate your views on the following issues” (5-point scale from 1,
Strongly Agree, to 5 Strongly Disagree (responses 1&2)

Seemingly, in international and comparative perspectives, among the three
countries, in terms of the relationship between teaching and research activities
Chinese faculty devote more of their time to teaching activities. Among theirteaching responsibilities, they spent the largest proportion of time onundergraduate programs. In relation to their research responsibilities, theresponses show that, a large proportion was involved in a wide range of research
activities, particularly in applied ∕ practically-oriented research and activities
concerning commercially-oriented projects and those intended for technology
transfer. This matches with their views on the definition of scholarship.

Futao Huang & Min Li 107

Page

The teaching and research activities of academics in China by institution
and academic rank
This section is mainly concerned with the distinguishing characteristics ofthe teaching and research activities undertaken by faculty in China, analyzed bytype of institution and academic rank. With respect to use of time on teaching
and research when classes are in session, institutionally, those in national public
universities spend the largest proportion of their time on research, while facultyin local public colleges spend a majority of their time on teaching (Table 8). In
terms of academic rank, it is professors who spend the most time on research,while the more junior grades devote a majority of time on teaching.
Table 8. Use of time for teaching and research when classes are in session bytype of institution and by academic grade

Institution***Academic
rank***

Teaching

Research

NumberNational Public University

35%

47%

397

Local Public University

48%

31%

2,187

Local Public College

53%

23%

452

Professor

38%

38%

750

Associate professor

50%

32%

1,075

Lecturer

52%

30%

846

Assistant lecturer

54%

23%

282

Note: CAP B1 “Considering all your professional work, how many hours do you spend in a
typical week on each of the following activities? (hours per week)
The following symbolism is used in this and subsequent Tables: * p < 0.5, ** p < 0.1,*** p < 0.01

Table 9. Preferences for teaching or research

institution ***Academic
rank***

Teaching & bothbut inclined to T

Research & bothbut inclined to R

National Public University

32%

68%

Local Public University

54%

47%

Local Public College

69%

31%

Mean, all institutions

53%

47%

Total sample size

1,720

1,517

Professor

41%

59%

Associate professor

58%

42%

Lecturer

58%

42%

Assistant lecturer

56%

44%

Mean, all grades

54%

47%

Total sample size

1,665

1,445

Note: CAP, B1 “Do your interests lie primarily in teaching (T ) or research (R)?”108 Teaching and Research Activities of the Chinese Academics

Page

In terms of interests in teaching and research, the data in Table 9 suggestthat by institution, faculty in national public universities are primarily interested
in research, but in local public colleges their interests lie in teaching. Similarly,
by academic rank, professors’ interests lie primarily in research, while those of
associate professors and lecturers lie in teaching.
In relation to the use of teaching time, across all institutional types and allacademic ranks faculty spend the largest proportion of their time on teaching at
undergraduate level (Table 10). This result is consistent with the characteristicsof China’s faculty who emphasized the teaching activities most in comparison
with the faculty in either Japan or the USA. By academic rank, professors in
the national public universities spend a larger proportion of their time onteaching graduate programs than other faculty or those in other types of
institution.
Many more master’s and doctoral programs are provided in the national
public universities in China and most of these institutions are more
research-oriented than the other two sectors. The academic system differs fromthat in the USA, in that in a huge majority of Chinese universities, only full
professors with a qualification to supervise doctoral students are allowed to teachand supervise doctoral programs and master programs. In practice, in manycases, associate professors and some lecturers do teach master’s and evendoctoral programs, though they usually play subordinated roles as members of asupervising team or committee of which a professor is the academic leader.
Table 10. Distribution of teaching time among academic programs by typeof institution and by academic grade

National Public University
Institution*** Local Public University

Academic
Rank**

Undergraduate
Programs %Master’s
Programs %Doctoral
Programs %Continuing
Professional
Education
Programs %Other
Programs %Sample
size

62.8

30.0

3.9

1.7

1.4

381

82.2

12.9

0.9

2.3

1.5

2,134

Local Public College

90.5

1.4

0.1

3.2

4.8

443

Professor

64.7

27.5

3.4

2.0

1.6

744

Associate professor

81.9

13.6

0.5

2.3

1.6

1,060

Lecturer

90.4

4.4

0.2

2.6

2.3

800

Assistant lecturer

93.3

1.3

0.1

2.4

2.9

284

In terms of research emphasis (Table 11), faculty in national public
universities place most emphasis on international scope and multi- orFutao Huang & Min Li 109

Pageinterdisciplinary research, while those in local public universities and colleges
are more concerned with applied or commercially-oriented research. By
academic rank, both professors and associate professors emphasize basic ∕theoretical research while assistant lecturers identify with commercially-oriented
research.
Table 11. Emphasis of primary research activities (%)
Institution
National
Local
PublicPublicUniversity University
Basic ∕
Theoretical

Academic rank

Local
PublicCollegeAllinstitut-ions

Professor Associate
professor

Response* %

84

78

76

78

83

81

Number

424

2,127

449

3,000

775

1,046

Lecturer

Assistant All grades
lecturer

75

69

78

790

287

2,961

***
Applied ∕Practically-oriented

Response* %

83

87

82

86

86

86

84

85

86

Number

412

2,165

456

3,033

771

1,058

810

291

2,996

39

54

45

50

51

50

49

54

51

368

1,926

398

2,692

653

932

735

272

2,656

**
Commercially Response* %-oriented ∕Numberintended forTechnology
Transfer
International in Response* %scope orNumberOrientation

*

***
75

67

61

67

72

69

64

60

67

383

1,930

401

2,714

679

934

734

270

2,679

86

80

77

80

84

80

79

79

80

405

2,053

424

2,882

732

999

772

279

2,845

**
Multi- ∕Response* %interdisciplinary
Number*****Note: CAP, D2 “How would you characterize the emphasis or your primary research?”(5-point scalefrom 1, Very much to 5, Not at all, % responses 1 & 2)

The responses to most of the various basic academic and professional issues
detailed in Table 7 do not vary significantly with either the type of institution orwith academic grade. Only views on the statement that “Scholarship is best
defined as the preparation and presentation of findings on original research” andon the compatibility of teaching and research show variations that are significant(Tables 12 and 13).
By institution, faculty in the national public universities most strongly agreewith the statement on scholarship that emphasizes the importance of original
research in their definition of scholarship; further by academic rank, bothprofessors and associate professors are those most likely to agree with thestatement.

110 Teaching and Research Activities of the Chinese Academics

Table 12. Definition of scholarship
Strongly agree/
Agree (%)

Neutral (%)

Page
Disagree/Strongly disagree(%)

National Public University
61
21
18
Local Public University
54
27
19
Institution** Local Public College
48
31
22
Mean all institutions
54
27
20
Total sample size
1,855
910
669
Professor
60
23
17
Associate professor
54
27
19
51
28
22
Academic Lecturer
Rank*
Assistant lecturer
5030
20
Mean all grades
54
27
19
Total sample size
1,834
899
656
Note: CAP, B5 “Please indicate your view on the statement that scholarship is best defined as
the preparation and presentation of findings on original research” (5-point scale from 1,
Strongly Agree, to 5 Strongly Disagree)

Table 13. Compatibility of teaching and research
Strongly agree/
Agree (%)

Neutral(%)

Disagree/Strongly disagree(%)

National Public University
41
28
31
Local Public University
43
28
30
Institution** Local Public College
40
28
32
Mean all institutions
42
28
30
Total sample size
1,446
951
1,031
Professor
34
29
38
Associate professor
48
25
28
47
28
25
Academic Lecturer
Rank*
Assistant lecturer
36
33
31
Mean all grades
42
28
30
Total sample size
1,430
944
1,008
Note: CAP, B5 “Please indicate your view on the statement that teaching and research are
hardly compatible with each other” (5-point scale from 1, Strongly Agree, to 5 Strongly
Disagree)

The largest group of respondents tend to agree with the statement that“teaching and research are hardly compatible” (Table 13) though a substantial
proportion remain neutral on this issue. The views do not vary between
institutions but do vary by academic grade. Associate professors and lecturers
find greater problems in reconciling the demands of teaching and research thanFutao Huang & Min Li 111

Page

professors and assistant professors. In comparison with professors, thismatches their greater interest in teaching (Table 8) and their greater teachingloads (Table 9).

Discussion and concluding remarks
As discussed earlier, among the three countries, Chinese faculty at all
institutions and at all academic ranks spend the largest proportion of their timeon teaching, especially at undergraduate level. Though Chinese faculty in thenational public universities in particular have been encouraged to carry out
research activities in addition to their traditional teaching obligations since the1990s, their inherent character has not been essentially changed. Comparedwith US faculty, and especially with Japanese faculty, China’s faculty is the mostteaching-oriented (Schuster, & Finkelstein, 2006; Arimoto, 2009).
From international and comparative perspectives, China’s faculty is
characterized as committed to a wide variety of research activities, the exception
being single discipline centered research. Compared with US, and particularly
with Japanese faculty, they concentrate more on applied and practically-oriented
research and on commercially orientated projects or those intended fortechnology transfer. In part this arises because the largest segment of Chinese
faculty insist that it is a professional obligation to apply their knowledge toproblems in society.
However, it is worth mentioning that there is a clear division in thecharacter of academic work between the national public universities and the
local public colleges in China. The faculty in the national public universities
spend a higher proportion of their time on research and they conduct more of
their teaching activities at graduate level, while those in the local public colleges
spend more of their time on teaching especially at an undergraduate level, andtheir research tends to be concentrated more on applied or practically-oriented
studies. Moreover, by academic rank, professors and associate professors spent
more time on research than lecturers and assistant lecturers and they seem toundertake a wider variety of research activities, including applied andpractically-oriented research.
Interestingly, compared with those in both national public universities andlocal public colleges, the role being played by faculty in the local public
universities seems to be very diverse and more complex in terms of therelationship between teaching and research activities in particular. It seems
possible to assume that a large number of faculty in local public universities are112 Teaching and Research Activities of the Chinese Academics

Page

unable to determine whether their priorities are those of the research-oriented
national public universities or those of the teaching-centered local public
colleges. It may well be difficult for faculty working in some of these
universities to identify a clear preference to locate their interests in either
teaching or research.
Finally, a special note should be taken of the responses that indicate that alarge proportion of China’s faculty admitted that they would not become
academics if they had a chance to make a new choice. Furthermore, a large
proportion of them also considered that this is a poor time for any young person
to begin an academic career in their fields. Apparently, compared with either
US faculty or the Japanese academics, China’s academics are confronted withmore challenges or crises in order to attract young talent to enter an academic
career.

References
Arimoto, A. (2009). International Implications of the Changing Academic Profession in Japan,
in The Changing Academic Profession in the International, Comparative, andQuantitative Perspectives (Report of the Changing Academic Profession Project 2008,
pp.1-13). Research Institute for Higher Education (RIHE), Hiroshima University.

China Education Yearbook Editorial Board. (2008). China Education Yearbook 2008 (p.336).
Beijing: People’s Education Press. (in Chinese)He, D. (2007). The History of Education in the People’s Republic of China Vol.II. Hainan
Press. (in Chinese)

Huang, F. (2009). The Internationalization of the Academic Profession in Japan: A
Quantitative Perspective. Journal of Studies in International Education, 13 (2), 143-158.

MOE. (2009). Educational Statistics and Data in 2008. Retrieved September 26, 2010, fromhttp://www.moe.edu.cn/

Shen, H. (2008). Progress of the Academic Profession in Mainland China. In The Changing

Academic Profession in the International, Comparative, and Quantitative Perspectives(Report of the International Conference on the Changing Academic Profession Project,2008), RIHE, Hiroshima University.

Schuster, J.H., & Finkelstein, M.J. (2006). The American Faculty: The Restructuring of
Academic Work and Careers. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

113
RIHE International Seminar Reports, No.15, 2010 Page

Convergence and Divergence of Teaching andResearch Activities in the Japanese Academic
Profession

Yusuke Hasegawa and Naoyuki Ogata

1. Framework of analysis
Questions about teaching and research in the academic profession are bothold and new themes. Analysis of the factors involved require some criteria anddefinitions.
First is the micro level approach: this considers how the teaching activities
of individual faculty are linked with their research activities. At this level,issues include such questions as how they distribute time for teaching and forresearch at their individual level, to what extent their research activities arereflected in their classes, and whether their research can be advanced throughtheir teaching activities.
Second is the system level approach: this considers the relation between the
production system and the transmission system of academic knowledge.
Although the distributional structure for education and research funding is an
important factor that influences teaching and research activities, this aspect isregarded as limited to the financial level. The system level referred to herereflects, for example, that knowledge is renewed through research activities,
reflected in textbooks, and transmitted through teaching activities. In this sense,a teaching system is inseparable from a research system. Even if individual
members of faculty do not conduct any research activities but provide only
Lecturer, Faculty of Education and Welfare Science, Oita University, e-mail:yhasegawa@oita-u.ac.jp
Associate professor, Graduate School of Education, The University of Tokyo, e-mail:nogata@p.u-tokyo.ac.jp114 Convergence and Divergence of Teaching and Research Activities in the Japanese Academic Profession

Page

teaching activities, at the micro level, they still benefit from the fruits of researchthrough textbooks and academic societies.
Third is the meso level, which is placed between the micro level and thesystem level. This is the main focus of this report, by exploring how relations
between teaching and research can differ according to institutional
characteristics and academic disciplines. Teaching and research activity at
individual level is influenced by the institutions and academic disciplines thatmembers of faculty belong to. Moreover, although teaching and research areconnected in a circle at the system level, the form of the circle may vary
according to institutions and academic disciplines.
As indicated above, the issue of integration of teaching and research can beviewed differently according to the approach adopted. It is not a simple
question of whether they can or cannot be integrated. This report considers thesituation of teaching and research activities in different institutions and academic
disciplines1. For institutions, we adopt three categories: research universities,
national non-research universities, and private non-research universities; foracademic disciplines, we use five categories: “humanities and education,”“social sciences,” “natural sciences,” “health sciences,” and “others.” Theanalysis is directed at faculty ranked lecturer or higher levels and excludes those
who have no assigned classroom teaching.
Figure 1 shows the basic structure of the data. Research universities
account for 22.1%, while national non-research universities make up 37.9% andprivate non-research universities 40.1%.
All academic disciplines are
distributed in each institutional type, although their proportions vary. In thefollowing Section 2, the time spent on teaching and research is reviewed
according to institutional types and academic disciplines. In Section 3, therelation between teaching time and research time is considered, in Section 4, weclassify faculty according to the relationships found for teaching and researchtimes, and in Section 5, we use this classification for clarifying how their way of
distributing time for teaching and research is related to their actual teaching andresearch activities.

1

Since this analysis deals with teaching time, it refers to the academic discipline of thedepartment that faculty belong to, not the academic disciplines which they acquired byacademic study and qualification.

Yusuke Hasegawa & Naoyuki Ogata
Page115100%90%rateRespondentsof respondents

80%
70%
60%

others50%

health sciences
natural sciences

40%

social sciences30%

humanities and education

20%
10%
0%
researchnational nonresearchprivate nonresearch

Figure 1. Distribution of academic disciplines according to institutional types

54
53

52
51

hours

50
49
48
47
46
45
44
researchnational non- private non- humanities
research
research and education
institutional typesocialsciences

naturalsciences

healthsciencesothersacademic discipline

Figure 2. Average working time when classes are in session (hours per week)116 Convergence and Divergence of Teaching and Research Activities in the Japanese Academic Profession
Page
40
35

30

%

25

20

teaching
research

151050
㸺10hours

ӌ10and㸺20hours ӌ20and㸺30hours

ӌ30hours

Figure 3. Time spent on teaching and research when classes are in session(hours per week)

2. Teaching time and research time by institutional types andacademic disciplines
Figure 2 overviews how faculty distribute their total working hours,
including the time spent on teaching and research activities.
When
comparing institutional types, the average working hours per week, when classes
are in session, are 51.5 at research universities and private non-research
universities, and 50.0 at national non-research universities, showing nostatistically significant difference. On the other hand, statistically significant
differences are observed among academic disciplines: among all academic
disciplines except “others”, those working in “health sciences” record the longest
times, at 52.0 hours, followed by “natural sciences” at 51.6 hours, with “social
sciences” the shortest at 47.4 hours.2
Figure 3 shows the distribution of teaching time and research time per week
2
With regard to the significance of deviation among individuals, the standard deviation isparticularly large at private non-research universities among the institutional types; and in“health sciences” among the academic disciplines.

Yusuke Hasegawa & Naoyuki Ogata 117

Pagewhen classes are in session by categorizing them into four types: “less than 10hours,” “10 to 19 hours,” “20-29 hours,” and “30 hours or longer.” In timeused for teaching, there is a peak seen at 20-29 hours (30.9%), although faculty
spending 10-19 hours (28.1%) and 30 hours or longer (25.9%) also provide large
proportions. As for time spent for research, the largest segment exists at 10-19
hours (36.4%) and the second largest percentage is 9 hours or less (25.4%).
When comparing teaching time by institutional types, faculty at private
non-research universities spend the longest time, followed by those at national
non-research universities, and then those at research universities (Figure 4). At
research universities, the largest proportion of faculty spend 10-19 hours per
week on teaching, at national non-research universities it is in the range of 20-29
hours, and at private non-research universities it is in the range of 30 or more
hours. In contrast, average time used for research is greatest at research
universities, followed by national non-research universities, and is least for
private non-research universities. For all the three institutional types, thelargest proportions of faculty record spending in the range of 10-19 hours per
week on research, but the proportions at 20 hours or longer are much higher at
research universities. On the other hand, the proportions indicating 9 hours orless also stand high at national non-research universities and private
non-research universities (Figure 4).

45
40
35
30

%

25
research

20

national non-research

15

private non-research

10

5
0
䠘10

ӌ10and㸺20 ӌ20and㸺30

teaching(hours)teaching time
time (hours)

ӌ30

䠘10

ӌ10and㸺20 ӌ20and㸺30

ӌ30

research(hours)research time
time (hours)

Figure 4. Teaching time and research time when classes are in session, byinstitutional type (hours per week)118 Convergence and Divergence of Teaching and Research Activities in the Japanese Academic Profession
Page
50
45
40
35

%

30

humanities and education25

social sciences

20

natural sciences
health sciences

15

others1050䠘10ӌ10and㸺20ӌ20and㸺30

teaching(hours)teaching time
time (hours)

ӌ30

䠘10

ӌ10and㸺20ӌ20and㸺30

ӌ30

research(hours)research time
time (hours)

Figure 5. Teaching time and research time when classes are in session, by
academic discipline (hours per week)

Figure 5 shows data with respect to academic disciplines. For teachingtime, “health sciences” shows a peculiar pattern, with a short time for teaching. 3
All the other academic disciplines, except for “humanities and education,”
indicate a peak at 20-29 hours per week. Faculty in the “humanities andeducation” spend the longest time on teaching. For research, faculty in the“humanities and education,” who spend much time on teaching, devote relatively
little time to research. Faculty in the “natural sciences” spend a longer time on
research than those in “social sciences,” and those in “health sciences” longer
than those in “natural sciences.”

3. The relationship between teaching time and research time
Next, the relations between teaching time and research time are consideredfrom two points of view. First, we compare the differences in teaching timeand research time with the respect to total working time. Second, we compare
the differences in teaching and research times directly. As in the preceding
analyses data refer to the working time per week when classes are in session, andespecially it is the differences among institutional types that are focused on.
3

One of the background factors for the “health sciences” is that faculty spend a long time onother activities than teaching and research. The extensive time spent on clinical services is amajor factor.

Yusuke Hasegawa & Naoyuki Ogata 119

Page

Table 1 shows the results of correlations between teaching ⁄ research times
and total working time by institutional types and academic disciplines. In order
to simplify the analyses, we use the same four ragnes for both teaching time andresearch time, while classifying total working time into four ranges: “less than
40 hours,” “40-49 hours,” “50-59 hours,” and “more than 59 hours.”
Necessarily, increases in teaching time and research time lead to increases intotal working time. However, an increase in total working time is morestrongly driven by an increase in research time than that in teaching time. A
possible reason for a stronger linkage between research time and total working
time is that the major part of teaching time is devoted to scheduled classes overwhich faculty have no immediate control. This makes it all the more difficult
for faculty to ensure research time by curbing other activities.
Table 1. Correlation (r) between time per week spent on teaching or
research and total working time
institutional typeoverall
privateaverage* research national
nonnonresearch researchteaching time

0.35

0.32

0.37

academic discipline
humanities social
naturalhealthandeducation sciences sciences sciences

0.38

0.53

0.42

0.41

research time
0.47
0.52
0.46
0.45
0.53
0.45
0.44
* time per week averaged across all types of university and all disciplinary areas

others

0.30

0.25

0.51

0.43

50
45
40
35
㸺10
(research time)25

ӌ10&㸺20(research time)

%

30

20

ӌ20&㸺29(research time)15

ӌ30(research time)

10
5
0
䠘10

ӌ10&䠘20ӌ20&䠘30

teaching
time
teachingtime(research)(research univ.)

ӌ30

䠘10

ӌ10&䠘20ӌ20&䠘30

ӌ30

teaching teachingtime(nationaltime
non-research)(national non-research univ.)

䠘10

ӌ10&䠘20ӌ20&䠘30

ӌ30

teachingteachingtime(privatetime
non-research)(private non-research univ.)

Figure 6. Increase in teaching time and change in research time120 Convergence and Divergence of Teaching and Research Activities in the Japanese Academic Profession

Page

However, correlations of these elements differ slightly when examined fromthe viewpoint of institutional types. Increase in teaching time accompanies
greater increases in total working time at private non-research universities andnational non-research universities, while for research, time increases correspondto greater increases in total working time at research universities. When
comparing academic disciplines, correlations between increases in teaching andresearch time and increase in total working time are largest in the “humanities
and education”, though for research a similarly large effect is shown by the“health sciences”.
A more detailed study of the relations between teaching time and researchtime is shown directly in Figure 6 that focuses on differences among institutional
types. The relation between teaching and research times is not linear. Several
distinctive patterns emerge.
Those who spend a comparatively short time on research at “less than 10hours” show a concave shape as teaching time increases, that is, some also spend
little time teaching while others use the available time to engage in extendedteaching. A similar pattern is shown by those devoting 30 or more hours toresearch, that is, some also devote long hours to teaching while others
compensate with a reduced teaching load. The tendency to combine shorter
teaching and research times is especially prominent at national non-research
universities and private non-research universities. While there are faculty who
spend a short time on teaching and a long time on research, there are also somefaculty who spend a long time on both teaching and research. This tendency isespecially prominent at research universities. At research universities, wheremore importance is placed on research, the flexibility of research time to changes
in teaching time is relatively low. In contrast, at private non-research
universities, the group spending more than 29 hours on research shows a convex
shape as teaching time increases. At private non-research universities, where
they place more importance on teaching, the flexibility of research time tochanges in teaching time is high.

4. Classification of faculty by time allocation(1) Classification of faculty according to teaching time and research time
So far, we have treated teaching time and research time during semesters
separately. Now, we divide faculty into six groups by focusing on the time
allocations to each activity jointly, while taking the numbers of faculty into
consideration as well. For teaching time, we set a median value of 20 hours per

Yusuke Hasegawa & Naoyuki Ogata 121

Page

week as a level for division so that faculty spending less than 20 hours areclassified as the “lower teaching” group, and those spending 20 hours or longer
as the “higher teaching” group. For research time, the data suggest that this canconveniently be divided into three groups: a “lower research” group spending
less than 10 hours, a “medium research group spending 11-19 hours, and a“higher research” group spending 20 or more hours on research (Figure 7).
It has been pointed out that teaching and research are in a trade-off
relationship. The largest group among Japanese faculty is the “teaching higher ⁄research lower” group (26.6%) that spends a long time for teaching but arelatively short time for research. The “teaching lower ⁄ research higher” group,
which is antithetical to the “teaching higher ⁄ research lower” group, accounts for
18.3% of the entire faculty. The “teaching higher ⁄ research higher” group(19.8%), which spends a long time for both teaching and research, and theantithetical “teaching lower ⁄ research lower” group (16.7%) is of no small
significance either. The “research medium” group has the least proportion.
As for research time, there is a bipolar tendency.

Research timeteaching lower/research higher

teaching higher/research higher

18.3%

20 hours per week

teaching lower/research medium

15 hours per week

19.8%
teaching higher/research medium

8.2%

10 hours per week

teaching lower/research lower

10.4%
teaching higher/research lower

16.7%
0

20 hours per week

26.6%
Teaching time

Figure 7. Classification of faculty according to teaching time and research time(2) Classification of faculty according to institutional types
Table 2 shows the proportions of faculty falling into each of the categories
according to institutional types. As already discussed, many faculty at research
universities spend a long time on research as do those at the other types of122 Convergence and Divergence of Teaching and Research Activities in the Japanese Academic Profession

Page

universities on teaching. Nevertheless, at all the types of institutions all six ofthe categories of faculty are present to some extent. Therefore, it is notpossible to simplify discussion according to institutional characteristics alone.
The “higher teaching ∕ lower research” group, which accounts for the largest
proportion of all groups, accounts also for the largest group, 33.9%, at private
non-research universities. The proportion of this group is smaller at national
non-research universities, and even lower at research universities, although it
accounts for 16.4% even at research universities. At research universities too,
there is a certain number of faculty who spend a long time on teaching and ashorter time on research. The antithetical “lower teaching ∕ higher research”
group is the largest group at research universities, at 28.6%. The proportion islower at national non-research universities, and even lower at private
non-research universities.
Table 2. Distribution of faculty according to institutional types
teaching lower ∕ teaching lower ∕ teaching lower ∕ teaching higher ∕ teaching higher ∕ teaching higher ∕research lower research medium research higher research lower research medium research higher
Total

16.7%

8.2%

18.3%

26.6%

10.4%

19.8%

research univ.

14.6%

14.6%

28.6%

16.4%

7.0%

18.8%

20.4%

6.4%

19.6%

24.7%

9.1%

19.8%

14.4%

6.3%

11.5%

33.9%

13.6%

20.3%

national
non-research univ.
privatenon-research univ.

The “higher teaching ∕ higher research” group, which spends long times onboth teaching and research, represents similar proportions, at around 20%, at all
types of universities. The antithetical “lower teaching ∕ lower research” group,
which spends a long time on neither teaching nor research, also exists for all
types of institution with proportions of around 15%. Of particular interest isthat this group accounts for a large proportion of 20.4% at national non-research
universities, although it is necessary to note that the proportion of faculty in thefield of “health sciences” is high at national non-research universities. Together
the two categories of “higher teaching ∕ higher research” and “lower teaching ∕lower research” have particularly large shares (about one-third): it may bepresumed that convergence and divergence in teaching and research activities
exist at these universities.
The “medium research” group accounts for a small share in all university

Yusuke Hasegawa & Naoyuki Ogata 123

Page

types. The “lower teaching ∕ medium research” group is larger than the “higher
teaching ∕ medium research” group at research universities, but the converse
applies at private non-research universities.
(3) Classification of faculty according to academic fields
When comparing academic disciplines (Table 3), the “health sciences”
group differs largely from the other academic disciplines. In this field, the“lower teaching ∕ lower research” group accounts for approximately one-third,(32.6%) of all faculty, presumably attributable to their clinical duties. Also in“health sciences,” there is a high proportion of faculty spending longer on
research than teaching, as the proportion of the “teaching lower ∕ research higher”
group is almost one-third (31.4%).
Table 3. Distribution of faculty according to academic discipline
teaching lower ∕ teaching lower ∕ teaching lower ∕ teaching higher ∕ teaching higher ∕ teaching higher ∕research lower research medium research higher research lower research medium research higher
Total

17.1%

8.1%

18.1%

26.4%

10.4%

19.8%

humanities &education

13.8%

6.5%

8.8%

35.9%

12.9%

22.1%

social sciences

14.4%

5.2%

13.7%

35.9%

15.7%

15.0%

natural sciences

12.5%

8.7%

17.4%

27.7%

10.5%

23.2%

health sciences

32.6%

10.2%

31.4%

8.5%

4.7%

12.7%

Among faculty in the three fields other than “health sciences,” the majority
spends more time on teaching than research. Faculty in the fields of“humanities and education” tend to spend the most time on teaching and those in
the “natural sciences” tend to spend the most time on research. Although themost important factor defining teaching time is teaching load (i.e., the number ofclasses that faculty are in charge of), it is impossible to identify the actual
number of classes from the CAP survey. We examine their teaching activities
other than classes in the next section, but whether or not a difference in thenumber of classes according to academic discipline reflects their teaching load
will need to be a theme for future analysis.

124 Convergence and Divergence of Teaching and Research Activities in the Japanese Academic Profession

Page

5. Teaching activities and research activities according toclassification of faculty
Differences in time allocation according to institutional types and academic
discipline can be related to differences in actual teaching activities and research
activities.
Therefore, we examine communication with students anddevelopment of teaching materials and programs 4 as teaching activities, as
analogous to research productivity, the number of articles written in three years,
as a measure of research activities.
(1) Teaching activities
a. Differences according to institutional types
The results confirm differences in teaching activities among the institutional
types (Figure 8). Both communication with students and development ofteaching materials and programs are active at private non-research universities.
Since students have become more diversified at private non-research universities
than at the other types of universities, it is an increasingly important issue forthem to meet such a changing environment and, at the same time, to ensure
quality of teaching.
When comparing groups of classified faculty (Figures 9a, 9b), a tendency ofdifferentiation in communication with students is witnessed among faculty at all
types of institutions. The longer time faculty spend on teaching, the more they
communicate with students. If teaching and research were in a simple“trade-off” relationship, an increase in research time would imply a decrease incommunication with students. Actually, however, none of the survey results
show that, within the groups of “higher” or “lower teaching”, is the amount ofcommunication lowest in the “research higher” group, followed by “researchmedium” and then “research lower.”In the development of teaching materials and programs, generally speaking,faculty in the “higher teaching” – especially those in “lower research” – category
are proactively engaged. For the integration of teaching and research, it is4
For communication with students, we asked respondents “Have you been involved in any of
the following teaching activities?” and identified three items: “Individualized instruction,”“Face-to-face interaction with students outside of class,” and “Electronic communication(e-mail) with students.” We set “Yes = 1” and “No = 0” for each item and used the total
reponse for analysis (minimum = 0, maximum = 3). For the question regarding development ofteaching materials and programs, we posed the same question and identified two items:“Development of course material,” and “Curriculum/program development.” We set “Yes = 1”
and “No = 0” for each item and used the total response for analysis (minimum = 0, maximum= 2).

Yusuke Hasegawa & Naoyuki Ogata 125

Page

expected that knowledge from research is reflected in what students learn.
However, in fact, the longer faculty spend on research, the less proactive they arein the development of teaching materials and programs.
At national
non-research universities and research universities, even faculty in the “higher
teaching ⁄ medium research” group are inactive in the development of teachingmaterials and programs. Therefore, it is not necessarily true that the longer
time faculty spend for teaching, the more they are proactive in the developmentof teaching materials and programs.
Another substantive point is that the amplitude of differences among thegroups differs according to institutional types. In comparing groups of similar
categories, the differences between the group with the largest average and thegroup with the smallest average are small for private non-research universities inboth communication with students and development of teaching materials andprograms. Division of labor in teaching activities exists in all institutions, but
all faculty in private non-research universities seem to be much more heavily
involved in working proactively on teaching activities than those in other typesof universities.
3.00
2.00

2.03

1.98

1.95

2.12

1.00

0.57

0.58

0.42

0.64

private non-researchnatinal non-researchresearchoverall average

private non-researchnatinal non-researchresearchoverall average

0.00

*

***

communication with students

development of teaching materials
and programs

Note: *** p<0.001, ** p<0.01, * p<0.05, 㸩 p<0.10
This symbolism is followed in subsequent Figures.
Y-axis indicates average score of each institutional type.
“scores” see footnote 4.

For details of the

Figure 8. Differences in teaching activities according to institutional types

126 Convergence and Divergence of Teaching and Research Activities in the Japanese Academic ProfessionPagecommunication with students

2.50

teaching lower/research lower

teaching lower/researchmediumteaching lower/research higher

2.00

teaching higher/research lower
teaching higher/researchmediumteaching higher/researchhigher
1.50

***

**

***

**

overall average
averageoverall

research
research
univ.

natinal nonnational
nonresearchuniv.
research

private nonprivate
nonresearchuniv.
research

Note: Y-axis indicates average score of each institutional type.

Figure 9a. Differences in teaching activities among faculty groups according toinstitutional types
development of teaching materials and programs
0.9
0.8
0.7

teaching lower/research lower

0.6
0.5

teaching lower/research medium

0.4

teaching lower/research higher

0.3

teaching higher/research lower

0.2

teaching higher/researchmedium

0.1
0

***

***

overallaverage researchuniv.
overall average
research*****national
nonnatinal nonresearchuniv.
research

privatenonprivate nonresearchuniv.
researchteaching higher/research higher

Note: Y-axis indicates average score of each institutional type.

Figure 9b. Differences in teaching activities among faculty groups according toinstitutional types

Yusuke Hasegawa & Naoyuki Ogata 127

Page

b. Differences according to academic discipline
Figure 10 shows differences in teaching activities according to academic
discipline. Faculty in both communication with students and development ofteaching materials and programs fall into a sequence that diminishes in the order:“humanities and education” > “social sciences” > “natural sciences” > “healthsciences.” The result is similar to that for the teaching time discussed above:the longer faculty devote to teaching a subject, the more proactive they are inteaching activities.
Figures 11a, 11b show the differences among faculty groups.5 Significant
differences are witnessed in the fields of “natural sciences” and “health sciences”
for both communication with students and development of teaching materials
and programs though for the field of “social sciences” the differences are small.
Among faculty’s groups the differences are especially large in “health sciences.”
In the “lower teaching ⁄ lower research” group, which probably spends much timeon clinical work, the average score for communication with students isextremely low, at 1.14.

2.08

1.55

1.00

0.58

0.71

0.62

0.58

0.45
health sciences

2.23

natural sciences

2.36

social sciences

2.05

humanities and education

2.00

total

3.00

health sciences

natural sciences

social sciences

humanities and education

total

0.00

***

**

communication with students

development of teaching materials
and programs

Note: Y-axis indicates average score of each institutional type.

Figure 10. Differences in teaching activities according to academic discipline
5

The data indicate that in some academic fields the number of teachers belonging to the“medium research” category was extremely small, at around 10. Accordingly this group was
excluded from the analysis to avoid distortion of the results.

128 Convergence and Divergence of Teaching and Research Activities in the Japanese Academic ProfessionPagecommunication with students

3.00

teaching lower/research
lower

2.00

1.00

teaching lower/researchhigherteaching higher/research
lower

***
overallaverage

H& E

SS

**

***

NS

HS

teaching higher/researchhigherNote: ‘H & E’ is ‘humanities and education’, ‘S S’ is ‘social sciences’, ‘N S’ is‘natural sciences’, and ‘H S’ is ‘health sciences’.
Y-axis indicates average score of each faculty group.

Figure 11a. Differences in teaching activities among teacher’s groups according
to academic disciplinedevelopment of teaching materials and programs

1.20
1.00

teaching lower/research
lower

0.80
0.60

teaching lower/researchhigher

0.40

teaching higher/research
lower

0.20
0.00

***

+

overallaverage

H&E

SS

***

***

NS

HS

teaching higher/researchhigherNote: ‘H & E’ is ‘humanities and education’, ‘S S’ is ‘social sciences’, ‘N S’ is‘natural sciences’, and ‘H S’ is ‘health sciences’.
Y-axis indicates average score of each faculty group.

Figure 11b. Differences in teaching activities among teacher’s groups according
to academic discipline(2) Research activities㸫 number of articles
a. Difference according to institutional types
The average number of articles published over the three-year period
preceding the survey according to institutional type (Figure 12) is 13.58 at

Yusuke Hasegawa & Naoyuki Ogata 129

Page

research universities, 8.61 at national non-research universities and 6.45 at
private non-research universities. Clearly faculty at research universities
produce substantially more articles than those at non-research universities.
Average numbers of articles
published over 3-years

15

13.58

12
9

8.89

8.61

6.45

6

3
0

overall average
averageoverall

research
research
univ.

national nonnonnational
research
univ.
research

private nonprivate
nonresearchuniv.
research***

Figure 12. Average number of articles published over 3-years according toinstitutional typeFigure 13 examines differentiation in research productivity among thecategories of faculty groups. Does an increase in research time result in
improvement of research productivity? As clearly seen in the results of all
institutional types, the longer time faculty spend on research, the higher the
productivity of publication becomes. However, the range of research-driven
increase is not so great. More important is teaching time. There is a clear gap
between the productivity of the “higher teaching” group and that of the “lower
teaching” group and the research productivity of the “higher teaching” group is
generally lower. Within the “higher teaching” group, the “higher research”
group produces barely as many articles as the “lower teaching” group when
averaged across all institutional types
A similar tendency is found in the comparison of institutional types.
Nevertheless, at research universities and private non-research universities, the“higher research” group produces as many articles regardless of length ofteaching time. On the other hand, at national non-research universities, faculty
are clearly differentiated according to the length of teaching time. Even thosein the “higher research” group are not able to attain high productivity if they
belong to the “higher teaching” group. It is noteworthy that faculty at research
universities are not necessarily higher in research productivity than those at

130 Convergence and Divergence of Teaching and Research Activities in the Japanese Academic Profession

Pagenational non-research universities and private non-research universities.
Again, the factor differentiating faculty in research productivity is teachingtime rather than research time. A message conveyed by universities to theirfaculty, “to devote more effort to teaching,” might have been heard as “it is notnecessary to improve research productivity.” Faculty at national non-research
universities may well have failed to improve their research productivity despite
an increase in research time possibly because they are exposed to greater
expectations with respect to teaching than faculty at research universities.
Average numbers ofarticles published over
3-years

18
15
12

teaching lower/research lower

9

teaching lower/research higher

teaching lower/research medium
teaching higher/research lower

6

teaching higher/research medium
teaching higher/research higher

3
0

***

+

***

***

overalloverall average
averageresearch
univ.
researchnational nonnational
nonresearchuniv.
research

privatenonprivate nonresearchuniv.
research

Figure 13. Average numbers of articles published by faculty groups according
to institutional types

In this regard, faculty at private non-research universities show aninteresting characteristic. Pressure for teaching productivity is highest at
private non-research universities, but the research production volume of facultyin the “higher teaching ⁄ higher research” group at private non-research
universities is as high as those in the “lower teaching lower” group (as inresearch universities).
One contributory factor may well be this group of faculty’s concern for
their future careers. Many faculty in Japan studied as researchers at thegraduate schools of research universities. In employment, however, especiallyat private non-research universities, they are often required to spend much time
as teachers. Those who seek a research career will inevitably consider moving

Yusuke Hasegawa & Naoyuki Ogata 131

Page

to other universities, and especially to research universities. When moving toother universities, research productivity is an important evaluation standard.
Therefore, even if they have to spend much time teaching, they will still pursue
their research and seek to publish research work. In a survey, faculty at private
non-research universities were divided into groups: those who, in the last 5-years,
have considered moving to other domestic institutions (such as universities), andthose who have not; the responses were compared according to the average
numbers of articles they had published (Figure 14). The “higher teaching ⁄higher research” group of those who had considered moving show the highest
productivity of articles.
Average numbers of articles published over 3-years

14.00

12.00

teaching lower/research medium

10.00

teaching lower/research higher

8.00

6.00

teaching higher/research lower

4.00

teaching higher/research medium

2.00
0.00

teaching lower/research lower

have considered”
considered“II have

have notnot considered”
considered“II haveteaching higher/research higher

Figure 14. Difference in the average number of articles of faculty at private
non-research universities, according to their experiences ofconsidering moving to other universities

b. Differences according to academic discipline
There are wide differences between different disciplines in the numbers of
publications (Figure 15). Generally speaking, those in the field of “healthsciences” write the largest number of articles (14.36), followed by those in“natural sciences” (9.33), “social sciences” (4.42), and “humanities andeducation” (3.46). It is though relevant to consider differences in the ways
articles are written, namely by single or joint authorship.
As with teaching activities, differences according to faculty groups areespecially clear in the fields of “health sciences” and “natural sciences.” (Figure16) In these two disciplinary areas, the research productivity of the “higher
teaching ⁄ lower research” group is low. In the cases of “humanities andeducation” and “social sciences,” there are no clear differences according tofaculty groups, partly perhaps because of their intrinsically low productivity.

132 Convergence and Divergence of Teaching and Research Activities in the Japanese Academic Profession
Page
Average numbers of articles published over 3-years

14.36

15
12
9

9.33

8.65

6

3.46

3
0

overallaveragehumanities
andeducation

4.42

socialsciences

naturalsciences

healthsciences***

Figure 15. Average number of articles published over a 3-year period byacademic discipline

Average numbers of articles published over 3-years
18.0
15.0
12.0
teaching lower/research lower

9.0

teaching lower/research higher
teaching higher/research lower

6.0

teaching higher/research higher

3.0
0.0
overall average

humanities
and educationsocial sciences****

natural sciences

health sciences

Figure 16. Average number of articles published over a 3-year period byfaculty classification and academic disciplineYusuke Hasegawa & Naoyuki Ogata 133

Page

6. Conclusion
It has often been pointed out that faculty in Japan are more oriented toward
research than teaching. Although the orientation toward teaching has beenstronger these years, there is no significant change in this basic attitude.
However in practice, faculty are expected to research more at research
universities and to teach at the other types of universities. Irrespective of theirpreferences, faculty are assigned duties according to the type of university inwhich they work. Characteristics of their academic activities also vary
according to academic disciplines, as seen most clearly in the “health sciences.”That is why a particular focus has been given to the time spent for the primaryactivities of teaching and research.
In fact, faculty at research universities spend much time on research just as
those at private non-research universities do on teaching. It is difficult forfaculty to control teaching time because classes are scheduled commitments.
As a consequence, any increase in research time tends to constitute an addition
to an already lengthy total working time. Nevertheless, it is not sufficient toconclude that teaching time is less flexible than research time, because thevariation of time devoted to teaching and research activities depends on both thetype of institution and the academic discipline. For example, if policy requires
faculty to increase time spent on teaching, at private non-research universities,
where they already spend more time on teaching than research, it is difficult toincrease research time; at research universities, since they cannot cut theirresearch time even if their teaching time increases, the total working time tends
to increase.
The above observations might evoke stereotypical images of teaching timeand research time by institutional types and academic disciplines. However, in
reality, faculty, even in the same institutional type or the same academic
discipline, show differing tendencies in distributing time for teaching andresearch. And this characteristic affects actual teaching activities and research
activities. Faculty who spend a longer time on teaching, regardless of thelength of time they spend on research, are eager to improve communication withstudents and to develop improved teaching materials and programs; productivityof research publications is determined not only by the length of research time but
also by the length of teaching time. At Japanese universities, one-fifth of faculty
spend a considerable time on each of teaching and research at all types of
institution; at the peripheries, there are both faculty who spend more time onteaching than on research and also those who spend more time on research than134 Convergence and Divergence of Teaching and Research Activities in the Japanese Academic Profession

Page

on teaching. On the supposition that integration of teaching and research is theideal contemporary model for the academic profession and that a proportion of
about one-fifth is appropriate for those that achieve this, it is not necessary to beconcerned about the fact that there are many other faculty that conform todiffering time allocation in accord with the characteristics of institutional types
and academic disciplines. On the other hand, if it is considered that that a
proportion of one-fifth is insufficient, the fundamental model for academic
profession is at risk or it has already collapsed.
Of course, the discussions provided in this paper have only focused on one
dimension of teaching and research, by analyzing mainly the quantitative aspectsof teaching and research time. To advance discussion on the integration of andconflict between teaching and research in the academic profession in a
productive manner, there is no other way but first to understand the actual stateof these activities, and then to raise specific issues in order to examine, andfinally solve these problems on a step-by-step basis.

References
Clark, B.R. (1995). Places of inquiry: research and advanced education in modern
universities, Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.

Ehara, T. (1996). Kyoiku to kenkyu no zirenma. In A. Arimoto, & T. Ehara (Eds.), Daigaku
kyozyushoku no kokusai hikaku (pp.147-165). Tokyo: Tamagawa Daigaku Shuppanbu.
(in Japanese)

Fukudome, H. (2008). Kenkyu to kyoiku no kattou. In A. Arimoto (Ed.), Henbou suru nihon

no daigaku kyozyushoku (pp.263-279). Tokyo: Tamagawa Daigaku Shuppanbu. (inJapanese)

Gottlieb, E.E., & Keith, B. (1997). The academic research-teaching nexus in eightadvanced-industrialized countries. Higher Education, 34 (3), 397-420.

Page
RIHE International Seminar Reports, No.15, 2010 135

Teaching and Research in the Japanese Academic
Profession: a focus on age and gender

Hideto Fukudome and Naomi KimotoThis paper addresses two issues. The main research interest is how
members of the academic profession develop their capacities for teaching andresearch during their lifelong careers. The first half of this paper is concernedwith the influence and the effects of age; the second half deals with thedifferences arising from gender.

1. The effects of age
In Japanese higher education these days, particularly after the 1990s,
faculty development (FD) has become one of the key issues often discussed bypolicymakers and inside our academic communities. The reason why we often
refer to the term „FD‟ is that the quality of teaching in our universities is severely
questioned. In this context, the term „FD‟ usually means the collective
activities to enhance teaching in higher education institutions or departments.
Though these attempts consist of diverse activities − and some of them are quite
significant, generally speaking a viewpoint of the individual „development‟ ofmembers of faculty as academic professionals does not draw much attention.
The importance of individual faculty‟s autonomous capacity building may wellalso be crucial for the reinforcement of academic quality. Further, discussion offaculty‟s self-development should not be confined to teaching skills: we need tobroaden our focus to the whole of academic capacities. The focus of the
Associate Professor, Research Institute for Higher Education, Hiroshima University, e-mail:fukudome@hiroshima-u.ac.jp
Assistant Professor, Comprehensive Education Center, Prefectural University of Hiroshima,e-mail: kimoto@pu-hiroshima.ac.jp136 Teaching and Research in the Japanese Academic Profession

Page

analysis will therefore rest on working conditions and faculty‟s recognitions of
their activities of teaching and research, and also the relationship between them.
To clarify the distinctiveness of the Japanese academic profession, international
comparisons will be emphasized. Three research questions can be identified.

(1) How do academic professionals develop their capacities for teaching
and research during their careers?
(2) How do they share the work between different age cohorts? Are
different roles assigned to different age cohorts or not?
(3) What is the distinctiveness of Japanese academic professionals interms of their capacity development and work assignments from aperspective of international comparison?
In considering these questions, the analysis will address three themes bymeans of the differing age cohorts for both Japan and other countries.

(1) How do academic professionals spend their working time in regard toteaching, research and administration?
(2) How are academic professionals employed: are they tenured, on
fixed-term or other forms of contract?
(3) To what extent do academic professionals think teaching and research
are compatible?
For international comparison data for Germany, United Kingdom and theUnited States will be used, because when we discuss universities‟ qualities andfuture development we often consider these countries, which have developed
internationally, influential higher education models.
1-1. How do academic professionals spend their time?
Figures 1 through 4 show the working time of each country‟s faculty during
the periods when classes are in session. From them two findings emerge.
 In Germany, UK and US, young members of faculty, in their 20-30s, spend
more time on research than other age cohorts. In these countries, the times
spent on teaching and administration start to increase for faculty in their
40s.
 In Japan, young members of faculty also spend more time on research thanother age cohorts, but the difference is not so great. Instead, young

Hideto Fukudome & Naomi Kimoto 137

Pagemembers of faculty spend more time on teaching than other age cohorts,
and almost the same amount of time on administration: time distribution
between age cohorts is flatter in Japan than in the other three countries.

㻞㻡㻞㻜㼀㼑㼍㼏㼔㼕㼚㼓

㻝㻡㼔㼛㼡㼞㼟㻾㼑㼟㼑㼍㼞㼏㼔
㻝㻜㻭㼐㼙㼕㼚㼕㼟㼠㼞㼍㼠㼕㼛㼚㻿㼑㼞㼢㼕㼏㼑㻌㻒㻌㻻㼠㼔㼑㼞㻡㻜㻞㻜㻙㻟㻜㼟

㻠㻜㼟㻡㻜㼟㻢㻜㼟㻌㻒㻌㼍㼎㼛㼢㼑㻳㼑㼞㼙㼍㼚㼥

Figure 1. How long do faculty spend on each academic activity(when classes are in session): Germany (hours per week)㻞㻡㻞㻜㼀㼑㼍㼏㼔㼕㼚㼓

㻝㻡㻾㼑㼟㼑㼍㼞㼏㼔

㼔㼛㼡㼞㼟㻝㻜㻭㼐㼙㼕㼚㼕㼟㼠㼞㼍㼠㼕㼛㼚㻿㼑㼞㼢㼕㼏㼑㻌㻒㻌㻻㼠㼔㼑㼞㻡㻜㻞㻜㻙㻟㻜㼟

㻠㻜㼟㻡㻜㼟㻢㻜㼟㻌㻒㻌㼍㼎㼛㼢㼑㼁㼚㼕㼠㼑㼐㻌㻷㼕㼚㼓㼐㼛㼙

Figure 2. How long do faculty spend on each academic activity(when classes are in session): United Kingdom (hours per week)Page

138 Teaching and Research in the Japanese Academic Profession
㻞㻡
㻞㻜
㻝㻡

㼀㼑㼍㼏㼔㼕㼚㼓

㼔㼛㼡㼞㼟㻾㼑㼟㼑㼍㼞㼏㼔
㻝㻜㻭㼐㼙㼕㼚㼕㼟㼠㼞㼍㼠㼕㼛㼚㻿㼑㼞㼢㼕㼏㼑㻌㻒㻌㻻㼠㼔㼑㼞㻡㻜㻞㻜㻙㻟㻜㼟

㻠㻜㼟㻡㻜㼟㻢㻜㼟㻌㻒㻌㼍㼎㼛㼢㼑㼁㼚㼕㼠㼑㼐㻌㻿㼠㼍㼠㼑㼟

Figure 3. How long do faculty spend on each academic activity(when classes are in session): United States (hours per week)

㻞㻡
㻞㻜
㻝㻡

㼀㼑㼍㼏㼔㼕㼚㼓

㼔㼛㼡㼞㼟㻾㼑㼟㼑㼍㼞㼏㼔

㻝㻜㻭㼐㼙㼕㼚㼕㼟㼠㼞㼍㼠㼕㼛㼚㻡㻿㼑㼞㼢㼕㼏㼑㻌㻒㻌㻻㼠㼔㼑㼞㻜㻞㻜㻙㻟㻜㼟

㻠㻜㼟㻡㻜㼟㻢㻜㼟㻌㻒㻌㼍㼎㼛㼢㼑㻶㼍㼜㼍㼚

Figure 4. How long do faculty spend on each academic activity(when classes are in session): Japan (hours per week)

1-2. How are academic professionals employed?
Academic professionals’ employment contracts with higher education
institutions or governments define their working conditions and, in many cases,
the nature of their work. Figures 5 through 8 show how they are employed ineach of the four countries for the different age cohorts. The questionnaire
identifies five categories to classify employment contracts: permanentlyHideto Fukudome & Naomi Kimoto 139

Page

employed (tenured), continuously employed (no preset term but no guarantee of
permanence), fixed-term employment (but prospects of permanent/continuous
employment, tenure-track), fixed-term employment (without prospects ofpermanent/continuous employment), and other (CAP, A11).

㻜㻑

㻞㻜㻑

㻠㻜㻑

㻢㻜㻑

㻤㻜㻑

㻝㻜㻜㻑

㻼㼑㼞㼙㼍㼚㼑㼚㼠㼘㼥㻌㼑㼙㼜㼘㼛㼥㼑㼐㻌㻔㼠㼑㼚㼡㼞㼑㼐㻕㼍㼓㼑㻌㼏㼛㼔㼛㼞㼠㻳㼑㼞㼙㼍㼚㼥

㻞㻜㻙㻟㻜㼟

㻠㻜㼟㻯㼛㼚㼠㼕㼚㼡㼛㼡㼟㼘㼥㻌㼑㼙㼜㼘㼛㼥㼑㼐㻌㻔㼚㼛㻌㼜㼞㼑㼟㼑㼠㼠㼑㼞㼙㻌㼣㻛㼛㻌㼓㼡㼍㼞㼍㼚㼠㼑㼑㻌㼛㼒㻌㼜㼑㼞㼙㼍㼚㼑㼚㼏㼑㻕㻡㻜㼟㻲㼕㼤㼑㼐㻙㼠㼑㼞㼙㻌㼑㼙㼜㼘㼛㼥㼙㼑㼚㼠㻌㼣㼕㼠㼔㼜㼑㼞㼙㼍㼚㼑㼚㼠㻛㼏㼛㼚㼠㼕㼚㼡㼛㼡㼟㻌㼑㼙㼜㼘㼛㼥㼙㼑㼚㼠㼜㼞㼛㼟㼜㼑㼏㼠㻌㻔㼠㼑㼚㼡㼞㼑㻙㼠㼞㼍㼏㼗㻕㻲㼕㼤㼑㼐㻙㼠㼑㼞㼙㻌㼑㼙㼜㼘㼛㼥㼙㼑㼚㼠㻌㼣㻛㼛㼜㼑㼞㼙㼍㼚㼑㼚㼠㻛㼏㼛㼚㼠㼕㼚㼡㼛㼡㼟㻌㼑㼙㼜㼘㼛㼥㼙㼑㼚㼠㼜㼞㼛㼟㼜㼑㼏㼠
㻻㼠㼔㼑㼞㻢㻜㼟㻌㻒㻌㼍㼎㼛㼢㼑

Figure 5. Nature of employment contract: Germany㻜㻑㼍㼓㼑㻌㼏㼛㼔㼛㼞㼠㼁㼚㼕㼠㼑㼐㻌㻷㼕㼚㼓㼐㼛㼙㻞㻜㻙㻟㻜㼟

㻠㻜㼟

㻡㻜㼟

㻞㻜㻑

㻠㻜㻑

㻢㻜㻑

㻤㻜㻑

㻝㻜㻜㻑

㻼㼑㼞㼙㼍㼚㼑㼚㼠㼘㼥㻌㼑㼙㼜㼘㼛㼥㼑㼐㻌㻔㼠㼑㼚㼡㼞㼑㼐㻕㻯㼛㼚㼠㼕㼚㼡㼛㼡㼟㼘㼥㻌㼑㼙㼜㼘㼛㼥㼑㼐㻌㻔㼚㼛㻌㼜㼞㼑㼟㼑㼠㼠㼑㼞㼙㻌㼣㻛㼛㻌㼓㼡㼍㼞㼍㼚㼠㼑㼑㻌㼛㼒㻌㼜㼑㼞㼙㼍㼚㼑㼚㼏㼑㻕㻲㼕㼤㼑㼐㻙㼠㼑㼞㼙㻌㼑㼙㼜㼘㼛㼥㼙㼑㼚㼠㻌㼣㼕㼠㼔㼜㼑㼞㼙㼍㼚㼑㼚㼠㻛㼏㼛㼚㼠㼕㼚㼡㼛㼡㼟㻌㼑㼙㼜㼘㼛㼥㼙㼑㼚㼠㼜㼞㼛㼟㼜㼑㼏㼠㻌㻔㼠㼑㼚㼡㼞㼑㻙㼠㼞㼍㼏㼗㻕㻲㼕㼤㼑㼐㻙㼠㼑㼞㼙㻌㼑㼙㼜㼘㼛㼥㼙㼑㼚㼠㻌㼣㻛㼛㼜㼑㼞㼙㼍㼚㼑㼚㼠㻛㼏㼛㼚㼠㼕㼚㼡㼛㼡㼟㻌㼑㼙㼜㼘㼛㼥㼙㼑㼚㼠㼜㼞㼛㼟㼜㼑㼏㼠

㻢㻜㼟㻌㻒㻌㼍㼎㼛㼢㼑㻻㼠㼔㼑㼞

Figure 6. Nature of employment contract: United Kingdom

140 Teaching and Research in the Japanese Academic Profession
㻜㻑

㻞㻜㻑

㻠㻜㻑

㻢㻜㻑

㻤㻜㻑

㻝㻜㻜㻑

㻼㼑㼞㼙㼍㼚㼑㼚㼠㼘㼥㻌㼑㼙㼜㼘㼛㼥㼑㼐㻌㻔㼠㼑㼚㼡㼞㼑㼐㻕㻞㻜㻙㻟㻜㼟

㼍㼓㼑㻌㼏㼛㼔㼛㼞㼠㼁㼚㼕㼠㼑㼐㻌㻿㼠㼍㼠㼑㼟Page㻯㼛㼚㼠㼕㼚㼡㼛㼡㼟㼘㼥㻌㼑㼙㼜㼘㼛㼥㼑㼐㻌㻔㼚㼛㻌㼜㼞㼑㼟㼑㼠㼠㼑㼞㼙㻌㼣㻛㼛㻌㼓㼡㼍㼞㼍㼚㼠㼑㼑㻌㼛㼒㻌㼜㼑㼞㼙㼍㼚㼑㼚㼏㼑㻕㻠㻜㼟㻲㼕㼤㼑㼐㻙㼠㼑㼞㼙㻌㼑㼙㼜㼘㼛㼥㼙㼑㼚㼠㻌㼣㼕㼠㼔㼜㼑㼞㼙㼍㼚㼑㼚㼠㻛㼏㼛㼚㼠㼕㼚㼡㼛㼡㼟㻌㼑㼙㼜㼘㼛㼥㼙㼑㼚㼠㼜㼞㼛㼟㼜㼑㼏㼠㻌㻔㼠㼑㼚㼡㼞㼑㻙㼠㼞㼍㼏㼗㻕㻡㻜㼟㻲㼕㼤㼑㼐㻙㼠㼑㼞㼙㻌㼑㼙㼜㼘㼛㼥㼙㼑㼚㼠㻌㼣㻛㼛㼜㼑㼞㼙㼍㼚㼑㼚㼠㻛㼏㼛㼚㼠㼕㼚㼡㼛㼡㼟㻌㼑㼙㼜㼘㼛㼥㼙㼑㼚㼠㼜㼞㼛㼟㼜㼑㼏㼠
㻻㼠㼔㼑㼞㻢㻜㼟㻌㻒㻌㼍㼎㼛㼢㼑

Figure 7. Nature of employment contract: United States㻜㻑㻞㻜㻙㻟㻜㼟

㼍㼓㼑㻌㼏㼛㼔㼛㼞㼠
㻶㼍㼜㼍㼚

㻠㻜㼟

㻡㻜㼟

㻞㻜㻑

㻠㻜㻑

㻢㻜㻑

㻤㻜㻑

㻝㻜㻜㻑

㻼㼑㼞㼙㼍㼚㼑㼚㼠㼘㼥㻌㼑㼙㼜㼘㼛㼥㼑㼐㻌㻔㼠㼑㼚㼡㼞㼑㼐㻕㻯㼛㼚㼠㼕㼚㼡㼛㼡㼟㼘㼥㻌㼑㼙㼜㼘㼛㼥㼑㼐㻌㻔㼚㼛㻌㼜㼞㼑㼟㼑㼠㼠㼑㼞㼙㻌㼣㻛㼛㻌㼓㼡㼍㼞㼍㼚㼠㼑㼑㻌㼛㼒㻌㼜㼑㼞㼙㼍㼚㼑㼚㼏㼑㻕㻲㼕㼤㼑㼐㻙㼠㼑㼞㼙㻌㼑㼙㼜㼘㼛㼥㼙㼑㼚㼠㻌㼣㼕㼠㼔㼜㼑㼞㼙㼍㼚㼑㼚㼠㻛㼏㼛㼚㼠㼕㼚㼡㼛㼡㼟㻌㼑㼙㼜㼘㼛㼥㼙㼑㼚㼠㼜㼞㼛㼟㼜㼑㼏㼠㻌㻔㼠㼑㼚㼡㼞㼑㻙㼠㼞㼍㼏㼗㻕㻲㼕㼤㼑㼐㻙㼠㼑㼞㼙㻌㼑㼙㼜㼘㼛㼥㼙㼑㼚㼠㻌㼣㻛㼛㼜㼑㼞㼙㼍㼚㼑㼚㼠㻛㼏㼛㼚㼠㼕㼚㼡㼛㼡㼟㻌㼑㼙㼜㼘㼛㼥㼙㼑㼚㼠㼜㼞㼛㼟㼜㼑㼏㼠

㻢㻜㼟㻌㻒㻌㼍㼎㼛㼢㼑㻻㼠㼔㼑㼞

Figure 8. Nature of employment contract: JapanIn Germany and US, young members of faculty, particularly those in their
20-30s are employed on fixed-term contracts. In Germany, many are employedon fixed-term contracts with no permanent or continuous employment prospects.
The number who are permanently or continuously employed starts to increase
drastically from their 40s. In the US, many young members of faculty are
employed on fixed-term contracts that do carry permanent or continuous
employment prospects (tenure-track). Tenured appointments start to increase in
number for faculty in their 40s. In UK, more faculty is employed permanently
even in their 20-30s, but again in their 40s the proportion changes with an

Hideto Fukudome & Naomi Kimoto 141

Page

increase in those permanently employed.
In Japan, most faculty are employed permanently or continuously (no preset
term without guarantee of permanence) even in their 20-30s. When we put
these two categories (permanent or continuous employment) together, theproportions among the various types of contract change little with age. Thissituation, that many young members of faculty are contractually employed withthe same status as their middle-aged and senior colleagues, may be a significant
factor in their equal commitment to the same obligations towards teaching andadministration.
Employment systems differ between countries, and it is difficult to comparethem directly. In the above Figures, those who are employed on part-time
contracts are not explicitly excluded because this could tell us something
particular about a country‟s employment system. In Japan, some people,
particularly younger academics, are employed part-time to teach a few courses in
one or more institutions. However, they were not included as respondents in
the CAP survey because they are not recognized as faculty members. In othercountries, some part-time faculty were included. So, caution is needed to theextent that the data do not show the whole picture of academic careers, eventhough they do provide the best available comparison of different employment
statuses in different age cohorts.
What is clear is that Japanese academic professionals‟ working conditions
differ from those of the other three countries. They share the same work
structures regardless of their ages. Many faculty are guaranteed permanent or
at least continuous employment, even at the outset of their careers. It can besaid that the Japanese academic world is a flat and stable system, and does notlend itself to much attention to age when we talk about faculty development.
1-3. Teaching & research compatibility
What do members of faculty think about the relationship of teaching andresearch? This is a critical issue when we discuss the development of academic
capacities. Table 1 shows the proportion of faculty in each of the eighteencountries that participated in the CAP survey that think teaching and research are„hardly‟ compatible. The proportion of those who think the two academic
activities are hardly compatible is highest in Japan. Many factors contribute tothis result, and each country has its own complex contexts, so interpreting theseresults is not simple. However, at least here we are able to perceive someserious problems in terms of the academic work of Japanese faculty.

142 Teaching and Research in the Japanese Academic Profession

Page

Table 1. Proportion of faculty agreeing that teaching and research are hardly
compatible
Japan

50.8%

China

42.6%

inland37.0%

Malaysia

30.5%

Germany

31.1%

Australia

26.3%

Portugal

25.8%

Hong Kong

25.8%

United Kingdom

25.5%South Africa

21.1%

Canada

19.9%

Italy

13.8%

Norway13.8%

Mexico12.5%

United States

12.5%

Korea, Republic of

11.3%

Brazil

6.9%

Argentina

6.3%

Overall average

25.8%

Note: Proportion of faculty strongly agreeing or agreeing with the statement that
“Teaching and research are hardly compatible with each other” (CAP B5,
responses 1 & 2 on 5-point scale from 1, strongly agree, to 5, strongly disagree.

㻣㻜㻑
㻢㻜㻑
㻡㻜㻑
㻠㻜㻑

㻳㼑㼞㼙㼍㼚㼥

㻟㻜㻑

㻶㼍㼜㼍㼚

㻞㻜㻑

㼁㼚㼕㼠㼑㼐㻌㻷㼕㼚㼓㼐㼛㼙㼁㼚㼕㼠㼑㼐㻌㻿㼠㼍㼠㼑㼟㻝㻜㻑㻜㻑㻞㻜㻙㻟㻜㼟

㻠㻜㼟㻡㻜㼟㻢㻜㼟㻌㻒㻌㼍㼎㼛㼢㼑

Figure 9. Proportion of faculty agreeing that teaching and research are
hardly compatible (see footnote to Table 1)

Hideto Fukudome & Naomi Kimoto 143

Page

Figure 9 shows how the proportion of those perceiving incompatibility ofteaching and research varies with age in the four countries. The results indicate
one aspect of the serious conditions afflicting Japanese academic professionals:
it is the youngest faculty that feel the largest difficulty in compatibility. Whilein all four countries it is senior faculty that feel least incompatibility, but thedifferences with young faculty are much smaller than in Japan. In UK and US,
it is those in their 40s that report larger difficulties than those in their 20-30s: we
can guess that this is because, as indicated in Figures 2 and 3, in UK and US
those in their 40s start to have teaching loads greater than those in their 20-30s.
Similarly, in Japan the reason why people in their 20-30s tend to thinkteaching and research hardly compatible is related to their time distribution; thatis, they spend even more time on teaching and research than their older
colleagues.
However, we can view this circumstance from a different perspective.
Though many Japanese faculty experience an onerous situation, requiring great
effort in their careers’ initial stage, once this is overcome, it becomes easier forthem to effectively organize their academic work. Even though the proportionsof the middle-aged and senior faculty in Japan who experience tensions arehigher than those in other countries, the gap is narrower than that for younger
faculty.

㻥㻜㻑
㻤㻜㻑
㻣㻜㻑
㻢㻜㻑
㻳㼑㼞㼙㼍㼚㼥

㻡㻜㻑

㻶㼍㼜㼍㼚

㻠㻜㻑

㼁㼚㼕㼠㼑㼐㻌㻷㼕㼚㼓㼐㼛㼙㻟㻜㻑㼁㼚㼕㼠㼑㼐㻌㻿㼠㼍㼠㼑㼟

㻞㻜㻑
㻝㻜㻑
㻜㻑
㻞㻜㻙㻟㻜㼟

㻠㻜㼟㻡㻜㼟㻢㻜㼟㻌㻒㻌㼍㼎㼛㼢㼑Note: Responses indicating agreement or strong agreement with the statement thatYour research activities reinforce your teaching (CAP, C4, responses 1 & 2 on a
5-point scale from 1, Strongly agree, to 5, Strongly disagree)

Figure 10. Proportion of faculty agreeing that research reinforces teaching144 Teaching and Research in the Japanese Academic Profession

Page

Tension between teaching and research contains at least two elements: theuse of time and the interaction of the subject matter of teaching and research.
Figure 10 shows results for this second factor. It shows that many faculty agree
that their research activities reinforce their teaching and this applies equally in all
four countries and in all age cohorts. Although this relationship is strong inJapan also, the results do not establish whether teaching has an applicable impact
on research. From these results, the tensions that young faculty in Japan
experience carry a greater impact from the use of time than from any gap ofsubjects between teaching and research.
Table 2. Proportions of research-oriented faculty
Norway83.0%

Finland

78.5%

Italy

76.7%

Australia

73.5%

Japan

71.7%

Germany

71.4%

Korea, Republic of

68.0%

Canada67.6%

United Kingdom

67.5%

Hong Kong

63.1%

Portugal

58.9%

Argentina

57.1%

United States

52.1%

Brazil

51.6%

China

49.7%

Mexico49.4%

South Africa

46.2%

Malaysia

46.2%

Overall average

63.3%

Note: Responses to the question “Do your interests lie primarily in teaching or in
research? (CAP B2 responses indicating interests primarily in research or in
both, but leaning towards research)

Table 2 shows the result of a question on the preferences of members offaculty with respect to teaching and research. In answering this question,
respondents are asked to identify their primary interest, as either teaching or
research or both but inclining towards one or the other. When we see the data
in total, Japanese academic professionals‟ preferences towards research isremarkable even though the percentage of research-oriented faculty has dropped
slightly from 72.5%, the response to the same question in 1992, to 71.7% in

Hideto Fukudome & Naomi Kimoto 145

Page2007 (Ehara 1996; Fukudome 2008). However, when the responses areanalyzed by age, it appears that for younger faculty the gap between countries
becomes closer (Figure 11). In all four countries, young faculty are more
research-oriented than middle-aged and senior faculty, and the differencesamong the four countries almost disappear.

㻥㻜㻑
㻤㻜㻑
㻣㻜㻑
㻢㻜㻑
㻳㼑㼞㼙㼍㼚㼥

㻡㻜㻑

㻶㼍㼜㼍㼚

㻠㻜㻑

㼁㼚㼕㼠㼑㼐㻌㻷㼕㼚㼓㼐㼛㼙㻟㻜㻑㼁㼚㼕㼠㼑㼐㻌㻿㼠㼍㼠㼑㼟

㻞㻜㻑
㻝㻜㻑
㻜㻑
㻞㻜㻙㻟㻜㼟

㻠㻜㼟㻡㻜㼟㻢㻜㼟㻌㻒㻌㼍㼎㼛㼢㼑

Figure 11. Proportions of research-oriented faculty (see footnote to Table 2)

㻥㻜㻑
㻤㻜㻑
㻣㻜㻑
㻢㻜㻑
㻳㼑㼞㼙㼍㼚㼥
㻡㻜㻑

㻶㼍㼜㼍㼚

㻠㻜㻑

㼁㼚㼕㼠㼑㼐㻌㻷㼕㼚㼓㼐㼛㼙㻟㻜㻑㼁㼚㼕㼠㼑㼐㻌㻿㼠㼍㼠㼑㼟

㻞㻜㻑
㻝㻜㻑
㻜㻑
㻞㻜㻙㻟㻜㼟

㻠㻜㼟㻡㻜㼟㻢㻜㼟㻌㻒㻌㼍㼎㼛㼢㼑Note: Responses to the question “How would you rate your overall satisfaction withyour current job?” (CAP B6. Answers 1 & 2 on a 5-point scale from 1, very, to 5,
very low)

Figure 12. Overall satisfaction with current job

146 Teaching and Research in the Japanese Academic Profession

Page

1-4. Conclusions
What appears from the analysis was the effects of a critical trade-off
between time distribution and stable employment. In Germany and US, andsomewhat in UK, young faculty spend more time in research than teaching andadministration. However, their employment conditions are not stable, withmany of them on fixed-term contracts though this designation has different
implications among countries to some extent. In Japan, in contrast, it is hardfor younger faculty to devote themselves initially to research as they are required
to spend much time on teaching and administration. This is a consequence of
their contracts, which provide stable employment with guaranteed continuing
positions.
It is difficult to decide which system is better or appropriate for a specificcountry: many social and cultural factors are relevant. However, the analysis
also shows how many academics are satisfied with their current jobs (Figure 12).
The proportion of Japanese faculty who are satisfied is high; in total 68.5% ofthem, the fourth highest in the eighteen countries participating in the CAP survey.
In particular, it may be noted, young faculty are satisfied with their current work.
These results show “overall satisfaction” and do not indicate specificcircumstances such as use-of-time or working schedules; they do though imply
that interpreting the data is not simple. What is revealed in the analysis is thatthe development systems for academic professionals need to accommodate thedifferences between countries, and may best do so by means of diverse models
for faculty development. We should identify appropriate models, identify their
purposes and establish how they work. Then it becomes possible to consider
how best faculty can use them to develop their own capacities.

2. Gender analysis
Introduction
From the Meiji Period to the end of World War II, with very few exceptions,the Imperial University of Japan closed its doors to women. Due to inequalities
in academic opportunities, for more than 60 years, only men were allowed to
conduct teaching and research activities as members of the academic profession.
After the war, most women who took up the academic profession conductedteaching activities in women‟s higher educational institutions, but generally did
not do research. It may be said that women only became fully involved inresearch activities upon the launch of the new postwar university system(Kimoto 2005).

Hideto Fukudome & Naomi Kimoto 147

Page

Although women were allowed to enter universities postwar, there is still aclear gender disparity in the academic profession in the 21st century, and this is
the pressing challenge that gender-related policies must address (Kimoto 2008).
Figure 13 shows the gender distribution of faculty members in Japan. Since the1990s, the number of women members of faculty has been increasing at a fasterrate. However, as shown in Figure 14, the proportion of female researchers islower in Japan than in other countries. Moreover, the tendency for female
students to choose certain academic disciplines leads to disparities among the
distribution of female faculty members among disciplines.

㼥㼑㼍㼞

㻞㻜㻜㻥

㻤㻜㻚㻡

㻝㻥㻚㻡

㻞㻜㻜㻠

㻤㻠㻚㻜

㻝㻢㻚㻜

㻝㻥㻥㻤

㻤㻣㻚㻢

㻝㻞㻚㻠

㻝㻥㻥㻞

㻥㻜㻚㻟

㻥㻚㻣

㻝㻥㻤㻢

㻥㻝㻚㻡

㻤㻚㻡

㻝㻥㻤㻜

㻥㻝㻚㻢

㻤㻚㻠

㻝㻥㻣㻠

㻥㻝㻚㻤

㻤㻚㻞
㻹㼍㼘㼑

㻲㼑㼙㼍㼘㼑

Source: Statistics of Japanese Higher Education 2009

Figure 13. The gender distribution of faculty members in Japan (%)

44.4

Portugal
USA

34.3

Italy

33.3

31.6

FinlandUnited Kingdom

26.0

Australia

25.3

21.4

Germany

Korea

13.1

Japan

13.0
Source: White Paper on Gender Equality 2009

Figure 14. Proportion of woman scientists (%)

148 Teaching and Research in the Japanese Academic ProfessionPage

As notions of the role of gender vary greatly in the context of the culturesand customs of different nations and their differing social structures, it isimportant to conduct international comparisons.
This report uses results from the Changing Academic Profession (CAP)
survey conducted in 2007 with faculty members from 18 countries as its subjects.
The survey provides data for a gender-based comparative analysis 1 of faculty
members‟ activities and opinions on teaching and research activities, thus
clarifying the unique characteristics of and challenges to the Japanese academic
profession with reference to gender.

Finland

USA
***

China
***

Japan

2-1. Preferences regarding teaching and research
A 1992 survey, using the Japanese version of the “Carnegie International
Survey of the Academic Profession”, clarified one key issue: the interest ofJapanese faculties is oriented more toward research activities than teachingactivities. However, a significant difference was found between males andfemales (p < 0.001): males are oriented more toward research activities thanfemales.

Male

27.6

72.4

Female

32.5

67.5

40.1

Male

59.9
67.7

Female

32.3

42.3

Male

57.7

53.7

FemaleTeaching or both but
inclined to teaching
Research or both but
inclined to research

46.2

Male

21.7

78.3

Female26.2

73.8

Note: The following symbolism is used in this and subsequent Tables: *** p<0.001, **p<0.01, * p<0.05

Figure 15. Preferences regarding teaching and research

1

In this analysis, we only use the data for full-time faculty members.

Hideto Fukudome & Naomi Kimoto 149

Page

Results from the 2007 CAP survey for Japan, China, the USA, and Finland
are shown in Figure 15. In China and the USA, males showed a stronger
preference for research than females, while females were more interested inteaching than research (p < 0.001). However, no significant difference wasobserved between females and males in Japan and Finland, where both males
and females were found to show a strong preference for research (males: 72.4%,
females: 67.5%). The two surveys conducted in 1992 and 2007 indicate that in
the past 15 years, Japanese females have been showing an increasing interest in
research.
2-2. Teaching and research activities
Comparison of use of time
To investigate preferences regarding teaching and research activities, theproportions of time spent per week on professional activities both for periods
when classes were in session and periods when classes were not in session are
shown in Figures 16 and 17. A significant difference is found between males
and females regarding the proportions of time allotted during periods whenclasses are in session in China (p < 0.01), Japan (p < 0.001), and Finland (p <0.001). As shown in Figure 15, the interests of females are closely similar to
those of males in Japan and Finland and oriented toward research rather thanteaching. However, women in all countries allot more time to teachingactivities than men during periods when classes were in session (Figure 16).
Relative to the proportion of time spent by male faculty on teaching, that spent
by Japanese and Chinese female faculty is highest. A significant difference
between males and females regarding the proportion of time allotted to research
was found only in China (p < =0.001).
On the other hand, teaching activities decrease in all four countries during
periods when classes are not in session, and the proportion of time spent on
research activities increases (Figure 17). This increase is the highest among
Japanese women, for whom the percentage rose by 31.7 percentage points overthe figure for periods when classes were in session (26.1%). When theseresults are compared with those for preferences regarding teaching and research,a number of aspects regarding the Japanese academic profession become clear.
First, during the 15-year period between 1992 and 2007, the interests ofwomen members of faculty increased more in research than teaching. Second,
while women faculty continued to spend more time than men on teachingactivities during periods when classes were in session, when classes were not insession women devoted more time to research than men. In recent years,

150 Teaching and Research in the Japanese Academic Profession

Page

Finland

USA

China

Japan

Japanese women faculty have come to hold more interest in research thanteaching, but as they are occupied with teaching activities during periods whenclasses are in session, they are not able to devote as much time as they would
wish to research. In order to fill this gap, they devote a substantially greater
amount of time to research during periods when classes are not in session, thusachieving a balance between teaching and research activities.

38.7

Male

33.4

49.8

Female

42.2

Male

27.9
26.1

24.1

36.9

20.9

54.2

Female

29.3

37.8

Male

31.7

30.5

23.9

32.6

43.5

Female

33.6

Male

41.0

41.1

Female020

16.5

Research
Others

25.4
41.5

40

Teaching

60

17.4
80

100 %

Finland

USA

China

Japan

Figure 16. Proportions of time spent per week on professional activities(periods when classes are in session)(%)

Male

18.2

54.8

27.0

Female

18.6

57.8

23.5

Male

15.7

52.4

32.0

Female

16.7

49.1

34.2

Male

12.0

56.1

31.8

Research

Female

15.6

48.5

35.9

OthersMale

13.9

Female

16.1
0

60.5

25.5

66.5
20

40

Teaching

17.4
60

80

100 %

Figure 17. Proportions of time spent per week on professional activities(periods when classes are not in session)(%)

Hideto Fukudome & Naomi Kimoto 151

Page

Results of research activity
Next, the study examined research productivity among the Japanese
academic profession. The proportion2 of academic papers based upon research
activities from the past three years is displayed according to gender in Figure 18.
This clarifies three points. First, faculty with 1-5 publications constitute thelargest proportion for both men and women. Second, in total, men publish alarger amount of written research results than women (p < 0.001). Third, theproportion of women who had produced no publications in the past three years
fell from 29.3% in 1992 to 23.3% in 2007.
%
60
2007 Male

50

2007 Female
40

1992 Male
1992 Female

30
20
10
0
0

1-5

6-10

11-15

16-20

21-25

26-

Figure 18. Papers published in an academic book or journal in theprevious 3 years

Since research activities include both individual and collaborative research,both with differing costs and rates of productivity, it is necessary to confirm thetype of research activity. The results are shown in Table 3. While the type ofactivity may vary based on the discipline, approximately 50% of studies wereconducted by one individual in the case of both Japanese men and womenfaculty. Approximately 60% of men and women alike engage in collaborative
research: in China, US, and Finland, a higher proportion of research was
performed collaboratively. Finland and US had particularly large amounts ofdomestic collaborative research activity. In Finland, the extent of international
collaborative studies was also high. Neither men nor women faculty in China
and Japan were particularly active in collaborative studies with foreign
researchers, with women even less active collaborators than men.
2
Research activities also include conference presentations and writing academic books, buthere this refers only to the number of academic papers.

152 Teaching and Research in the Japanese Academic Profession

Page

In recent years, Japanese higher education policy has encouraged thecompetitive acquisition of outside funding by universities and members offaculty, and the academic profession has been subject to a certain amount ofpressure regarding the acquisition of these funds. The CAP survey asked
respondents whether or not the pressure to acquire outside funding had increased
since their first appointment. The results are shown in Figure 19. Japanesewomen registered the most extensive pressure (54.8%). Consequences of thestrong commitment of Japanese women faculty are the emphases they have toplace on acquiring outside funds and raising their research productivity. The
gap between aspiration and reality regarding both teaching and research
activities seems to cause substantial psychological stress for women.
Table 3. Collaboration in research㻯㼛㼡㼚㼠㼞㼥 㻳㼑㼚㼐㼑㼞 㻵㼚㼐㼑㼜㼑㼚㼐㼑㼚㼠㻯㼛㼘㼘㼍㼎㼛㼞㼍㼠㼕㼛㼚㼞㼑㼟㼑㼍㼞㼏㼔

㻹㼍㼘㼑㻲㼑㼙㼍㼘㼑
㻹㼍㼘㼑㻲㼑㼙㼍㼘㼑
㻹㼍㼘㼑㻲㼑㼙㼍㼘㼑
㻹㼍㼘㼑㻲㼑㼙㼍㼘㼑

㻢㻝㻚㻥
㻡㻥㻚㻜
㻣㻡㻚㻞
㻣㻠㻚㻜
㻤㻠㻚㻡
㻣㻥㻚㻟
㻥㻜㻚㻤
㻤㻢㻚㻜

㻶㼍㼜㼍㼚
㻯㼔㼕㼚㼍
㼁㻿㻭
㻲㼕㼚㼘㼍㼚㼐

㻡㻝㻚㻜
㻡㻠㻚㻣
㻣㻝㻚㻞
㻢㻠㻚㻢
㻣㻟㻚㻠
㻣㻞㻚㻠
㻝㻟㻚㻤
㻝㻣㻚㻤

㻖㻖㻖

㻔㻑㻕
㻯㼛㼘㼘㼍㼎㼛㼞㼍㼠㼕㼛㼚㼋㼕㼟㼕㼚㼠㼑㼞㼚㼍㼠㼕㼛㼚㼍㼘㻯㼛㼘㼘㼍㼎㼛㼞㼍㼠㼕㼛㼚㼋㼕㼟㼐㼛㼙㼑㼟㼠㼕㼏
㻡㻞㻚㻜
㻠㻣㻚㻥
㻠㻜㻚㻡
㻟㻞㻚㻟
㻢㻤㻚㻥
㻢㻜㻚㻥
㻣㻠㻚㻢
㻢㻣㻚㻣

㻖

㻞㻠㻚㻡
㻝㻣㻚㻝
㻝㻢㻚㻟
㻥㻚㻞
㻠㻝㻚㻥
㻟㻠㻚㻡
㻣㻢㻚㻤
㻢㻥㻚㻟

㻖㻖㻖
㻖
㻖㻖

㻖
㻖㻖㻖
㻖
㻖㻖

Finland

USA

China

Japan

Note: CAP, D1. “How would you characterize your research efforts undertaken during this(or the previous) academic year?.” (Yes or No)

38.9

Male

40.7
54.8

FemaleMale

32.0

Female

31.1

27.0

28.7

30.2

27.8

2.8
2.1

15.7 0.0
2.6

25.2

24.0

42.2

Male

15.4

9.0 5.0

Strongly agree

8.4 6.4

Somewhat agree

19.0

5.9 5.1

Female51.5

26.0

12.2 2.7 7.6

Male

48.9

29.6

14.3

4.82.5

Female

51.7

25.6

18.0

2.6
2.0

0

20

40

60

80

NeutralSomewhat disagree
Strongly disagree

100 %Figure 19. The pressure to raise external research funds has increased
since my first appointment

Hideto Fukudome & Naomi Kimoto 153

Page

2-3. Compatibility of teaching and research
Teaching and research activities are essential tasks for the academic
profession, but compatibility between them presents problems. Answers to thestatement, “Teaching and research are hardly compatible with each other.” areshown in Table 4. While overall more faculty disagreed than agreed with thestatement, a significant difference was found between men and women in all
four of the quoted countries. A higher proportion of women than men
responded that compatibility between teaching and research was hardly possible.
While more women than men agreed with the statement, only in Japan is it by alarge majority, 65.5%, that women faculty agreed with the statement.
Also, as seen in Figure 16 and Figure 17, Chinese women, who take astrong interest in teaching and allot most of their time to teaching activities, andAmerican women, who also seem to be strongly oriented toward teaching, bothsense more difficulties in the compatibility of teaching and research than do men
faculty in their countries. A strong interest in teaching does not permit them toneglect research activities.
Table 4. Compatibility of teaching and research
(%)
Male

FemaleStrongly agreeorSomewhat agree

NeutralStrongly disagreeorSomewhatdisagreeStrongly agreeorSomewhat agree

NeutralStrongly disagreeorSomewhatdisagree

Japan

49.6

20.5

29.8

65.5

16.8

17.7

**

China

41.3

28.0

30.7

45.0

27.2

27.8

*

Country

USA

9.8

18.1

72.0

17.1

21.9

60.9

**

Finland

33.0

27.6

39.3

43.3

28.4

28.4

***

Overall average(18 countries)

25.8

20.8

53.5

28.0

21.7

50.3

***

Note: CAP, B5. “Please indicate your views on the statement “Teaching and research are hardly
compatible with each other.” (5-point scale from Strongly agree to Strongly disagree)

2-4 Job satisfaction
The results of the CAP survey indicate that, overall, two-thirds of facultyinternationally are satisfied with their current jobs (Table 5). Equally, theproportions of those dissatisfied with their jobs are small averaging about 10%
for both men and women. However, when we turn to Japan, the level ofdissatisfaction among women is about double the international average at 20.2%
and the highest overall. The difference between women and men (12.8%) was
7.4 points, and proportionally 1.6 times more women than men were dissatisfied.

154 Teaching and Research in the Japanese Academic Profession

Page

This clear difference in perception among men and women clearly indicates thatwhile equality between men and women is formally assured, it would seem thatin practice, there are areas in which this has yet to be achieved.
Table 5. Overall job satisfaction
Male

(%)
FemaleVery highVery loworor
Somewhat
Somewhat low
highVery highorSomewhathighVery loworSomewhat low

Japan

69.0

12.8

62.2

20.2

China

60.3

13.4

54.7

16.7

USA

63.1

10.0

62.1

11.4

Finland

71.3

8.5

66.7

7.6

66.9

9.2

60.7

10.2

CountryTotal(18 countries)

**

***

Note: CAP, B6. “How would you rate your overall satisfaction with your current job?”(5-point scale from Very high to Very low)

2-5. Conclusions
The results of the comparative analyses regarding teaching, research andjob satisfaction in the Japanese academic profession reveal a number ofgender-based differences.
(1) When results from surveys in 1992 and 2007 were compared, it wasapparent that men continued to be more interested in research thanteaching; over this period though, women, on the other hand, showed amuch increased interest in research.
(2) During periods when classes are scheduled, women spent more time onteaching activities than men, but during periods when classes are notscheduled, they spent more time on research activities than men.
(3) Men remain more productive than women with regard to publication ofresearch papers (p < 0.001).
(4) Women became more active in publishing research results as academic
papers in the 15-year period between 1992 and 2007.
(5) Japanese female faculty members have not formed collaborative research
networks abroad.
(6) In common with women faculty in other countries, Japanese womensensed more difficulty in the compatibility of teaching and research thanmen, but in Japan the difficulty was perceived to be greater thanelsewhereHideto Fukudome & Naomi Kimoto 155

Page(7) More women than men felt dissatisfied with their current jobs as
academic professionals.

SwedenFranceUSA

Republicof KoreaJapan

The CAP survey demonstrates that in recent years, women’s interest in
research has risen to the same extent as that of men and that they are putting
forth effort to increase research productivity. However, questions remain.
Hitherto, internal institutional concerns have been treated as the primaryfactors influencing teaching and research in the academic profession, yet the roleof family environments and social expectations on the academic profession are
also believed to be factors that affect teaching and research. In Japan especially,
gender disparities exist within the context of social roles.
Responses from five countries to the statement that “The husband should
work outside the home and the woman should keep the house,” a survey item inthe 2006 “International Opinion Poll Regarding Aging Societies” conducted by
the Cabinet Office, are presented in Figure 20.

Male

11.8

Female

10.6

47.5

44.8

20.3

Male

32.3

24.4

10.2 6.2

29

11.2 4.4

22.4

22.6

2.4

Agree
Somewhat agree

Female

15.6

28.8

24.8

28.5

2.3

Male

16.3

27.3

22.5

31.8

2.1

Female

13.8

28.8

Male

6.7

21.5

Female7.2

16.2

Male 0.4 8.5
Female 1.37.1

20.8

14.1

16.5

33.3
32.3

38.4

2.5

35.6

3

41.7
69.5

76.9

Somewhat disagree
DisagreeDon't know

2.6
0.8

0.6

Source: White Paper on Gender Equality 2009

Figure 20. Responses to the statement, “The husband should work outside thehome and the woman should keep the house”

Among the responses from Japan, “Somewhat disagree” and “Disagree”
together comprise 34.6% of responses by men and 40.2% of responses by
women, the lowest of any country. It can be said that, unlike the West, genderequality in Japan is still a work in progress.
Although Japanese men, broadly speaking, spend most of their time in any
given day on either work or leisure, women often also assume responsibility for156 Teaching and Research in the Japanese Academic Profession

Pagehousework and childcare. This is one reason why many women sense a
dilemma in their academic work and are dissatisfied with the academic
profession. There are limits to the notion that women should emulate theworking style of males. Elimination of this cause of professional inequality
requires social evolution to the extent of equality in the domestic and community
roles of both men and women. In particular, increasing the proportion of
women involved in the academic profession and creating a fair relationshipbetween men and women as academic professionals depends not only upon thetreatment of women in the academic marketplace, but also upon norms regarding
household gender roles.
The number of female respondents in the sample used in the CAP study
cannot be said to be sufficient (Table 6), and there would perhaps be arguments
against generalizing the results of this quantitative analysis. Additionally, thereis the problem that the sample was not controlled for either the Carnegie
university classification of universities or for academic disciplines. However,
the gender disparity in the academic profession is a pressing international
problem, not one that affects Japan alone. It must be hoped that those involved
in higher education will continue to pursue research in this area.
Table４
Gender distrebutionof university
Table 6. Gender
distributionof university
faculty, CAP survey 2007
faculty by CAP survey 2007
Country
Japan
China
USA
Finland
Total(%)（N）

Male(%) Female(%)
91.1
8.9
63.4
36.6
57.9
42.1
55.1
44.9
64.0
36.0
10,607
5,959

Total（N）
1,377
2,826
791
888
***
16,566

References
Cabinet Office. (2009). White Paper on Gender Equality. Tokyo: Cabinet Office.

Ehara, T. (1996). Dilemma between Teaching and Research. In A. Arimoto, & T. Ehara (eds),
International Comparison of Academic Professions (pp.147-165). Tokyo: Tamagawa
University Press. (in Japanese)

Fukudome, H. (2008). Tension between Research and Teaching, In A. Arimoto (ed.), The
Changing Academic Profession in Japan (pp.263-279), Tokyo: Tamagawa University

Press. (in Japanese)Hideto Fukudome & Naomi Kimoto 157

Page

Kimoto, N. (2005). The Process of Institutionalization of Home Economics in Japan：Focusing
on the Characteristics of Academic Development. Japanese Journal of Higher Education

Research, 8, 205-224. (in Japanese)

Kimoto, N. (2008). Gender Bias. In A. Arimoto (Ed.), The Changing Academic Profession in
Japan (pp.123-142). Tokyo: Tamagawa University Press. (in Japanese)

MEXT. (2009). School Basic Statistics: 2009. Tokyo: MEXT.

158

159
RIHE International Seminar Reports, No.15, 2010 Page

Presenting Malaysian Academics to the World:what‟s holding us back?
Ahmad Nurulazam Md Zain, Munir Shuib
and Melissa Ng Lee Yen Abdullah***Introduction
This paper will look at the core activities of Malaysian academics based on
the Malaysia Changing Academic Profession (CAP) 2006-2007 survey.
Academics worldwide have roles to play in their institutions as well as in thedisciplines they are trained in and this is also true for Malaysian academics.
They are expected to be able to carry out a range of tasks in their academic
activities. These include their core activities of research, teaching andadministration. For some academics, they form a long list of activities (Lea &Stierer, 2009) that may not necessarily be academic in nature but are focusedmore on engaging themselves with community services. Arguably, from thevery limited available time that they have, Malaysian academics need to focus
and concentrate on both academic and non-academic related activities. It isargued here that because of this situation, research and publications havesuffered in no small way. The problem is compounded by a general lack ofcompetence in the English language, which limits international exposure andpublication possibilities in international refereed journals.
Furthermore,
Malaysian academics need to demonstrate outstanding contribution in thefollowing categories in order to be promoted to associate professor and full
professor: publication, research, teaching, academic recognition, service to the
Associate Professor, National Higher Education Research Institute (IPPTN) and School of
Educational Studies, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Penang, Malaysia, e-mail: anmz@usm.myAssociate Professor, IPPTN, School of Humanities, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Penang,
Malaysia, e-mail: munir@usm.my***
Senior Lecturer, IPPTN and School of Educational Studies, Universiti Sains Malaysia,
Penang, Malaysia, e-mail: melissa@usm.my160 Presenting Malaysian Academics to the World

Page

university and the community. However, some academics have preference or
inclination to perform better in one activity than others. For example, someacademics have shown ability in administration and thus have been appointed asadministrators in fulfilling their careers as academics.
Administrators in universities have a wide array of roles to play. They
need to look after the well-being of the institutions, deal with academic andnon-academic staff, and monitor resources and activities such as obtaining
funding and support from various parties both internal and external to theinstitutions. Moreover, administrators need to be able to motivate staff andcommunicate with them; create an appropriate working environment, plan
strategically for the institutions by interpreting the current scenarios and also by
lobbying the government for extra funding especially with the recent financial
crisis that has crippled the world economy.
Furthermore, higher education institutions in Malaysia have been underpressure to increase intake from both local and international students and at thesame time to improve the quality to conform to international standards (Morshidi,2008). Higher education institutions in Malaysia are also undergoing rapidchange due to the combined effects of internationalization of higher education,
the Malaysian Qualification Framework to ensure quality, and pressures to lower
costs. Thus, administrators in Malaysia have been placed in a very challenging
working environment that requires not only commitment but also passion asadministrators and managers in the institutions.
Some academics in Malaysia have shown their passion towards teaching.
They will spend many hours preparing for and updating materials to be used intheir teaching.
Students have enjoyed their teaching because of theircommitment to it. In other words, they have shown teaching excellence.
However, this group of lecturers is normally not rewarded accordingly. Their
extra effort in teaching means they are sacrificing their chances of promotion.
This suggests a lack of parity of teaching roles in relation to administrative andresearch roles (Hannon & Silver, 2000). Perhaps, this also manifests the low
status of teaching as compared to research and administrative roles. However
Gibbs (1995) found that 12% of promotions were being made on the basis ofexcellence in teaching while 38% of institutions made no such promotions.
Malaysian academics who excel in research are rewarded accordingly andto some extent a few who achieve excellence in research have been promoted tofull professorships at a young age. However, many academics are notcompetent to write in the English language and this hinders their ability to
publish articles in refereed international journals. Only a small proportion −Ahmad Nurulazam Md Zain et al. 161

Page

and these mostly senior academics − has sufficient flair and confidence inwriting research articles in English and in applying for international research
grants. As a result, Malaysian academics in general have limited exposure in
the international arena. This poses a major challenge to raising the research
activities and output of academics in the international scene.
This paper thus will look into all these three main activities of academics.
Based on the evidence captured from the CAP survey, the authors have chosen to
consider the following categories of Malaysian academics: researchers, teachers,
and administrators or managers. In short, this paper will highlight the
involvement of Malaysian academics in and their inclination towards all these
activities.
To do so, answers to the following questions will be sought.
・ To what extent do Malaysian academics spend time on research, teaching
and administrative activities?
・ What are Malaysian academics‟ inclinations in terms of teaching andresearch?
・ What are Malaysian academics‟ views on scholarship, teaching andresearch?

Methodology
This article is based on a study that looks at the changes in the academic
profession worldwide. Altogether 22 countries were involved in this study
using a common research methodology making it possible for cross-national
comparisons. Nevertheless, some degree of flexibility is built into the survey
design to accommodate the distinctive differences that exist between nations.
The questionnaire comprises six sections capturing issues such as thegeneral work situation and environment, teaching, research, professional career
history and personal information. The items used were agreed upon by all the
22 countries taking part in this global study but included minor modifications for
the Malaysian context. In Malaysia, the questionnaire was developed in two
languages: English and bahasa Malaysia, the Malaysian national language, byusing a back-to-back translation technique. The two sets of questionnaire werepilot tested in one public higher education institution in the country before they
were distributed to the various higher education institutions.
Academics serving in higher education institutions (HEIs) in Malaysia form
the target population of the study. All the HEIs selected offer education atdegree level and above. Most are classified as universities with a few as162 Presenting Malaysian Academics to the World

Page

university colleges by the Ministry of Higher Education. At the time of study,
there were 18 public HEIs and 16 private HEIs. However in this study, only 17
public HEIs and 9 private HEIs were selected. The others were excluded asthey were only recently established and thus lacking the required data.
Secondary data pertaining to the number of academics, classified by theiracademic rank as well as their discipline were then identified based on input
from the participating HEIs as well as from the Ministry of Higher Education.
This exercise was able to identify a total of 13,546 academics serving in the
HEIs.
The effective sample size which was agreed upon by the coordinating bodyof the study is 800 respondents. To achieve the effective sample size, a grosssample of 4,000 respondents was required targeting a 40% response rate. This
number was then distributed proportionately in terms of academic rank anddiscipline within each HEI, as displayed in Table 1. To obtain the final numberof respondents within each cell at each HEI, a systematic random sampling
design with a single random start was employed.
Table 1. Sample sizes (by discipline, academic rank and type of institution)
SAMPLESIZE
DISCIPLINE

Public HEIs

Private HEIs
Lecturer&others

Lecturer&othersTOTAL

Professor

Associate
Professor

Professor

Associate
Professor

Medical

66

96

363

14

17

38

594

Engineering

61

139

628

10

22

106

966

Science

105

239

773

4

22

70

1,213

Arts

78

176

930

3

19

135

1,341

TOTAL

310

650

2,694

31

80

349

4,114

Lecturer&others

TOTAL

17

91

Table 2. Final sample (responses)
SAMPLESIZE
DISCIPLINE
MedicalPublic HEIs

Private HEIs

Professor

Associate
Professor

Lecturer&othersProfessor

Associate
Professor

13

17

41

1

2

Engineering

6

34

127

4

20

79

270

Science

25

34

100

4

6

54

223

Arts

12

43

231

2

7

94

389

TOTAL

56

128

499

11

35

244

973

Ahmad Nurulazam Md Zain et al. 163

Page

A total of 1,176 academics responded. However 203 of them did not
identify one of the three designated categories and were therefore excluded.
Table 2 shows the composition of the final sample.
The total number of responses was 1,176 giving a response rate of 28.6%,
whilst the response rate for each of the cells in the above categorization varies
from a low of 8.2% for engineering professors in public HEIs to a high of 95.5%
for associate professors of engineering in private HEIs. The overall response
rate (that could be categorized) was 23.7%, which represents a higher percentage
than is typical of most surveys in Malaysia.
To conduct the survey, the Ministry of Higher Education informed theparticipating HEIs of the impending survey. A resident official in each of theparticipating HEIs was appointed as the project field official (some of them weremembers of the project team) and remunerated accordingly. These officials
were invited to a one-day workshop that provided briefing of the rationale of thestudy, the content of the questionnaire, the identification of the respondents, thedata collection procedure and other administrative matters related to the
distribution and collection of the questionnaires. A two-month period wasscheduled for the purposes of data collection.
In addition to the questionnaire the Malaysian team employed focus groupinterviews in order to obtain more comprehensive and in-depth data and as a way
to support and triangulate the findings from the quantitative survey. In thisregard, Silverman (2000, p.50) states using multiple methods in a research
design helps to “give a fuller picture and addresses many different aspects ofphenomena”.
The interviewees comprising academics from public and private HEIs in
Malaysia were divided into two groups. One group comprising 11 academics
discussed issues pertaining to work situations, whereas the other, comprising 15
academics, discussed issues pertaining to teaching and research.
The
interviews lasted for about two hours. All of the academics gave permission toaudio-record the interviews. The researchers transcribed the recordings andthen performed content analysis to provide detailed descriptions. Findings
based on the focus group interviews were able to confirm and enrich findings
from the survey.

Results and discussion
Time spent by Malaysian academics on academic activities
Academics are required to perform various academic activities.

The major

164 Presenting Malaysian Academics to the World

Page

ones are teaching, research, administration and service. The study reveals thatmost academics spend less than 10 hours per week on each of these activities
both when classes are in session and when classes are not in session. The only
exception is teaching. A majority, it was found, spend between 11-20 hours per
week performing teaching activities when classes are in session; when classes
are not in session, as in other academic activities, the majority of academics ofall ranks spend less than 10 hours per week on teaching. This confirms that
academics in Malaysia engage in various academic activities throughout theacademic year, regardless of their academic rank.
When the results are converted to means, a clearer pattern as to the amountof time spent for each academic activity emerges, as shown in Table 3.
Table 3. Time spent on academic activities (hours per week)
ACTIVITY
Teaching

In session

Not in session

Mean (sd.)

Mean (sd.)

18.74 (11.51)

10.05 (8.96)

Research

8.87 (7.28)

14.00 (11.64)

Administration

8.16 (7.59)

10.07 (9.50)

Service4.76 (6.12)

5.57 (7.23)

Other academic activities

4.14 (4.66)

4.85 (5.26)

The table reveals that teaching is the dominant function in Malaysian
universities, followed by research, administration, service and other academic
activities. However, when classes are not in session, more hours are spent on
research and other academic activities. It is interesting to note that even whenclasses are not in session, academics still spend time on teaching work (meanhours spent: 10.05).
The study also made comparisons between academics in public universities
and private universities regarding the time spent on the various academic
activities. The study found no significant difference between academics in the
two types of universities. In both public and private universities, when classes
are in session, a majority of academics spends less than 10 hours on each of thevarious activities, except for teaching on which a majority in both types spends
between 11-20 hours per week. Interestingly, when classes are not in session, amajority in both types of universities still spend less than 10 hours on each of thevarious academic activities, though the proportions in both types of universities
who spend less than 10 hours per week on each of the various activities
decreases a little.

Ahmad Nurulazam Md Zain et al. 165

Page

The study also compared respondents from research (RU) and non-research
universities (non-RU). It was found that there is no significant difference
between the academics from RU and those from non- RU either when classes areor are not in session. When classes are in session, majorities in both RUs andnon-RUs spend less than 10 hours per week on each of the various activities,
except for teaching on which majorities spend between 10-20 hours per week.
When classes are not in session, interestingly majorities in both RUs andnon-RUs still spend less than 10 hours per week on each of the various activities.
This appears to show that RU status does not necessarily mean greater
expenditure of time on research. It also shows that, despite having the status of
RUs, teaching is still a dominant activity.
To shed some light on the quantitative findings, researchers in the study
conducted focus group interviews involving academics from various universities
in Malaysia. The participants were generally in agreement that their teaching
workload is high although they are also expected to perform other academic
activities. One of the participants, for instance reported that there is no break
between teaching and non-teaching sessions for the medical faculty in her
university as the staff have to teach students who need to repeat courses. In
addition, it was mentioned besides the “tri-semester” system, some universities
are conducting in-between-semester sessions to accommodate graduating
students who have failed in some of the courses and where they are given achance to repeat the course. Some participants also indicated that they had toteach over weekends, a seven-day working schedule for them, and at times theteaching schedule extends from 8 am to 11 pm. The heavy workload, it was
mentioned, is much worse for young lecturers as they end up spending a lot of
their working time preparing lecture notes, leaving very little time for otheracademic activities.
A related issue worth mentioning is whether academics who excel in
different academics activities should be accorded different routes to or criteria
for promotion. Those who excel in teaching may not necessarily excel in
research and vice versa; those who excel in administration may not necessarily
excel in teaching or other academic activities. Accordingly, some of theinterviewed respondents believed that those who excel in teaching should be
appointed as teaching professors. This then, raises the issue as to whether
positions like „research professor‟, „admin professor‟ and so forth should also becreated.

166 Presenting Malaysian Academics to the World

Page

Malaysian academics’ inclination to teaching and research
Table 4 shows the distribution of academics preferences in teaching or
research according to rank and in total. Most of the academics (89%) can be
categorized as having preferences for both teaching and research but leaning
more towards teaching rather than research. The following excerpt from thefocus group interview identifies the background to this.
“Actually what is important is promotion. Whether we work in a new
university, or an old university, you have to do supervision, researchand publication. If all you do is teach then you would not bepromoted”.
Table 4. Academics preferences in teaching or in research according toacademic rank
Item

Professor

Academic Rank
Senior
Associate
Professor
Lecturer

Lecturer

Overallprimarily in teaching

1 (1.4%)

12 (6.9%)

14 (7.3%)

65 (10%)92 (8.4%)

In both, but leaning
towards teaching

24 (33.8%)

78 (44.6%)

91 (47.2%)

319 (48.9%) 512 (46.9%)

In both, but leaning
towards research

45 (63.4%)

80 (45.7%)

82 (42.5%)

253 (38.7%) 460 (42.1%)

primarily in research

1 (1.4%)5 (3.1%)6 (3.1%)

16 (2.5%)

28 (2.6%)

However, the table shows that the pattern is dependent on academic rank:
professors and associate professors preferred both teaching and research but leanmore toward research. This can be partly explained by constraints on otheracademics:“I think it quite different with professors. But I think for most of thelecturers, juniors, and junior staffs are struggling. They spend a lot oftime making notes”.
In other words, junior academics had less time for research because theyspent more time on the preparation of their teaching: senior academics havebeen teaching for many years and do not need to spend so much time preparing
lectures and tutorials. Thus, senior academics have more time to conduct
research and leaned more toward research instead of teaching as their preference.

Ahmad Nurulazam Md Zain et al. 167

Page

Very few of the academics (2.6%) considered research as their primary
preference as compared to teaching (8.4%). This reflects the view that
academics see teaching more as their main task compared to research.

Malaysian academics’ views on scholarship, teaching and research
Table 5 shows Malaysian academics‟ views on scholarship, teaching andresearch according to academic rank. Responses to the statements were sought
over a range of from 1 to 5 points (strongly agree, 1; strongly disagree, 5).
Table 5. Academics’ views on scholarship, teaching and research
Academic Rank
Item

Associate

SeniorProfessor

Lecturer

1.78

1.96

2.02

2.00

1.81

1.82

1.95

1.89

1.94

2.07

2.10

2.07

3.97

4.14

4.03

3.92

5. If I had it to do over again, I would not
become an academic.

4.36

4.15

4.24

4.15

6. My job is a source of considerable
personal strain.

3.75

3.58

3.53

3.47

7. Teaching and research are hardly
compatible with each other.

4.03

3.45

3.38

3.06

1. Scholarship is best defined as the
preparation and presentation of findingson original research.
2. Scholarship includes the application ofacademic knowledge in real-life settings.
3. Scholarship includes the preparation ofreports that synthesize the major trends
and findings of my field.
4. This is a poor time for any young person
to begin an academic career in my field.

Professor

Lecturer

8. Faculty in my discipline has aprofessional obligation to apply their
2.16
2.25
2.23
2.28
knowledge to problems in society.
Note: The responses for assistant professors were excluded from this analysis as the sample
size was too small (n=2).
Responses might range from (1) strongly agree to (5) strongly disagree. Items 4, 5, 6, 7
were negative items.

168 Presenting Malaysian Academics to the WorldPage

The first three items in Table 5 gauge academics‟ understanding of thedefinition and scope of scholarship. As expected professors, as the mostscholarly recognized academics have the strongest view (mean, 1.78) thatscholarship is best defined as the preparation and presentation of findings on
original research, more than associate professors (1.96), senior lecturers (2.02)
and lecturers (2.00). Accordingly professors were also found to be more
inclined to believe that scholarship includes application of academic knowledge
in real-life settings (mean, 1.81) and preparation of reports that synthesize themajor trends and findings of their respective fields (1.94) compared to otheracademics. Generally, all the mean scores inclined towards agreement, which
implies a consensus among academics about the definition and scope ofscholarship regardless of their rank. In other words, Malaysian academics seemto have clear understanding of the meaning of scholarship and what constitutes
it.
Items 4, 5, and 6 are concerned with job satisfaction: in each case amajority of responses rejected the negative assertions in the statements.
Academics‟ views on the current prospects for a young person beginning an
academic career (item 4) attracted the lowest mean score (3.92) from lecturers as
the most junior academics but a slightly stronger rejection from the more senioracademics. Similarly, while lecturers reject the statements “If I had it to doover again, I would not become an academic” (item 5) (mean, 4.15) and “My job
is a source of considerable personal strain” (item 6) (mean 3.47) they do soslightly less firmly than more senior academics. The findings suggest that
lecturers, who are young in academic experience, were slightly less positive
about their academic career prospects and career choice and tend to perceive
their job as a source of personal strain more than other higher ranked academics.
Nevertheless, all the mean scores were well above the mid-score of 3 (in thefive-point Likert scale) indicating that academics generally disagree that this is apoor time for young people to begin an academic career, that they would still
become academics if had to do over again and that they do not perceive it as a
stressful job.
Table 5 shows that on average lecturers have a close to neutral view (mean
3.06) about the compatibility between teaching and research. They seem toaccept that teaching and research could be mutually exclusive and contradictory.
This is possibly due to the uncertainty among younger academics regarding
academics‟ multitasking roles to teach and conduct research and to integrate
research findings into teaching due to a lack of a research culture and experience,and uncertainty of why and how research should be incorporated into teachingAhmad Nurulazam Md Zain et al. 169

Page

activities may occur:“…confuse, we do not have research culture yet….we are very muchembarking on research….forcing lecturers to do research, teaching we
do not emphasize.”
When comparison was made across designations, the mean scores for thisitem seem to increase according to academic rank. Senior lecturers‟ mean score
was 3.38, associate professors were 3.45 and finally professors have the highest
score, 4.03. Academics‟ acceptance of the compatibility of teaching andresearch seems to increase according to their academic ranks. It is not
surprising that professors have the strongest stand and understanding regarding
the link between the two components; they disagree that teaching and research
are hardly compatible, in other words, the two aspects are viewed as interrelated
and complementary. Yet, overall such a view is still not apparent among
younger academics.
Lastly, according to Table 5, professors also agreed (M=2.16) that
academics have a professional obligation to apply their knowledge to problems
in society. Other academics‟ mean scores were slightly less affirmative, forinstance, associate professors provide a mean score of 2.25, senior lecturers, 2.23
and lecturers, 2.28. The results suggest that professors have the strongest belief
that academics‟ roles are not confined to teaching and research because
academics also need to play important roles in finding solutions to solve
problems which contribute towards the well being of the society.

Malaysian academics’ views on integration of teaching andresearch
Qualitative data obtained from the focus group revealed that there has beena paradigm shift in Malaysian higher education towards research. One of theparticipants, for example, identified the change,“In the past we are known as a teaching university, we have been doing
the teaching work all the while, very much based on teaching rather
than research, but we changed towards research…”
Due to this lack of a research culture, the proportion of Malaysianacademics who strongly agree that research should be incorporated into teachingactivities was extremely low (0.1%) (CAP, 2006-2007 survey). The difficulties

170 Presenting Malaysian Academics to the World

Page

of integrating research into teaching become more apparent when academics areteaching and doing research in different areas, notably when some of thelecturers have to teach in areas other than that of their own area of specialization.
Such a scenario is more common in new universities, as mentioned by the focus
group addressing the subject,“Some of the lecturers are not teaching in their field, their
specialization”. Hence, teaching and research may be perceived as
two separate entities “... mungkin ramai pensyarah melihat researchand teaching merupakan sesuatu yang tiada kaitan (maybe many
lecturers perceive research and teaching as non-related)”.
Accordingly, some of the interviewed participants believed that those who
excel in teaching should be appointed as teaching professors. In other words,
teaching professors may not necessarily excel in research “I fully agree that theymust be some sort of teaching professors”.

Malaysian academics’ views on research efforts
The CAP, 2006-2007 survey shows that nearly all research activities are
funded by government entities, own institutions, public research funding
agencies or the national organization and only 7.02% is funded by academic
themselves. Such figures indicate that securing funding to conduct research is
not a big problem in Malaysia. This result is line with the focus group‟s
perception that research activities among Malaysian academics are high.
Unfortunately, the outputs from these researches do not match the amount offunding granted. “Number of research tinggi (high), but level of publication
rendah (low)”. This phenomenon, according to the focus group, is createdpartly by a deficiency in performance measurement. According to one of theparticipants,“Even at the research university, I don‟t think the rewards tie with
output of publications. They set, KPI (Key Performance Index), say 3
per year. A lot of the times those are not adhered to. At the end of
the day, those who do not deliver get to be promoted, get anjakan(promotion) or award of excellent. This sends a very strong signal.
Even though you do not fulfill the KPI, you are still okay. As a result
lots of free riders.”Ahmad Nurulazam Md Zain et al. 171

Page

The focus group has also highlighted the lack of internal motivation as acause of the low level of publication among Malaysian academics. According
to the focus group, most academics perceived research grants simply as means
for traveling and attending conferences, particularly at the international level.
In other words, research grants are external rewards for them to carry out
research and publication is deemed secondary. The interview result is
supported by the fact that about more than 90% of the academics report that they
have presented at least one paper in conferences in the past 3 years (CAP,
2006-2007 survey).
The lack of internal motivation among Malaysian academics towards
publication may also affect the quality of the research outputs and this issue
needs to be further analyzed. Even though findings from the CAP, 2006-2007
survey reveal that a majority of the academics claimed that they have at least
published a research report ∕ monograph from funded projects, around 19% ofthem are yet to publish in foreign journals and 14.8% of them have not publishedin peer-reviewed journals at all. Furthermore, most Malaysian academics arestill not actively involved in securing patents, writing computer programs for
public use or exhibiting artistic works.

Malaysian attitude to research collaboration
In terms of research collaboration, less than 30% of them have collaborated
with international colleagues (CAP, 2006-2007 Survey). This small percentage
was probably due to academics‟ belief that initiatives for collaboration should
begin at the national level before moving to the international level: as stated by
one of the participants “antara university dulu (between universities first..)”.
The low level of international research collaboration was attributed to the lack ofcontact and networking among Malaysian academics with their internationalcounterparts. “If you don‟t have the network then that is the problem. So,
something has to be done, to bridge this network between one university andanother”.

Conclusion
The primary purpose of this paper is to describe the three core activities of
Malaysian academics: teaching, research and administration.
It was found that academics in Malaysia generally were not engaging
themselves in the international arena in terms of research and publication. Only

172 Presenting Malaysian Academics to the WorldPage

a small number of them collaborated in research with academics from outside
Malaysia, presented papers at international conferences and published ininternational refereed journals. Certainly, greater efforts are needed to ensure
more Malaysian academics are in the international limelight.
A major shift is needed in HEIs in Malaysia that should involve macro-,meso- and micro-levels. At macro-level, the Malaysian Government throughthe Ministry of Higher Education (MoHE) already has policies in terms ofresearch and teaching activities at international level. MoHE encourages
academics to be involved in research and teaching activities at international
levels. At meso-level, HEIs have to demonstrate priority for academics to be
involved in conducting research and publication at international levels by
providing incentives. A review of promotion criteria and the workload ofacademics who are doing a lot of research and publication at international levelis necessary to persuade more academics to be involved in international activities.
At micro-level, academics themselves need to see the importance of presenting
themselves to the academic community worldwide. To achieve this, Malaysianacademics need to be aware of the need to be involved in international activities.
In other words, Malaysian academics need to be mindful of their discipline orhave an awareness of the discipline as a platform of intellectual and social
practice. Thus, this requires a significant change in the normative expectations
under which academics operate in HEIs.

References
Gibbs, G. (1995). How Can Promoting Excellent Teachers Promote Excellent Teaching?
Innovations in Education and Training International, 32(1), 74-84.

Hannan, A., & Silver, S. (2000). Innovation in higher education: learning, teaching andinstitutional cultures. Buckingham: Open University Press.

Lea, M.R., & Stierer, B. (2009). Lecturers‟ everyday writing as professional practice in theuniversity as workplace: new insights into academics identities. Studies in Higher
Education, 34 (4), 417-428.

Morshidi, S. (2008). The Impact of September 11 on International Student Flow into
Malaysia: Lessons Learned. IJAPS, 4 (1), 79-89.

Silverman D. (2000). Doing qualitative research. a practical handbook. London: Sage
publication.

173
RIHE International Seminar Reports, No.15, 2010 Page

Scholarship of Service: faculty perceptions,workloads, and reward systems

Jung Cheol Shin

1. Introduction
Academic researchers have studied faculty activities in terms of theirteaching, research, and service. Of these three, teaching and research activities
have been explored by many. These studies focused on either teaching or
research, or both teaching and research at the same time. So far, researchers
have focused on measuring teaching and ∕ or research performance or developing
causal models of teaching and ∕ or research. These studies have contributed to
our knowledge of the nature of faculty activities and have also contributed topolicy practices at the institutional and governmental levels. For example,
academic research on the measurement of teaching and research performance has
contributed to establishing faculty evaluation criteria and evaluation systems at
institutional or governmental policy levels.
More recently, researchers (see Feldman, 1987; Marsh & Hattie, 2002) havefocused on the nexus between teaching and research based on empirical evidence.
In reality, however, there have been controversies about the relation between
teaching and research among academics as well as policymakers. Some
researchers report positive relationships between teaching and research, butothers find a near zero relationship between them. Although researchers reportcontradictory results on the nexus between teaching and research, the findings
have affected policy development. For example, inspired by Marsh and Hattie(2002) who found that the relationship between teaching and research is nearzero, the UK White Paper of 2004 recommended applying a division of labor
Associate Professor, Department of Education, Seoul National University, South Korea,
e-mail: Jcs6205@snu.ac.kr

174 Scholarship of Service

Page

between teaching-efficient faculty and research-efficient faculty (e.g., Leistyte,
Enders & Boer, 2009).
Contrary to teaching and research, service activity has been less highlighted
in academic research. In some respects, service activity is considered lessimportant compared with teaching and research. Founders of the modern
university have not questioned the assumption that professors would teachstudents based on the area of their researches since the German model was
disseminated worldwide in the 19th century. Similar to the teaching-research
relationship, research might be associated with service activities. A positive
relationship between research and service activity has also been assumed andimplemented in policy practice. For example, the German model was based on
the philosophical assumption that research contributes to national development.
A similar idea was applied in the land grant universities in the US where thefederal government provided financial support to public universities.
The research-teaching relationship has diminished since universities,
especially research universities, have focused more on research and relatively
less on teaching and service. To enhance their reputation and ranking status,
higher education institutions began to emphasize research productivity, which isviewed as the main indicator of institutional performance. This trend toemphasize research performance has been reflected in faculty evaluation systems
also. Such systems tend to primarily evaluate faculty by their research
performance although teaching and service activities are also included in theevaluation. Such evaluation and reward systems reinforce faculty research
activities while weakening teaching and service.
There was little comprehensive discussion on academic scholarship until
Boyer (1990) proposed four dimensions of scholarship in 1990. In his book
“Scholarship Reconsidered”, Boyer proposed discovery, application, integration,and teaching as the four dimensions of academic scholarship. Following this,academic researchers and higher education institutions began to develop a modelof academic scholarship and applied it in their institutional innovation.
Empirical studies reported that these efforts have changed evaluation criteria andreward systems, faculty activity, and even academic culture to some extent(O‟Meara, 2002, 2005).
These effects are noticeable in faculty teaching. The changes are seen lesshowever in faculty service activities. As O‟Meara (2002) argued, “even when
official policy language includes the evaluation and reward of multiple forms ofscholarship, conscious and unconscious values and beliefs held by faculty
facilitating the reward system can prevent newer forms of scholarly work fromJung Cheol Shin 175

Pagebeing accepted and rewarded” (pp.76-77). Why are the systemic efforts lesssuccessful in service activities?
There are several possible explanations for this. A primary reason might
be the difficulty of measuring faculty service activity (Bensimon, Ward, &Sanders, 2000; O‟Meara, 2002); in addition, outcomes and effectiveness ofservice activities are often unknown (Ward, 2003). Further, there is no agreed
definition of faculty service: it may be understood as „engagement‟, „out-reach‟or „service‟. Each definition has a different emphasis. Also, the range ofservice activity, whether the service is defined as engagement, outreach, orservice, differs depending on the definition: it may or may not include civic
activity (e.g., participation in a cultural event), paid consulting, service activities
not based on discipline-based expertise (Ward, 2003).
In addition, relatively little is known about faculty service activity itself
compared with teaching and research. Faculty workload studies have provided
information on how many hours faculty work on service activity, but we lackcomprehensive information on faculty service in general, e.g., faculty preference
for service activity compared with teaching and research, perception ofscholarship in relation to service, the nexus between other activities (e.g.,teaching and research) and service activity, institutional reward systems and soforth. As Ward (2003) proposed, in addition, service activity differs, depending
on institutional mission, faculty rank, and affiliated disciplines. It is rare thatstudies address these issues because they cover such a broad range of
information on faculty activities. Fortunately, the CAP survey includes
comprehensive items on teaching, research, and service activities and related
factors. The primary goal of this paper is to analyze and discuss plenary
information about faculty service activity and related issues based on CAP data.

2. The background to and contexts of faculty service
Range of service activity
One approach to faculty service is from a perspective of the scholarship ofservice. Boyer‟s (1990) four dimensions of academic scholarship represent thisapproach. According to Boyer, academic scholarship is integrated with theother academic activities though it has different dimensions depending on its
emphasis. Among the four dimensions, scholarship of application is related tofaculty service, which emphasizes application of knowledge to solve social
problems. Another approach of faculty service is to classify faculty activities
into a simple conceptual framework. A binary classification was proposed by

176 Scholarship of Service

Page

Ward (2003), who classified faculty service as internal service and external
service. Internal service includes service to the campus, to the discipline, andto students. Service to the campus includes service activities such as academic
oversight, institutional governance, and institutional support (Finsen, 2002).
In addition to service on the campus, professors serve their academic
disciplines. Professors are involved in service activities through various
associations (e.g., membership committees, program committees, reward
committees) and publication-related activities (e.g., editorial boards, reviewersetc.). Finally, professors serve their students (e.g., by advising, counseling,
writing recommendation letters). However, faculty service to students is
related to teaching and research activities and might not be clearly differentiatedfrom these two activities in some cases (Ward, 2003).
External service is a way for higher education to communicate with external
stakeholders. Fear and Sandmann (1998) view higher education as aknowledge enterprise and define outreach as “generating, transmitting, applying
and preserving knowledge for the direct benefit of external audiences that areconsistent with university and unit missions” (cited in Ward, 2003, p.113).
According to the definition, “not all service roles apply or require an individual‟sscholarly expertise, and not all are deemed scholarship” (Ward, 2003, p.71).
According to Ward (2003), faculty external service includes extension,
consulting, service-learning, community-based action research, and communityand civic service. This paper will not discuss the details of external service
activities (for details, see Ward, 2003).
Issues related to service activity
Although scholars as well as higher education institutions classify faculty
services, it is difficult to decide whether a specific faculty activity is a service
activity in the real world or not. The four issues related to faculty service
activities can be summarized as follows.
First of all, does service activity include only the expertise-based activities
of faculty? Some service activities are not related to faculty expertise whileother activities are. If a member of faculty is actively involved in civic activity
but the activity is not related to his ∕ her academic expertise, is that a service
activity? According to Boyer (1990), it is not, because service activity includes
only expertise-based activity. However, the issue remains controversial.
Second, is paid activity, service activity? Professors in some disciplines
are engaged in well paid consulting for private companies. Is this activity aservice activity or not? Business administration and engineering faculty mightJung Cheol Shin 177

Pagecontribute to regional economic development through a paid activity by using
their disciplinary knowledge. If the main purpose of their service activity is togenerate financial benefit as well as contribute to the community, the nature of
the activity remains a gray area. This type of activity is growing among faculty
in applied science areas.
Third, is political activity a service activity? Some professors are actively
involved in politics, (e.g., participating in a political election as a candidate,
applying for a leadership position in a national research institute). In somerespects, these activities might be considered service if they are based on theiracademic expertise. For example, a professor of chemistry might apply for thepresidency of a National Science Foundation; a professor of education might bea candidate for superintendent of a province; a political science professor might
be a candidate for a national assembly. Are these service activities? If they
resign from their faculty positions, there might be no controversy on the issue,
but if they hold their positions during an election campaign and ∕ or after they areelected, there might be controversy on whether their activity is really service.
Fourth, is faculty participation in a general civic-activity as a citizen aservice activity?
For example, many professors are involved in
non-governmental organizations. The organizations may or may not be related
to their areas of expertise. For example, an economics faculty member might
be involved in a non-government organization that is interested in a free trade
agreement (FTA) between the nation and other countries. There might be achance for the professor to contribute to non-governmental activities with his ∕her expertise in economics.
Differences in service activity
Faculty service activities differ depending on their institutional mission,
their affiliated disciplines, their rank, and demographics (Ward, 2003). Faculty
service differs in its types and relative weight between teaching, research, andservice, according to institutional mission types (O‟Meara, 2002). Faculty in a
research university might contribute to their community with knowledge transfer
while faculty in a polytechnic might contribute by providing skills. Moreover,faculty activities differ depending on their affiliated disciplines (Becher &Trowler, 2001; Biglan, 1973). Applied sciences faculty are more actively
involved in service activities compared with their colleagues in pure sciences(Antonio, Astin, & Cress, 2000; Braxton & Hargens, 1996; Braxton, Luckey, &Helland, 2002).
In addition, researchers found that faculty activities differ according to their178 Scholarship of Service

Page

career stages, gender, and ethnic groups. For example, Baldwin, Lunceford &Vanderlinden (2005) found that mid-career faculty spend more time on
administrative activities on campus than do junior and senior faculty. As manystudies (e.g., O‟Meara, 2002; Antonio et al., 2000) found, faculty who areheavily involved in service activity are also the most marginalized in theacademic culture. Female faculty and minority background faculty tend to be
more involved in service activity on and off campus because they are invited bymany committees to represent minorities in US higher education (O‟Meara,
2002; Ward, 2003).
It is clear that the inclusion of institutional mission, disciplinary differences,and faculty demographics in analyzing faculty service activity provides morein-depth information on the diversity of service activities.
The Korean context
As in other countries, higher education institutions in South Korea esteem
research more highly than teaching or service activities. The emphasis on
research was initiated and accelerated by government policy to enhance thecompetitiveness of higher education institutions. For example, the government
set a guideline for faculty hiring and promotion, regardless of whether it is a
private or public institution, and the guideline is still in the place today. In theearly 1990s, the government began to allocate funding based on institutional
performance, which is mainly focused on research performance. Under thisnational policy, higher education institutions emphasize faculty research, andassign less weight to teaching and service activities.
On the other hand, faculty have a strong tradition of involvement inpolitical and social movements since the early 1960s, beginning with the student
resistance that overturned President Lee‟s government in 1960.
Also,
professors had been outspoken when the military government attempted to limit
civil rights during the military regimes from the 1960s to the 1980s. The strong
political voice of academics against dictatorships has transformed politicalparticipation in the democratized government since the late-1980s. Professors
are actively involved in internal governance of their university, and areespecially critical during university presidential elections. In addition, thedepartmental chairmanship is a service activity because the chairman‟s position
is rotated among faculty members, making even departmental leadership aservice activity. Faculty are also expected to participate in the student
admission process, committees, and so forth.
Professors undertake a variety of external service activities. They

Jung Cheol Shin 179

Page

participate in policy-action research, act as consultants in government
policymaking, are opinion leaders, serve in political positions (e.g. as thepresident of a government-established research institute, or as a national
assembly member), or participate in a non-governmental organization. The
external activities of faculty in a Korean context are summarized as follows.
・ Policy-action research. Many government policies have been studied or
proposed through policy-action research conducted by academics.
Policy-action research provides an opportunity for academics to participate
in government policymaking and also to gain research funding fromgovernment.
・ Consultation services to government, community, private corporations.
Government, community, and private corporations rely on the knowledge ofacademics because the university is the place where specialists in eachbranch of disciplines work together. As a result, more and more faculty are
engaging in paid and non-paid consulting.
・ Opinion leaders. Newspapers hire faculty as their columnists or as editorial
writers to provide specialized opinions for their readers. In addition,
professors are one of main groups of participants in public hearings
convened by the government, national assembly, or non-governmentalorganization.
・ Political positions. Professors are actively involved in national and local
politics. In addition, they participate in the political leadership positions ofgovernment-owned research institutions. Although there is controversy,
the academic community in Korea regards politics-oriented activities
favorably.
・ Participation in non-governmental organizations. Academics are involved in
NGO activities that may or may not be related to their academic disciplines.
Many of the founders of NGOs are professors and they are active membersof the organizations.

3. Method
Data

The data were collected as a part of the international CAP comparative
study in 2008. Each country used the same survey questions. The populationin the Korean study was 52,763 full-time faculty who are affiliated with bachelor
degree granting institutions in South Korea. The data were collected through180 Scholarship of Service

Page

an on-line survey to which 900 professors responded. The survey questions
included faculty demographics, their careers, activities (teaching, research, andservice), institutional management and culture.
The survey data are
informative in analyzing faculty service activities in general because the CAP
survey includes diverse types of service activity, the time spent on service
activity, the perceptions of academic scholarship (discovery, integration, andapplication), preferred types of research (basic vs. applied), and personnel
reward systems. The use of CAP data enables a researcher to conduct acomprehensive study on faculty service activities and its related topics.
Research focus
This study focused on six topics of interest.
・ A faculty view of scholarship of service. Since Boyer proposed four
dimensions of academic scholarship, teaching and service have beenemphasized in many higher education institutions. This study seeks toanalyze how faculty perceive academic scholarship. The CAP survey
covers matters such as discovery, integration, and application.
・ Types of service activity. Service activities include different types ofactivities. This study aims to provide information on the types of service
activities that professors were involved in during 2008 when the survey was
conducted.
・ Effects of faculty workload on service activity. This study is expected toprovide access to the time faculty spend on service activities.
・ The relationship between different types of scholarship. The data examine
the relationship between service, research and teaching. Specifically, thisstudy addresses the question, “Do faculty emphasize practically oriented
knowledge or skills in their teaching?”
・ Organizational culture. The analysis explores whether higher education
institutions reinforce the service activity of their professors.
・ Faculty evaluation systems. The study seeks to establish to extent to which
service activity is included in faculty evaluation criteria.
Analytical strategy
This study focuses on how the variables of interest provided by the six
issues differ by institutional mission, their affiliated disciplines, and faculty
career stage.

Jung Cheol Shin 181

Page

・ Institutional missions are classified according to the categories Research
university, PhD granting university, and Comprehensive university, based on
Shin‟s classification (for details, see Shin (2009a)).
・ Academic disciplines are classified in terms of a pure-applied dimension
because service activities are assumed to differ between pure sciences andapplied sciences (for details, see Shin (2009b))
・ Career stages are classified as early, mid-, and late careers: early career(aged 39 or younger), mid-career (aged 40-55), and late career (aged 56 orolder). The age of 65 years is the retirement age in most higher education
institutions in Korea.

4. Results and discussion
Types of service activity
Faculty are very involved in scientific committees and academic services, insuch roles as peer reviewers, editors, and leaders of academic organizations.
However, they participate less in community and political service activities thanin scientific and academic service activities. One noticeable feature is thatfaculty in a research university are more actively involved in scientific andacademic services compared with their peers in PhD granting andcomprehensive universities, while they are less actively involved in community
service than PhD granting and comprehensive universities. Early career faculty
are less involved in service activities compared with mid- or late career faculty.
Also, female faculty are more active involved in community service than theirmale peers. These findings are quite similar to the findings of otherresearchers.
These findings imply that research universities attach more weight toacademic research and research-related activities than to other types of service
activities. Early career faculty may have less opportunity to participate inscientific committees compared with their mid- or late career colleagues.
However, a relatively high proportion of early career faculty are involved inresearch-related service activity. As Table 1 shows, about half of early career
faculty are engaged in scientific and academic service which means that they are
responsible for much of academic service work.

182 Scholarship of Service

Page

Table 1. Faculty service activity (%)
Service Activity

MissionCareerGenderResearch

PhD

Comprehensive

Scientific committees

89

78

77

66

82

87

79

85

Peer reviewer

88

80

72

66

82

77

79

77

65

63

54

40

67

48

59

65

77

73

76

43

80

86

73

79

2

2

5

0

5

0

3

3

2

4

2

1

4

2

4

1

Community service

15

25

32

15

27

29

24

29

Work with service agency

8

13

16

7

14

14

13

13

Academic
Journal editor
service
Leaders of academicorganization
Elected officer ∕Political union leader
serviceState politics

Early

Mid

Late

Male Female

Note. Proportion of faculty who currently undertake these activities.

The situation becomes clearer in international comparisons. As shown in
Table 2, Korean academics are very involved in scientific and academic service
compared with other countries. Korean academics are three to four times more
likely to be involved in scientific committees at national or ∕ and international
levels than their colleagues in the UK, Australia, or Germany, and twice as likely
as in Japan, a culturally comparable country. Many Korean professors serve as
journal editorial board members and act as leaders of academic organizations.
There may be several reasons for this finding. First of all, there are somany academic organizations, academic journals, and scientific committees thatmany faculty need to be involved in the activities of these organizations, journals,
and committees regardless their career stages. Korean academic society is
considerably smaller than that of the US, but proportionately, many moreacademics are involved in such activities. Second, the Korean government hasemphasized research performance since the early 1990s, so forcing academics topublish more in order to meet the publication requirements set by thegovernment or their institutions. Third, the government established many
committees to deal with conflicts between interest groups and to draw on therelevant experience and knowledge of professors.

Jung Cheol Shin 183

Page

Table 2. Faculty service activity (international comparison) (%)
Service Activity

USA

UK

Aus.

DE

IT

Japan

Korea

Scientific committees

29

22

25

20

51

38

81

Peer reviewer
Academic
Journal editor
serviceAcademic organization

65

52

62

31

55

61

78

19

18

18

23

10

26

61

28

12

23

25

11

52

75

Elected officer ∕ union leader

2

3

2

1

1

4

4

State politics

14

3

4

2

4

1

3

Community service

48

16

37

0

14

20

25

Work with service agency

20

9

10

16

8

10

13

Political
serviceNote. Proportion of faculty who currently undertake these activities.

Service workloads
Because faculty are engaged in many types of service activities, time spenton service activity is an important factor in analyzing faculty service. Faculty
spend, on average, 4.6 hours per week on service activity and 6.0 hours per
week on administration during a semester. Service activities do not differ muchby mission types, affiliated academic disciplines, or career stages. However,administrative activities are quite different across career stages, with early career
faculty averaging 3 more hours on administrative service than late career faculty.
Faculty may consider time on administration as part of their regular
workload or as service to society. If the service workload is imposed by others(e.g., administrative authority, cultural patterns), that might be regarded as aservice activity. For example, a department chairmanship is not a service
activity in many US universities because administration is viewed as regularwork. However, being a department chairman is seen as service work in many
Korean universities because the role is given to them as an academic duty. In
this situation, a heavy administrative burden for an early career academic raises
issues about faculty workloads.
Korean academics spend more time on service activities than their peers inother countries. German professors spend the highest time on service activities(5.7 hours per week) followed by Korea (4.7 hours), and the USA (4.6 hours).
However, Korean academics spend less time on administration than their peers
in other countries. This finding implies that many Korean academics spend
more time on service but less on administration (committees, department
meetings, and paperwork) compared to their peers in other countries. These184 Scholarship of Service

Pagefindings need more in-depth study to fully understand the situation. One
hypothesis is that academics spend more time in off-campus service (service),
but less time in on-campus service (administration). In some respect, Korean
academics contribute more to their society through service activities but less totheir own campus. This is a good sign from the service point of view, but it
may be a bad sign for their students and their institutions.
Table 3. Service workloads (hours per week)
Workloads

MissionDiscipline

CareerResearch

PhD

Com

Pure

Applied

Early

Mid

Late

Teaching

17.8

20.9

23.3

21.4

20.9

23.2

20.7

20.7

Research

21.3

18.6

16.3

19.4

17.7

18.5

18.1

19.4

Service

5.0

4.7

4.8

4.0

5.2

4.7

4.7

5.0

Administration

6.4

6.0

6.0

5.8

6.2

7.1

6.2

4.3

Total

54.8

53.4

53.5

53.8

53.6

56.8

53.2

52.7

Note. Hours per week spent on the listed academic activities during teaching semesters.

Table 4. Service workloads (international comparison) (hours per week)
Workloads

USA

UK

Australia

DE

IT

Japan

Korea

Teaching

21.2

18.3

17.6

13.9

18.8

20.4

21.1

Research

12.4

12.1

13.9

15.6

17.4

16.6

18.1

Service

4.6

1.6

2.9

5.7

2.5

3.9

4.7

Administration

7.7

9.6

8.8

4.5

4.3

7.2

6.0

Total

48.7

44.8

46.2

42.9

45.4

51

53.2

Note. Hours per week spent on the listed academic activities during teaching semesters

Perceptions of academic scholarship
Faculty perceptions about academic scholarship do not differ byinstitutional mission, but do differ by discipline and career stage. About 80%
of professors perceive that application is a form of scholarship and 76% of thembelieve that their discipline has a professional obligation to apply its body ofknowledge to resolving social problems. Korean academics hold these beliefs
much more strongly than their peers in other counties. This finding is related tothe data showing that Korean faculty spend more time on service activities thantheir peers in other countries.
There are noticeable differences among faculty regarding their perceptionsof academic scholarship. Fewer faculty in the pure sciences than their peers inJung Cheol Shin 185

Pageapplied sciences consider application to be scholarship. In addition, purescience faculty are less likely to believe that their disciplines have an obligation
to apply their knowledge to society. These findings confirmed our expectations.
In general, faculty in the applied sciences attach more weight to the applicationof knowledge and they are more likely to say they intend to apply theirknowledge to solve social problems.
Faculty perception on academic scholarship differs by career stage. In
relation to the application of knowledge, 81% agree that application is a part ofacademic scholarship while 88% of late career faculty agree with it. In addition,
the early career faculty feel less obligation to apply their knowledge to social
problems than the late career faculty. The findings imply that junior faculty areless likely to perceive service activities as scholarship compared with seniorfaculty.
Table 5. Perceptions on the scholarship of service (%)
Types ofScholarship

MissionDiscipline

Career Stages

Research

PhD

Comprehensive

Discovery

79

78

77

85

73

78

77

83

Application

79

84

82

71

88

81

82

88

Integration

90

89

93

90

91

86

91

95

Social service

71

78

76

69

80

68

77

81

Pure

Applied

Early

Mid

Late

Note. Proportion of faculty who agree or strongly agree that scholarship is best defined as, or
includes, the listed activity or carries an obligation towards social service.

Table 6. Perception on scholarship of service (international comparison)
Types ofScholarship

USA

UK

Australia

DE

IT

Japan

Korea

Discovery

69

67

67

72

73

77

78

Application

81

70

74

70

60

75

83

Integration

70

67

67

67

46

81

91

Social service

67

59

64

55

61

65

76

Note. Proportion of faculty who agree or strongly agree that scholarship is best defined as, or
includes, the listed activity or carries an obligation towards social service.

Service, teaching and research
How much do faculty try to disseminate their knowledge and research into
their society (e.g., their community, nation)? As shown in Table 7, faculty inresearch universities are less likely to emphasize practically-oriented knowledge186 Scholarship of Service

Pageand skills in their teaching than their peers in other types of institutions. Also,
faculty in applied disciplines and faculty later in their careers tend to place
greater emphasis on practical knowledge and skills in their classroom activities.
Similar trends have been found in relation to research activities.
Professors in research universities are less active in conducting
practically-oriented research or socially-oriented research compared with theirpeers in PhD granting and comprehensive universities. Faculty in applied
disciplines are more active in conducting practically-oriented orsocially-oriented research than their peers in pure disciplines, and later career
faculty conduct more socially-oriented research than early career faculty.
In general, Korean academics emphasize practical knowledge and skills intheir teaching and are active in conducting practically oriented research. As theinternational comparisons (Table 8) show, Korean academics rank above averagein the practical orientation of their teaching and research.
Table 7. Orientation of teaching and research (%)
MissionResearchAnd
Teaching

Research

Practically oriented teaching
Practically oriented researchSocially oriented researchDiscipline

PhD

Comprehensive

Pure

69

79

76

65

82

71

73

76

56

84

25

33

42

31

36

Career

Applied Early

Mid

Late

73

77

74

75

75

67

25

36

38

Note. Proportion of faculty who agree or strongly agree that they emphasize a practical orsocial orientation.

Table 8. Orientation of teaching and research (international comparison) (%)
Research and Teaching

USA

UK

Australia

DE

IT

Japan

Korea

Practically oriented teaching

70

68

75

79

52

50

76

Practically oriented research

74

66

77

71

60

69

74

Socially oriented research

35

46

61

36

33

31

35

Note. Proportion of faculty who agree or strongly agree that they emphasize a practical orsocial orientation

Institutional climate and reward systems
Does faculty evaluation consider service activities as a criterion of faculty
tenure and promotion? According to the literature, many universities in the US
emphasize service activities, but the reward systems do not reflect this. As aresult, faculty who are actively involved in service activities are disincentivizedJung Cheol Shin 187

Pagefrom spending their time on service activities that are not regarded as worthwhile.
As Table 9 demonstrates, higher education institutions encourage service
activities, but their personnel decisions are based on research and teaching (andmainly on research performance). Only 15% of the faculty indicated that their
institutions take their service activities into account in faculty personnel
decisions.
Higher education institutions in Korea encourage their faculty to become
involved in service activity for several reasons, but principally because
participation in a government committee is highly encouraged by institutions andrewarded by some universities, especially less well known institutions.
Institutions encourage their faculty participation in government committees
because it contributes to building an institutional reputation. In addition,
government committees provide channels for high-value information that may be
helpful to higher education institutions.
Table 9. Institutional climate and reward systems (%)
Evaluation Criteria & Climate

MissionDiscipline

Research

PhD

Comprehensive

Research quality

46

37

23

33

35

Teaching quality

27

25

22

24

25

Practical relevance of faculty work

15

16

15

14

Encouraging service activity

17

26

37

27

Pure

Career

Applied Early

Mid

Late

39

33

34

26

24

26

16

14

16

14

28

34

26

32

Note. Proportion of faculty who agree or strongly agree that in making personnel decisions,
their institution considers the listed criteria.

Table 10. Institutional climate and reward systems (international comparison) (%)
USA

UK

Australia

DE

IT

Japan

Korea

Research quality

47

66

50

53

23

60

33

Teaching quality

51

33

28

27

11

39

24

Practical relevance of faculty work

30

26

24

25

10

26

15

Encouraging service activity

37

30

36

57

15

27

28

Evaluation Criteria

Note. Proportion of faculty who agree or strongly agree that in making personnel decisions,
their institution considers the listed criteria

Nevertheless, higher education institutions do not actively take into accountservice-related activities in their personnel decisions.
South Korean
universities are less proactive in introducing reward systems that include188 Scholarship of Service

Page

service-related activities in their evaluation than most other countries (Table 10).
This failure is highest in Germany followed by South Korea. As O‟Meara(2002) argued, “asking faculty to do one thing and be rewarded for another isdysfunctional for individuals and for the institution” (p.76).

5. Concluding remarks
In this study, the data led to some informative insights on service activity
and academics‟ perceptions about their service activities. First of all, Korean
academics are actively involved in scientific and academic service activities, butmuch less in community activities. Second, in Korea, academics have a morepositive attitude toward the scholarship of service compared with their peers inother countries. Third, faculty service activities differ markedly by institutional
mission, discipline, and career stage. This finding implies faculty service
activities are understood and approached differently according to their institution,
their discipline areas, and their career stages.
Faculty service is a complicated concept and it is difficult to formulate anagreed-on definition. We addressed and discussed service activity by using the
CAP data. However, because of the lack of any uniform definition of theservice activity, the CAP survey could not maintain consistent terms throughout
the survey. For example, some items are referred to “service” activity but terms
such as “scholarship of application” or “practicality” are used in other places.
Notwithstanding this limitation, the CAP data provided comprehensive data thatenabled us to analyze service activity and its related dimensions.
In conclusion, the question may be asked: why are policymakers andbusiness leaders negative toward faculty service activities in Korea? Many ofthem complain that higher education does not meet societal demands and yet, atthe same time demonstrate such a negative attitude toward faculty service.
People argue that professors should stay on campus and do their job rather thanbe involved in service activities (e.g., government committees,
non-governmental organizations, political parties, election participation).
Sometimes, service activity is criticized by policymakers and news media as thereason for a loss of competitiveness. Thoughtful discussions on the definitionof service and further in-depth study on the quality of service activity mightprovide answers to this issue in the future.

Jung Cheol Shin 189

Page

References
Antonio, A.L., Astin, H.S., & Cress, C.M. (2000). Community service in higher education: A
look at the nation‟s faculty. Review of Higher Education, 23(4), 373-398.

Baldwin, R.G., Lunceford, C.J., & Vanderlinden, K.E. (2005). Faculty in the middle years:

Illuminating an overlooked phases of academic life. Review of Higher Education, 29(1),97-118.

Becher, T., & Trowler, P.R. (2001). Academic Tribes and Territories. Buckingham: Society for
Research into Higher Education & Open University Press.

Bensimon, E.M., Ward, K., & Sanders, K. (2000). The Department Chair’s Role in Developing
New Faculty into Teachers and Scholars. Boston, MA: Anker (Jossey-Bass).

Biglan, A. (1973). The characteristics of subject matter in different academic areas. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 57(3), 195-203.

Boyer, E.L. (1990). Scholarship Reconsidered: Priorities of the Professoriate. Princeton, NJ:
Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.

Braxton, J.M., & Hargens, L.L. (1996). Variation among academic disciplines: Analyticalframeworks and research. In J.C. Smart (ed.), Higher Education: Handbook of theory

and research (Vol. 11, pp.1-146). New York: Agaton Press.

Braxton, J.M., Luckey, W., & Helland, P. (2002). Institutionalizing a Broader View ofScholarship into Colleges and Universities through Boyer‟s Four Domains. In
ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report (Vol. 29, No. 2). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Fear, F.A., & Sandmann, L.R. (1998). A legacy rediscovered: Public service at private colleges.
Journal of Public Service and Outreach, 3(2), 48-53.

Feldman, K.A. (1987). Research productivity and scholarly accomplishment of college
teachers as related to their instructional effectiveness: A review and exploration.
Research in Higher Education, 26(3), 227-298.

Finsen, L. (2002). Faculty as institutional citizens: Reconvening service and governance work.

In L.A.McMillin, & Berberet (eds.), The New Academic Compact: Revisioning theRelationship between Faculty and Their Institutions (pp.61-86). Boston, MA:Anker(Jossey-Bass).

Leistyte, L., Enders, J., & Boer, H. (2009). The balance between teaching and research in
Dutch and English universities in the context of university governance reforms. Higher
Education, 57(4), 509-531.

Marsh, H.W., & Hattie, J. (2002). The relation between research productivity and teachingeffectiveness: Complementary, antagonistic, or independent constructs? The Journal ofHigher Education, 73(5), 603-641.

O‟Meara, K. (2002). Uncovering the values in faculty evaluation of service as scholarship.
Review of Higher Education, 26(1), 57-80.

190 Scholarship of Service

Page

O‟Meara, K. (2005). Encouraging multiple forms of scholarship in faculty reward systems:
Does it make a difference? Research in Higher Education, 46(5), 479-510.

Shin, J. (2009a). Classifying higher education institutions in Korea: A performance-based
approach. Higher Education, 57, 247-266.

Shin, J. (2009b). Teaching and Research across Academic Disciplines: Faculty‟s Preference,

Activity, and Performance. In RIHE (ed), The changing academic profession over

1992-2007:

international,

comparative,andquantitative

perspectives

International Seminar Reports, pp 213-230) (Hiroshima, Japan, January 2009).

(RIHE

Ward, K. (2003). Faculty Service Roles and the Scholarship of Engagement. In ASHE-ERIC
Higher Education Report (Vol.29, No.5). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

191
RIHE International Seminar Reports, No.15, 2010 Page

The Divergent Worlds of Teaching and Researchamong Mexican Faculty: tendencies and implications
Jesús F. Galaz-Fontes, Jorge G. Martínez-Stack,Etty H. Estévez-Nénninger, Ana L. de-la-Cruz-Santana,
Laura E. Padilla-González, Manuel Gil-Antón,
Juan J. Sevilla-García, and José L. Arcos-Vega*

Introduction
While the academic profession and its associated work are recognized as
central to higher education, the function which has been associated with faculty
work since early times is teaching (Altbach, 1991). Identified as the “key”
profession, it is recognized as such because of its teaching function in relation to
all other professions (Perkin, 1987). Research is, on the other hand, a relatively
recent development in the history of universities (Perkin, 1991). Nowadays,
however, higher education confronts a greater expectation of relevance comingfrom a society that includes the training of highly skilled personnel for a*
Jesús F. Galaz-Fontes, Professor, Faculty of Human Sciences and Institute of Engineering,
Autonomous University of Baja California, México, e-mail: galazfontes@gmail.com
Jorge G. Martínez-Stack, Professor, General Direction of Institutional Evaluation, Seminar on
Higher Education, National Autonomous University of México, México, e-mail:jorgestack@gmail.com
Etty H. Estévez-Nénninger, Professor, Department of Psychology and Communications
Sciences, University of Sonora, México, e-mail: ettyen@prodigy.net.mx
Ana L. de-la-Cruz-Santana, Professor, Office of the General Secretariat, University of Colima,
México, e-mail: analisantana@gmail.com
Laura E. Padilla-González, Professor, Department of Education, Autonomous University ofAguascalientes, México, e-mail: lepadill@correo.uaa.mx
Manuel Gil-Antón, Professor, Department of Sociology, Iztapalapa Campus, Metropolitan
Autonomous University, México, e-mail: maga@correo.azc.uam.mx
Juan J. Sevilla-García, Researcher, Institute of Engineering, Autonomous University of Baja
California, México, e-mail: jcjast@gmail.com
José L. Arcos-Vega, Researcher, Institute of Engineering, Autonomous University of Baja
California, México, e-mail: arcosvegajoseluis6@gmail.com

192 The Divergent Worlds of Teaching and Research among Mexican FacultyPageknowledge-based economy and seeks not only research in terms of the
production of knowledge but also of the application of such knowledge, in a
relatively short period of time, in the enrichment of technologies currently in use
by different sectors of society (Brennan, 2007).
Given the importance of teaching and research activities for higher
education institutions, it is most relevant to analyze the relationship between
these two central activities of academic work. In this paper we will explore thisrelation for the case of Mexican faculty. After a brief discussion of the way inwhich teaching and research might be related, and the way in which such a
relationship might be studied, the paper proposes a Teaching-Research
Involvement Classification (TRIC) of Mexican faculty that is considered to bepertinent to the current situation of Mexican higher education. The paper thenpresents data on faculty activities and productivity, academic preferences andnotions of academic work, recognition and compensation, personal
characteristics and, finally, job satisfaction and commitment, that largely support,
the discriminatory characteristics of such a faculty classification andfundamentally, that teaching and research activities serve to differentiate two
academic worlds, in the case of Mexican higher education. Finally, the paper
ends with a brief recapitulation of the information presented and small set ofreflections based on them.

The teaching-research relationship
While it is commonly recognized that teaching and research, together withservice, are at the core of higher education institutions and, therefore, are centralcomponents of academic work (Bowen & Schuster, 1986; Boyer, 1990), it is also
now more commonly recognized that their realization with the highest
involvement and quality in the same institution or by the same individual along
its entire professional career is not the rule (Clark, 1987; Rice, 1996).
Additionally, it must be kept in mind that teaching and research admit various
ways of being interpreted and implemented as a function of the discipline inwhich they take place (Becher, 1989). So, it is to be expected that theteaching-research relationship might vary depending upon the institution, thediscipline and the individuals, including their career stage, involved. In thispaper we will concentrate on individual differences, leaving for another work the
analysis of institutional, disciplinary and stage-related dimensions.
Three general perspectives can be identified regarding the potential
relationship between teaching and research in higher education at the level ofJesús F. Galaz-Fontes et al. 193

Pageindividual academics (Fairweather, 2002; Marsh & Hattie, 2002). The first one
states that teaching and research are mutually reinforcing and, in line with such a
position, faculty can be highly productive in both such activities. A second
position maintains that there is actually an inverse or competing relationshipbetween research and teaching, particularly at the undergraduate level, where
both activities compete for the limited time, resources and energy that faculty
members have in doing their work. Finally, a third position holds that teaching
and research are un-related and, therefore, an academic can be productive in one
aspect without necessarily being productive in the other aspect. This last
position is probably the one more consistent with Boyer’s (1990) proposition
that there are four types of scholarship that, although sharing a common
substantive theme and requiring from all of them intensive and high-quality
work, differ in their emphasis on the teaching, integration, discovery andapplication of knowledge.
In analyzing the potential relation between teaching and research it ispossible to proceed in at least two ways. In one measures of teaching andresearch productivity are identified and, afterwards, correlations between theselected measures are run to test the nature of the relationship under study. A
second way to proceed is to identify, whether on mainly statistically orconceptual grounds, groups of academics and then use observations of the ways
in which measures associated with teaching and research vary between theidentified groups, as Gil-Antón et al. (1994) and Villa-Lever (1996) have done. 1
This last approach is the one we will follow in this paper. More specifically,
the starting assumption will be that research and teaching “productivity” areinversely related (Fairweather, 2002; Marsh & Hattie, 2002) and, thus, bothactivities can be captured, at least for the current Mexican situation, by means ofa single classification scheme. As in previous papers, the work will be done bytaking into account only full-time faculty (NT=1775) sampled according to aprocedure also described earlier (Galaz-Fontes et al., 2008, 2009). Although
there are potentially important disciplinary, institutional and career-stage relateddifferences, these will not be pursued in this paper.

1

Gil-Antón et al. (1994) discussed fully- and marginally-involved academics, while
Villa-Lever (1996) described teachers, researchers and administrators.

194 The Divergent Worlds of Teaching and Research among Mexican Faculty

Page

A “Teaching-Research Involvement Classification” based on
research productivity and highest degree
Table 1 classifies Mexican f-t faculty according to their participation in the
National Researchers’ System (SNI, Sistema Nacional de Investigadores) and, atthe same time, their highest degree. This cross-tabulation served as the basis
for the Teaching-Research Involvement Classification (TRIC) shown in Table 2.
As membership of the SNI is attained through a national peer review process that
focuses on published work, we selected this group as the most research-oriented(SNI members, n=366 [21.5%]). From such a departure point and by regarding
faculty in the rest of the groups as not as intensively involved in research asrecognized by SNI, the next logical research-involved group is the one
composed by academics holding as their highest degree a doctorate or a
post-doctorate qualification (non-SNI doctors, n=240 [14.1%]). Leaning lesstowards research, the third and largest group is associated with faculty with
graduate studies completed up to a master’s degree (non-SNI masters, n=765[45.0%]) and, finally, the fourth group, which was expected to be more naturally
devoted to teaching, is composed of faculty holding, at the most, a licentiate
degree (non-SNI licentiates, n=327 [19.3%]). Using highest degree as a secondclassification criterion was considered reasonable because of the importancegiven to it by institutional academic regulations that usually assign less teaching
and more research responsibilities the higher the degree and rank of a faculty
member and, most importantly, by the latest public policies towards higher
education and its funding (Rubio-Oca, 2006). The order found in the resultsthat are reported here further justifies - and most definitively - the use of the two
criteria.
Table 1. Distribution of f-t Mexican faculty according to their highest degree
and their membership in the national researchers’ system (SNI)(NT = 1,775)
National Researchers’ System
Highest Degree

Total

No

Yes

n

%

Up to licentiate

327

7

334

19.7

Graduate studies, up to master’s

765

14

779

45.9

Doctorate

226

267

493

29.0
5.4

Post-doctorate

14

78

92

Total

1,332

366

1,698

%

78.4

21.6

100.0

Jesús F. Galaz-Fontes et al. 195

Page

Table 2. Classification of f-t Mexican faculty according to a teaching-research
involvement dimension based on membership in the national
researchers’ system (SNI) and on highest degree (NT = 1,775)
Teaching-Research Involvement
ClassificationN%

Non-SNI Licentiate

327

19.3

Non-SNI Master

765

45.0

Non-SNI Doctor

240

14.1

SNI Member

366

21.5

1,698

99.9

Total

The results of the above classification exercise are presented in Table 2,
which shows the distribution of faculty according to the TRIC just described.
Notwithstanding that the non-SNI doctor group represents 14.1% of all the
full-time faculty considered, having nearly 20% in both extremes of theteaching-research based classification, the number of cases in each of the groups
thus formed seemed appropriate to allow the exploration that follows.

Teaching and research correlations to the TRIC
Having defined a TRIC, in this section its relationship to various specificteaching and research activities will be examined. Table 3 shows, for each
TRIC group, the mean of a typical research productivity index based on thenumber of various academic publications and conference presentations for thelast three years. As can be observed, differences in the mean number ofreported publications for the last three years are considerably and statisticallydifferent between each contiguous group, ranging from a mean of 2.3
publications for non-SNI licentiate faculty, to a mean of 17.1 publications for
SNI members, with non-SNI masters and non-SNI doctor academics reportingmeans of, respectively, 5.9 and 10.8 publications.
Table 3 also presents data on the average weekly hours that surveyed
faculty reported spending in research activities. Once again, differences are
considerable and statistically significant for each contiguous group and in the
expected order. So, while non-SNI licentiates reported a mean of 4.2 weekly
hours devoted to research, the corresponding figure for SNI members was 20.3
hours per week, with non-SNI masters and non-SNI doctors reporting,respectively, means of 7.4 and 11.8 hours per week. These two distributions
provide acceptable concurrent validity, from the research dimension side, to the
TRIC built on the basis of SNI membership and highest degree attained.

196 The Divergent Worlds of Teaching and Research among Mexican Faculty

Page

Table 3. Academic publications in the last three years and weekly hours devoted
to research activities, by faculty teaching-research involvement(NT = 1,775)
Academic products*

Teaching-Research
Involvement Classification

n

Mean*

Non-SNI Licentiate

267

Non-SNI Master

711

2

1

Weekly hours in research
3

SE

n

Mean*

SE

2.3

0.3

283

4.2

0.4

5.9

0.3

697

7.4

0.3

Non-SNI Doctor

237

10.8

0.8

224

11.8

0.6

SNI Member

364

17.1

0.8

335

20.3

0.6

1,578

8.6

0.3

1,539

10.2

0.3

Total
1

* Index built by adding directly the number of academic books authored, books edited,journal papers, book chapters, research monographs and conference presentations reported forthe last three years.
*2 F3,1575 = 125.527, p < .00001, η2 0.193.
*3 F3,1536 = 223.697, p < .00001, η2 0.304.

After having documented that the TRIC is highly correlated with two
commonly used measures of research productivity (number of publications andtime involved in research activities), Table 4 presents data related to therelationship between such classification and teaching activities. Specifically,for each TRIC group, Table 4 shows the mean number of hours that faculty
reported to be involved in classroom instruction and also the mean number of
total hours devoted to teaching activities in general, which includes not onlyclassroom instruction, but also activities such as class preparation, grading andtutoring students. As can be observed, weekly hours devoted to classroom
instruction and to teaching in general are very similar in each case for both
non-SNI licentiate and non-SNI masters faculty (approximately 14 and 24 hours
per week, respectively).
It seems, then, that teaching responsibilities(classroom instruction) and involvement (teaching activities overall) are little
affected by whether an academic has a licentiate or a master’s as a highest
degree. It will be recalled, however, that non-SNI masters faculty reported
investing more hours in research than their non-SNI licentiate colleagues (meansof 7.4 vs. 4.2 hours per week) and, additionally, they also reported more
publications (means of 5.9 vs. 2.3 publications during the last three years).
In contrast, non-SNI doctors reported, on average, about two hours less per
week of classroom instruction and also of teaching activities in general (11.6 and21.3 hours per week, respectively). Moreover, as is shown in Table 4, SNI
members reported nearly four hours less of classroom instruction and about six
hours less of total teaching activities (8.0 and 15.2 hours per week, respectively).
These figures show that, while not as strongly as for the research measures,Jesús F. Galaz-Fontes et al. 197

Page

TRIC correlates quite reasonably with time measures of teaching involvement.
On the other hand, it appears that non-SNI masters, in comparison to their
non-SNI licentiate colleagues, are more involved and productive in research
while, at the same time, maintaining a high level of involvement in teaching. 2
Moving to a higher degree and, ultimately becoming a SNI Member, however,takes f-t faculty to a situation in which there is a significant exchange between
research and teaching involvement.
Table 4. Weekly hours devoted to classes and to teaching activities in general, by
faculty’s teaching-research involvement (NT = 1,775)
Teaching-Research
Involvement Classification

Weekly hours devoted toclassroom instruction
n

Mean*

2

SE

Weekly hours devoted toteaching activities
n

Mean*

3

SE

Non-SNI Licentiate

283

14.7

0.6

283

24.4

0.7

Non-SNI Master

697

14.0

0.3

697

23.5

0.4

Non-SNI Doctor

224

11.6

0.4

224

21.3

0.7

SNI Member

335

8.0

0.3

335

15.2

0.5

1,539

12.5

0.2

1,539

21.5

0.3

Total

*1 In addition to classroom instruction this category includes class preparation, grading andtutoring students.
*2 F3,1536 = 62.212, p < .00001, η2 0.108.
*3 F3,1536 = 57.948, p < .00001, η2 0.102.

Another informative measure of teaching productivity is the number ofstudents taught. Table 5 presents, for each TRIC group, the mean number ofstudents taught at the licentiate, master’s and doctoral levels during the current
academic year. As it can be observed, non-SNI licentiate and non-SNI masteracademics attend to more than 100 students in licentiature programs. In
contrast, non-SNI, doctor faculty attend on average 79 students in these same
programs, while SNI members report attending to a mean of 40 students at thesame level. So, the higher the level of research involvement as measured by
the TRIC, the lower the number of students attended to at the licentiature level.
However, the relation between research involvement and number of students at
the master’s level is direct when moving from the categories of non-SNI
licentiate, to non-SNI master, to non-SNI doctor and finally to SNI member(means of students attended, respectively, of 0, 5, 12 and 10). A similar pattern,
2

The majority of countries participating in the CAP International Study report that theirfaculty spend less than 20 hours per week in teaching activities overall.

198 The Divergent Worlds of Teaching and Research among Mexican FacultyPagealthough with lower numbers, is also observed between the relation of research
involvement and students attended to at the doctoral level. So, a higher level ofinvolvement in research is associated with attending fewer students at thelicentiature level, but with more students at the master’s and doctoral levels.
The numbers of students involved at graduate level, however, are small,particularly at the doctoral level. Notwithstanding this situation, these figures
speak to the fact that teaching graduate courses and tutoring students at that level
might be mutually reinforced by research, although this relationship is relatively
small compared to the relationship between TRIC and hours spent in research
activities, as evidenced by the fact that the η2 reported for the relationshipbetween the TRIC and students attended to at the masters and doctoral levels are
considerably lower than that for the relationship between TRIC and hours
involved in research (0.066 and 0.037 vs. 0.304).
Table 5. Students attended to at the licentiate, master’s and doctoral level
during current academic year, by faculty’s teaching-research
involvement (NT = 1,775)
Teaching-Research
Involvement Classification

Students attended to at the Students attended to at the Students attended to at thelicentiature levelmaster’s level
doctorate leveln

Mean*1SEn

Mean*2SEn

Mean*3SE

Non-SNI Licentiature

279

118

6.3

300

0

0.1

300

0

0.0

Non-SNI Masters

694

109

3.5

712

5

0.6

724

0

0.0

Non-SNI Doctorate

222

79

4.9

226

12

1.5

229

3

1.2

SNI Members

344

40

2.9

346

10

0.7

349

3

0.3

91

2.3

1,584

6

0.4

1,602

1

0.2

Total
1

1,539
2

* F3,1536 = 63.501, p < .0001, η = 0.110.
*2 F3,1581 = 37.097, p < .0001, η2= 0.066.
*3 F3,1599 = 20.628, p < .0001, η2= 0.037

Academic preference and notions of teaching
Table 6 shows data pertaining to the relationship between TRIC andacademic preference. While 36.0% of non-SNI licentiate faculty reported a
primary interest in teaching, a similar response came from only 0.8% of SNI
members. Conversely, 20.8% of SNI members expressed a primary interest in
research, while only 1.6% of non-SNI licentiates reported such a preference. It
is interesting to observe that non-SNI licentiate and master faculty do not differ
in terms of interest in both activities when “leaning towards teaching” isconsidered (46.9 vs. 47.9%, respectively), though they differ in relation to theirJesús F. Galaz-Fontes et al. 199

Page

preference to research (15.4 vs. 27.2%). So, obtaining a higher degree has anincremental effect in the interest in research when both teaching and research
activities are considered. However, teaching interest does not change whenmoving from a licentiate to a master’s degree. Instead, a diminished interest inteaching occurs only when a doctoral degree has been obtained. This pattern is
consistent with the previous result regarding how involvement in teachingchanges much less than involvement in research when moving from the non-SNI
licentiate to the non-SNI master group.
Table 6. Academic preference by teaching-research involvement (%) (NT =1,775)

Teaching-Research
Involvement Classificationn

Regarding your own preferences, do your interests lie inteaching or in research?
In
both,
but
In both, but
Primarily inPrimarily inleaning towards leaning towards
teaching
researchteaching
research

Total

Non-SNI licentiate

311

36.0

46.9

15.4

1.6

100.0

Non-SNI master

743

21.9

47.9

27.2

3.0

100.0

Non-SNI doctor

241

10.8

30.7

51.9

6.6

100.0

SNI member

361

0.8

7.5

70.9

20.8

100.0

1,656

18.4

36.4

38.1

7.1

100.0

Total

Pearson Chi-Square 9 = 552.546, p < .0001, η directional towards preference = 0.535

Table 7 presents data relative to the way Mexican f-t faculty understands
scholarship and the associated nature of academic work. For various
statements having to do with such topics, the proportions of respondents thatstated agreement or strong agreement with them are specified. As can beobserved, the data show that academics who vary in their research involvement
report different ways of looking at scholarship and academic work. While
non-SNI licentiate, master and doctor faculty stress teaching and tutoring as thecore of scholarship, SNI members are somewhat less prone to such statement(70.1%, 73.0% and 66.7% vs. 60.1%, respectively). It is quite interesting thatthe assertion that scholarship includes an application dimension generates highlevels of agreement (83.7% overall), from 79.0% for non-SNI doctors to 90.0%
for non-SNI masters, but again, less so for SNI members (72.4%). Such figuresmost surely are related to the fact that Mexican higher education has been
traditionally oriented towards the training of professionals. So, by using
Boyer’s (1990) terms, the scholarships of teaching and application are highoverall, the scholarship of integration (preparation of synthesis reports) is200 The Divergent Worlds of Teaching and Research among Mexican FacultyPage

somewhat less seen as part of scholarship by survey respondents (64.8%
overall); the scholarship of research, on the other hand, is seen, overall, by alower percentage (58.7%) of respondents as the best way to define scholarship.
As expected, SNI members tend to agree more with such a perspective than
non-SNI licentiate faculty (72.1 vs. 52.4%, respectively). SNI members, on theother hand, do not agree as strongly as other groups, particularly the non-SNI
masters, with the view that faculty have a professional obligation to use theirdisciplinary knowledge to address societal problems (57.0% vs. 82.3%,
respectively). Why do SNI members express such a view when compared tothe other TRIC groups? Has the dynamics of becoming a SNI member andretaining such status reached a point in which “reality” has moved to lower
significance? Or is it that SNI Members consider that generating and applying
knowledge is a set of tasks difficult to perform by the same person? Finally,
there is a low general agreement (11.6% overall) with respect to teaching andresearch being incompatible.
Table 7. Proportions of f-t Mexican faculty that agree or strongly agree withvarious statements on the nature of scholarship, by TRIC group (NT =1,775) (%)
Teaching-Research Involvement Classification
StatementN*

Scholarship is best defined asteaching and tutoring students

1

1,667

Scholarship includes the application ofacademic knowledge in real-life
1,673
settings
Scholarship includes preparation ofreports that synthesize the major
1,656
trends and findings of my field
Scholarship is best defined as the
preparation and presentation of
1,663
findings on original research

Non-SNI
Licentiates

Non-SNI
Masters

Non-SNI
Doctors

SNI
Members

Total

70.1

73.0

66.7

60.1

68.8

85.2

90.0

79.0

72.4

83.7

58.8

69.0

67.2

59.6

64.8

52.4

55.9

55.5

72.1

58.7

Teaching and research are hardly
compatible with each other

1,679

12.4

11.0

13.5

11.0

11.6

Faculty in my discipline have aprofessional obligation to apply theirknowledge to problems in society

1,680

78.4

82.3

77.2

57.0

75.3

*1

In this table, N is the total number of surveyed academics who answered the question.
Percentages for each TRIC group are calculated in relation to the number of academics within eachgroup.

Jesús F. Galaz-Fontes et al. 201

Page

Table 7a. Proportions of f-t Mexican faculty that agree or strongly agree withstatements on the quality of teaching and research, by TRIC group(NT = 1,775) (%)
Teaching-Research Involvement Classification
Non-SNI
Licentiates

Non-SNI
Masters

Non-SNI
Doctors

SNI
Members

Total

Faculty with higher degrees do better
teaching than faculty without those 1,413
degrees

15.5

29.4

42.4

40.3

31.0

The best research is done by faculty
1,248
members of SNI

33.3

35.7

28.4

72.4

44.5

Statement

*1

N*

1

see footnote to Table 7

Table 7a presents the levels of agreement to two statements that show, fromanother perspective, that faculty from each of the TRIC groups see academic
work from different points of view. Specifically, it appears, for faculty thathave an opinion on the issues, that judgments of the quality of teaching andresearch are influenced by the position they have in the TRIC. So, for example,
while only one or two in ten of non-SNI licentiate faculty agrees or strongly
agrees with a view that assigns better teaching quality to academics with higher
degrees, four in ten of the non-SNI doctors or SNI members do. On the other
hand, while three out of ten non-SNI licentiates accept that the best research iscarried out by SNI members, seven out of ten of this last group expressed thesame opinion. These figures, along with those of Table 7, speak of a faculty
body that is not homogeneous in terms of the nature of scholarship, academic
work and the credentials to perform it at higher quality levels.

Recognition and compensation for academic work
Table 8 presents data related to faculty’s participation in two individual
incentive and recognition programs in addition to SNI. The various TRIC
groups serve to differentiate participation of faculty in institutional incentive
programs, which have been largely under the control of higher education
institutions and which, like SNI, provide faculty with a monthly additional
income. So, while 32.8% of non-SNI licentiates participate in such incentive
programs, 72.7% of SNI members take part in them. The Program for the
Improvement of the Professoriate (PROMEP, Programa para el Mejoramientodel Profesorado), although not providing a monthly payment like theinstitutional incentive programs or SNI, but rather constituting a recognition202 The Divergent Worlds of Teaching and Research among Mexican FacultyPage

program requiring a minimum of a masters degree and targeted mainly on
faculty in state public institutions, it also is sensitive to the TRIC. So, while
33.0% of non-SNI masters participate in this program, more (58.2% and 84.1%)
non-SNI doctors and SNI members do. In short, participation in theserecognition programs seems to be associated to faculty member’s highest degree
and, at the same time, involvement in research, rather than in teaching.
Table 8. Proportions of Mexican f-t faculty participating in various recognition
programs, by TRIC group (NT = 1,775) (%)
Desirable Profile, Program for
the Improvement of the
2 3Professoriate* *Institutional Incentive1
Program*
Teaching-Research
Involvement Classification

N

%

N

%

Non-SNI Licentiates

326

32.8

97

1.0

Non-SNI Masters

760

53.3

385

33.0

Non-SNI Doctors

240

60.8

110

58.2

SNI Members

366

72.7

113

84.1

1,692

54.6

705

40.7

Total
*1

Pearson Chi-Square 3 = 114.918, p < .0001, η, Directional towards Program Participation,
0.261.
*2
Only f-t faculty working in public state institutions have been considered in this program, as
it has been mainly targeted at such institutions (Urbano-Vidales, Aguilar-Sahagún &Rubio-Oca, 2006).
*3
Pearson Chi-Square 3 = 174.721, p < .0001, η, Directional towards Program Participation, =0.498.

Table 9. Mean monthly income (current Mexican pesos) from various sources
for f-t Mexican faculty, by TRIC group (NT = 1,775)
Contractual
IncomeIncentive Programs’
IncomeTotal
4
Income*Teaching-Research
Involvement Classification

n

Mean*

1

SE

Mean*

2

SE

Mean*

3

SE

Non-SNI Licentiates

318

17,703

557

1,309

220

21,134741

Non-SNI Masters

751

19,622

365

3,553

273

26,390634

Non-SNI Doctors

237

24,465

732

6,670

665

33,802

1,118

SNI Members

330

22,458541

24,221

959

48,768

1,413

1,636

20,523

257

7,734

328

30,954

519

Total

*1
F3,1632 = 26.077, p < .0001, η2 0.046.
*2
F3,1632 = 368.766, p < .0001, η2 0.404.
*3
F3,1632 = 146.406, p < .0001, η2 0.212.
*4

Total income incorporates other income sources, so it is larger than the sum of thecontractual and incentive programs’ income, which integrate both institutional and external
merit-pay sources.

Jesús F. Galaz-Fontes et al. 203

Page

With recognition that faculty involvement in research activities is stronger
than that provided for being involved in teaching, the question could be asked
about the extent to which such recognition, in addition to that associated with thehighest degree, makes to a difference in income. Table 9 presents data relevantto this question. It can be seen that the more research-involved groups of theTRIC, which are also those with the highest degrees, receive the highest meancontractual incomes: $24,465 and $22,458 Mexican Pesos (MP) for non-SNI
doctors and SNI members, versus $17,703 and $19,622MP for non-SNI
licentiate and master faculty. The difference between the lowest and the highest
paid group (non-SNI licentiate and non-SNI doctor groups, respectively) isaround 38.2%. The situation with income from incentive programs, however, ismuch more differentiated. While non-SNI licentiates earn, on average, an extra$1,309 MP per month, non-SNI masters earn $3,553, non-SNI doctors,$6,670MP and SNI members, $24,221MP more every month. It can be seenthat SNI faculty, on average, have a larger income from the incentive programs
in which they participate, than from their contractual income ($24,221MP vs.
$22,458MP, respectively). Putting together all income sources Table 9 showsthat the total monthly income varies from a low of $21,134MP, for non-SNI
licentiates, to a high of $48,768MP for SNI members: a difference of 130.8%.
This income differentiation identifies two points of interest: first, it favors
largely research involvement and, second, it is based largely on the additional
income provided by incentive programs.
Incentive income comes from both internal and external institutionalsources. While the external incentive program known as SNI was created in
1984, and was targeted at faculty doing research, internal institutional merit-pay
incentives were developed several years later and intended to compensate faculty
mostly devoted to teaching (Cordero-Arroyo, Galaz-Fontes & Sevilla-García,
2003). Notwithstanding such intentions, the data just presented show that
research is by far the activity that is recognized by incentive programs as awhole, so that institutional programs have been unable to counterbalance theadditional compensation first awarded to research. Additionally, such data also
show that as f-t Mexican faculty increase their professional qualifications andtheir involvement in research, the less stable is their income, as the contractual
share of their total income diminishes from 83.8% to 74.4%, to 72.4%, andfinally to 46.1% for non-SNI licentiates, masters, doctors and SNI members,
respectively. Is this a planned outcome of federal and institutional policies
currently in place? Is this a long-term “healthy” situation for faculty,
institutions and Mexican higher education in general?

204 The Divergent Worlds of Teaching and Research among Mexican Faculty

Page

Personal characteristics associated with TRIC
After having presented data relative to the discriminatory capacity of the
TRIC relative to various measures of research and teaching, as well as in relationto academic preference and work recognition and income, we now turn to ask
whether the groups identified by the TRIC differ along some personal
characteristics. Table 10 presents data on gender and age relative to the four
TRIC groups. It shows that female representation is higher amongst non-SNI
masters faculty (41.6%), than elsewhere (around 30%). A lower proportion offaculty with doctorates are female, but also females are more teaching oriented,
as indicated by their higher proportion of non-SNI masters, relative to the overall
female participation rate (41.6% vs. 35.7%, respectively). In relation to age,
Table 10 shows that, despite the fact that all TRIC groups have a similar age
average, of between 49.3 years for non-SNI licentiates and SNI members, to51.4 years for non-SNI doctors, with this last TRIC group being around two
years older than the other TRIC groups.
Table 11 presents data relating TRIC and the time when faculty first entered
the academic profession, as defined by having had their first f-t or half-time
appointment in a higher education institution. As it can be observed, there has
been little change between the date of first entrance period and the last one forall the TRIC groups except non-SNI doctors. Thus, of all non-SNI licentiates,
26.6% entered the academic profession up to 1982, but 28.9% did so during thelast period considered. Given the teaching orientation of this group ofacademics it is natural to conclude that enrollment growth and, on the other hand,a low supply of candidates with higher degrees, is influencing such dynamics.
On the other hand, that 31.6% of the non-SNI doctors entered the profession up
to 1982, while 19.0% came into higher education during the most recent period,
suggests that many of these academics obtained their doctoral degrees whilealready working in the profession. A point of interest here is why these faculty
members, even though they have obtained their doctorates, which is aprerequisite to enter SNI, are not yet members of it. Table 12 presents
information relative to the highest degree with which the different TRIC groups
first entered the academic profession. It can be observed that the current
highest degree, that associated with the TRIC, has been obtained, to aconsiderable extent, after faculty have already been employed. So, 63.3% of
non-SNI master faculty entered academic profession with a licentiate degree, and50.9% of non-SNI doctors did the same. It is interesting to observe that of all
SNI members, 42.1% entered the academic profession already holding aJesús F. Galaz-Fontes et al. 205

Page

doctorate, while 23.6% of non-SNI doctor faculty entered the profession undersimilar conditions. It would appear, then, that obtaining a doctorate whilealready working in the profession is associated with conditions that make it lessprobable to enter SNI, despite the fact of the additional income that faculty
members of SNI receive. Could it be that non-SNI doctor faculty have engaged
more significantly in teaching and that they prefer not to change such work inorder to gain entrance to SNI? Could it be that such faculty, after having
obtained their doctorates while already working, do not have working conditions
that allow them to perform so as to gain access to SNI? Could it be that thedoctorates that these faculty obtained did not provide the immediate necessary
training and academic capital that allow them to enter SNI? Or could it be thatmany non-SNI doctors obtained their degrees in order to be eligible to receive
higher rewards, but are not really interested in becoming researchers according
to SNI criteria? Given the efforts targeted at increasing the highest degree levelof in-service faculty, these questions are central in analyzing the public policies
associated with such efforts.
Table 10. Gender and age characteristics associated with each TRIC group (NT= 1,775)
Gender*

1

Age*

2

Teaching-Research
Involvement Classification

N% Female

N

Mean

SE

Non-SNI Licentiates

322

30.4

321

49.3

0.6

Non-SNI Masters

758

41.6

753

49.7

0.3

Non-SNI Doctors

238

31.5

236

51.4

0.6

SNI Members

356

30.6

352

49.3

0.5

1,674

35.7

1,662

49.8

0.2

Total

*1
Pearson Chi-Square 3 = 21.047, p < .001, ή2 Directional towards Gender, 0.112*2
F3,1658 = 2.900, p < .05, η0.072, η2 0.005

Table 11. Time of entry into the academic profession, by TRIC group (%) (NT =1,775)
Time of Entrance into the Academic Profession*

1, *2

Teaching-Research
Involvement ClassificationN

Up to 1982

1983-1990

1991-1998

1999-2008

Non-SNI Licentiates

308

26.6

21.1

23.4

28.9

Non-SNI Masters

743

22.6

27.3

24.4

25.7

Non-SNI Doctors

237

31.6

26.2

23.2

19.0

355

27.6

24.8

20.3

27.3

1,643

25.7

25.4

23.1

25.7

SNI Members
*1
*2

Total

Date of first f-t or half-time contract in a higher education institution.
Pearson Chi-Square 9 = 17.515, p < .05, η, Directional towards Period of Entrance 0.073

206 The Divergent Worlds of Teaching and Research among Mexican Faculty

Page

Table 12. Highest degree at entry to f-t or half-time faculty in a higher
education institution, by TRIC (NT = 1,775) (%)
Highest degree in first f-t or half-time contract*
Teaching-Research
Involvement ClassificationN

Licentiate

Master’s

Doctorate

Non-SNI Licentiates

259

100.0

0.0

0.0

Non-SNI Masters

610

63.3

36.7

0.0

Non-SNI Doctors

212

50.9

25.5

23.6

SNI Members

309

30.4

27.5

42.1

1,390

60.9

26.1

12.9

Total
*1

1

Pearson Chi-Square 6 = 543.694, p < .0001, η directional towards highest degree, 0.536.

Job satisfaction and commitment
Table 13 presents data on the way in which faculty in the various TRIC
groups responded to questions related to their perspectives on the academic
profession and job satisfaction in general. Irrespective of whether they areteaching- or research-oriented, only one in ten faculty agree or strongly agreewith the statement that, if they had to do it again, they would not become an
academic. Consistent with such responses, almost nine out of ten academics
reported a high or very high level of overall satisfaction with their current job.
It appears then, that Mexican faculty are satisfied not only with their current job,
but also with their profession in general. Notwithstanding this situation, faculty
reported some levels of tension in their jobs, which grow somewhat as research
becomes their main activity. So, while 18.1% of non-SNI licentiates agree orstrongly agree with the statement that their job is a source of personal strain,
28.7% of SNI members report the same. As it happens, with institutional
merit-pay systems, faculty’s SNI participation is based upon a performanceassessment done every certain number of years, with a real possibility ofyielding a negative evaluation, which would mean not receiving, at least for thefollowing year, the additional income that SNI provides; this could entail the loss,
together with income from institutional merit-pay, of more than half of theirincome. Moreover, a lower proportion of SNI Members, when compared toother TRIC groups, is tenured (e.g., 70.7% vs. 81.9% of non-SNI doctor
academics). Probably associated with both of these situations, a small
proportion (about one in ten overall) of Mexican faculty evaluate negatively theattractions for a young person to begin an academic career in their field but,
again, this view is stronger for SNI members than for non-SNI licentiates (22.0%
vs. 9.0%, respectively).

Jesús F. Galaz-Fontes et al. 207

Page

Table 13. Proportions of f-t Mexican faculty that agree or strongly agree withvarious statements on the academic profession and job satisfaction in
general, by TRIC groups (NT = 1,775) (%)
Teaching-Research Involvement Classification
Non-SNI
Licentiates

Non-SNI
Masters

Non-SNI
Doctors

SNI
Members

Total

If I had it to do over again, I would not
1,674
become an academic

11.7

9.5

9.3

8.8

9.8

How would you rate your overallsatisfaction with your current job?*2

1,677

88.9

87.6

83.3

86.8

87.0

My job is a source of considerable
personal strain*3

1,681

18.1

22.6

26.5

28.7

23.6

This is a poor time for any young
person to begin an academic careerin my field*4

1,669

9.0

11.1

16.3

22.0

13.8

Statement

N*

1

*1

In this table, N refers to the total number of academics that answered the question.
Percentages for each TRIC group are calculated in relation to the number of academics withineach such group.
*2
For this statement the response alternatives were high or very high.
*3
Pearson Chi-Square 12 = 32.152, p < .01, η directional towards statement, 0.096.
*4
Pearson Chi-Square 12 = 59.017, p < .0001, η directional towards statement, 0.144.

Table 14. Proportion of f-t Mexican faculty that reported their affiliation tovarious referents to be important or very important, by TRIC group(NT = 1,775) (%)
Teaching-Research Involvement Classification
Degree to which each of the following
affiliations is important to you

N*

My academic discipline/field
My unit of assignment2(at this institution)*
My institution*

3

Non-SNI
Licentiates

Non-SNI
Masters

Non-SNI
Doctors

SNI
Members

Total

1,677

96.9

98.2

95.0

97.8

97.3

1,679

94.4

93.3

86.2

81.0

89.8

1,681

95.6

96.3

88.8

89.1

93.6

1

*1

See footnote to Table 13
Pearson Chi-Square 12 = 79.592, η directional towards statement, 0.199.
*3
Pearson Chi-Square 12 = 66.950, η directional towards statement, 0.167.
*2

Finally, Table 14 presents data on the level of affiliation reported by
Mexican faculty in relation to their academic discipline, their unit of assignment(faculty, school, department, etc.) and their institution. As can be observed, alllevels of affiliation are high, ranging from 89.8% of respondents stating a high or208 The Divergent Worlds of Teaching and Research among Mexican Faculty

Pagevery high affiliation with their unit of assignment, to 93.6% reporting the samefor their institution and, lastly, to 97.3% stating such affiliation levels withrespect to their academic disciplines. Despite this pattern, SNI members report
somewhat lowers levels of affiliation for both their unit of assignment (81.0% vs.
94.4% when comparing SNI members and non-SNI licentiates) and their
institution (89.1% vs. 95.6% in the case of SNI members and non-SNI
licentiates).

Concluding comments
What have we learned from our exploration based on the TRIC? In thispaper it has been shown that teaching and research activities and productivity in
Mexican faculty are so related that it is possible to group them in a
one-dimension classification scheme, the TRIC that captures significant
variations of these two central aspects of academic work. Given the level oftraining of Mexican faculty, as well as the importance assigned to the highest
degree by public and institutional policies, TRIC is highly associated withhighest degree and, on the other hand, with membership of the National
Researchers’ System (SNI), which is a nation-wide merit-pay system based on
proven levels of research productivity (refereed publications essentially).
Comparisons of TRIC groups showed that, in the Mexican case and beyonda certain level of teaching activity (around eight hours of classroom instruction
and an additional seven of complementary teaching activities per week),teaching and research activities are inversely related. The same holds for
productivity measures in terms of the number of publications reported in the last
three years and the number of undergraduate students taught during the current
academic year. When considering the number of graduate students, however,there are signs of a positive relation between teaching and research. The
intensity with which graduate teaching takes place, however, is so low that it
does not modify the general relationship between teaching and research.
Those members of faculty more involved in research are more recognized
and, moreover, have larger incomes than those more involved in teaching. The
extra income, however, is based in a disproportionate way on merit-pay systems.
Of these, the most important, SNI, is run centrally, so research-oriented faculty
are faced with the challenge of having to respond to two, not always aligned, setsof rules in order to maintain their status. This might be related to the fact that,
despite high levels of affiliation to the unit in which they work and to their
institution, SNI members reported lower commitment levels to both of them thanJesús F. Galaz-Fontes et al. 209

Page

non-SNI licentiates.
Associated with the way it is structured and its growth, Mexican higher
education has continued to recruit faculty without a doctorate or, even more,
without a master’s degree: four out of ten new faculty members hired during theperiod 1999-2007 hold a licentiate as their highest degree, while only two out often hold a doctorate. This dynamic is creating and reinforcing two worlds ofscholarship that, afterwards, institutions and governmental agencies will have to
integrate by various professional development programs which, because they are
targeted at so large a number of faculty members, will require significant
amounts of institutional resources. However, the question remains of to what
extent these two worlds will be compatible given that one responds to an
institutional teaching-oriented reality while the other is more related to an
external agency dedicated to increasing research.
* The study was made possible by funds provided by the Under-secretariat of Higher
Education and by the Autonomous University of Baja California. We also thank members of
the Network of Researchers on Academics for their support and work on the project.

References
Altbach, P.G. (1991). The academic profession.

In P.G. Altbach (ed.), International higher

education: An encyclopedia Vol.1 (pp.23-45). New York: Garland Publishing.

Becher, T. (1989). Academic tribes and territories: Intellectual enquiry and the cultures of

disciplines. Bristol, UK: Society for Research into Higher Education, and Open
University Press.

Bowen, H.R., & Schuster, J.H. (1986). American Professors: A National Resource Imperiled.
New York: Oxford University Press.

Boyer, E. (1990). Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professoriate. Princeton, NJ:
Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.

Brennan, J. (2007). The academic profession and increasing expectations of relevance. In M.

Kogan, & U. Teichler (eds.), Key challenges to the academic profession (pp.19-28).

Paris & Kassel: UNESCO Forum on Higher Education, Research and Knowledge −International Centre for Higher Education Research.

Clark, B.R. (1987). The academic life: Small worlds, different worlds. Princeton, NJ: The
Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.

Cordero-Arroyo, G., Galaz-Fontes, J.F., Sevilla-García, J.J. (2003). La evaluación de ladiversidad en el trabajo académico: Los programas de estímulo de la UABC 1990-2002[Evaluating diversity in academic work: Merit-pay programs in UABC, 1990-2002].

210 The Divergent Worlds of Teaching and Research among Mexican Faculty

Page

México: Asociación Nacional de Universidades e Instituciones de Educación Superior, yUniversidad Autónoma de Baja California.

Fairweather, J.S. (2002, January ∕ February). The mythologies of faculty productivity. Journalof Higher Education, 73 (1), 26-48.

Galaz-Fontes, J.F., et al. (2008). Mexican academics at the turn of the Twenty-First Century:

Who are they and how do they perceive their work, institutions and public policies (apreliminary analysis). In RIHE (ed.), The Changing Academic Profession inInternational Comparative and Quantitative Perspectives (RIHE International Seminar

Reports 12) (pp.345-361). Hiroshima: RIHE, Hiroshima University.

Galaz-Fontes, J.F., et al. (2009). The academic profession in Mexico: Changes, continuities

and challenged derived from a comparison of two national surveys 15 years apart. In

RIHE (ed.), The Changing Academic Profession over 1992-2007: international,

comparative, and quantitative perspectives (RIHE International Seminar Reports 13)(pp.193-212). Hiroshima: RIHE, Hiroshima University.

Gil-Antón, M. et al. (1994). Los rasgos de la diversidad: Un estudio sobre los académicos

mexicanos [The traits of diversity: A study of Mexican faculty]. México: Universidad
Autónoma Metropolitana Azcapotzalco.

Marsh, H.W., & Hattie, J. (2002). The relation between research productivity and teachingeffectiveness: Complementary, antagonistic, or independent constructs? The Journal ofHigher Education, 73 (5), 603-641.

Perkin, H.J. (1987). The academic profession in the United Kingdom. In B.R. Clark (ed.), The
academic profession: National, disciplinary and institutional settings (pp.13-59).
Berkeley, CA: The University of California Press.

Perkin, H.J. (1991). History of universities. In P.G. Altbach (ed.), International higher
education: An encyclopedia 1 (pp.169-204). New York: Garland.

Rice, R.E. (1996). Making a place for the new American scholar. Washington, DC: American
Association for Higher Education.

Rubio-Oca, J. (ed.) (2006). La mejora de la calidad en la universidades públicas en el periodo

2001-2006. La formulación, desarrollo y actualización de los Programas Integrales deFortalecimiento Institucional: Un primer recuento de sus impactos [Quality

improvement in public universities during the 2001-2006 period. The formulation,
development and updating of Integral Programs for Institutional Strengthening: A first
recount of its impact]. México: Secretaría de Educación Pública.

Urbano-Vidales, G., Aguilar-Sahagún, G., & Rubio-Oca, J. (2006). Programa de Mejoramientodel Profesorado: Un primer análisis de su operación e impactos en el proceso defortalecimiento académico de las universidades públicas [Program for the Improvementof the Professoriate: A first analysis of its operation and impact on the process ofacademic strengthening of public universities]. México: Secretaría de Educación

Jesús F. Galaz-Fontes et al. 211

Page

Pública.

Villa-Lever, L. (1996, Enero-Marzo). Hacia una tipología de los académicos: Los docentes,
los investigadores y los gestores [Towards a typology of academics: Teachers,
researchers and academics]. Revista Mexicana de Sociologia, 58 (1), 205-226.

212

213
RIHE International Seminar Reports, No.15, 2010 Page

The Balance between Teaching and Research in theWork Life of American Academics, 1992-2007: is itchanging?
Martin FinkelsteinIntroduction: the arbiters of faculty work life
In 1987, the late Burton Clark proposed an elegantly parsimonious
sociology of the American academic professions: academic work life in the U.S.,
he argued, was “nested” in a matrix defined, on the one hand, by the type of
institution in which professors worked and, on the other, by the academic
disciplines or fields in which they received their doctoral training. Each cell inthis matrix defined a slightly different variation on the academic work-role,
substantially predictable but based on only these two factors. The work-role
variable to which Clark was referring included prominently the balance between
teaching and research (in terms of actual time and effort allocation), the type of
research undertaken (e.g. basic vs. applied), the form and quantity of
publications produced (e.g. research notes, journals articles vs. books; sole vs.
multiple authorships), the work venue (e.g. laboratory, office, library, homeoffice), etc. The notion was simple enough: individual academic fields
provided distinctive and enduring educational socialization experiences duringdoctoral training that were “carried over” into the subsequent career; and thesewere reinforced and/or reshaped at the margins by the expectations andorganizational structures of the institutional settings in which they pursued theirwork. From a comparative perspective, this second order institution level,
in-service socialization component was what distinguished the American systemfrom other national systems typically characterized by a more basic uniformity
in work settings, that is, a university is a university is a university.
Professor, Seton Hall University, USA, e-mail: finkelma@shu.edu

214 The Balance between Teaching and Research in the Work Life of American Academics, 1992-2007

Page

From the moment of its initial articulation, this “matrix theory” of theacademic professions gained wide currency as a cogent macro-level lens throughwhich to understand U.S. faculty work activities and behavior. In the ensuingquarter century, however, American higher education has undergone what many
consider a radical transformation and/or restructuring (Schuster & Finkelstein,
2006; Slaughter & Rhoades, 2004) in several respects. Most generally, it has
witnessed something of a blurring of the lines of demarcation among types of
institutions as the research university model (research dollars and publications as
the desideratum of academic quality), including expectations that all faculty
engage in research and publish, has diffused broadly throughout the system’s
four-year sector. Former liberal arts colleges are adding master’s programs andformer comprehensive institutions are adding doctoral programs and seeking (oradopting) “university” status. This increasing homogenization of research
expectations could certainly threaten to attenuate differences in teaching andresearch balance attributable historically to institutional type. Second, the lastquarter century has seen a radical “marketization” of academic fields in theuniversity, that is, academic fields have grown and prospered inside theuniversity in direct proportion to their role and commercial value outside it, inthe new knowledge-based economy of the 21st century. Those fields thatgenerate resources outside university walls (science and technology-based) andmust compete with industry for faculty talent have prospered, while those thatcompete less well commercially have faltered. That has led some observers toconclude that universities have become bifurcated institutions academicallydivided between the “haves” and the “have nots” (Slaughter & Rhoades, 2004).
It is not clear to what extent this commercial stratification of the academic menu
has intensified or attenuated differences among disciplines overall or between
disciplines within one or another of the new stratification cells.
Distinct from, albeit related to, these trends in institutional homogenization
and academic field commodification, are trends in the restructuring of academic
appointments and the demographics of the faculty workforce. Gappa andLeslie (1993), Baldwin and Chronister (2001), Schuster and Finkelstein (2006),
Cross and Goldenberg (2009), and Kezar and Sam (2010) have all heralded theascent of contingent faculty appointments in the United States: the rise first ofpart-time (in the 1970s and 1980s) and then (in the 1990s and 2000s) of full-time
non-tenure track appointments across institutional types and academic fields.
While these appointments differ most obviously in their duration andpermanence, they differ substantively in their specialization of function: that is,they focus incumbent work activities on a single one of the typical triumvirate ofMartin Finkelstein 215

Page

faculty functions in the post World War II American university; either teaching(predominantly), research (usually related to federal grants), or service (related
to directing new academic programs, frequently with an off-campus or distancelearning component). To the extent that a “new” majority of faculty in U.S.
colleges are now holding appointments that limit their responsibilities to, forexample, only one of the historic faculty functions, e.g. teaching, suggests, at theleast, that one other variable may need to be added to Clark’s faculty work
prediction equation (a three dimensional matrix?).
And then, there is the matter of gender. The final macro trend of the pastquarter century in American (indeed, global) higher education is its increasing
feminization. In 1969, about one-quarter of American professors were women;
by 2008, that overall figure had reached about 38%. Moreover, among new
entrants to the U.S. academic workforce today, nearly half (about 45%) are
women. In certain fields of the humanities (English; foreign languages), softersocial sciences (psychology, history), and the professions (education, social work,
nursing and many of the allied health professions), the majority of instructional
faculty are now women. This demographic shift becomes salient when we
consider that social science research in the past half century has documented thedecisive role of gender in shaping academic work and careers (Finkelstein, 1984;
Finkelstein et al, 1998): women are more oriented to teaching than men and lessoriented to research; they allocated more of their time to teaching, are more
student centered than men, they publish less, etc. To the extent that they are an
increasing presence in the workforce and to the extent that their historically
documented work ∕ life differences vis-a-vis men persist, then it would appear
that gender, as well as type of appointment, may need to be added to institutional
type and academic field (assuming the latter’s salience persists) as determinantsof the work ∕ life of the “new” American professor.

Research questions: the purpose of the proposed study
In light of the original “Clarkian” principles and the potentially disruptive
academic trends we have noted in the intervening years, the purpose of thepresent study is to test the extent to which Clark’s formulation still obtains orwhether his original formulation needs to be expanded to include new potential
predictors of type of appointment and gender as arbiters of the shaping ofacademic work: in particular the balance that faculty strike between theirteaching and research responsibilities.
To be precise, we will address the following questions:

216 The Balance between Teaching and Research in the Work Life of American Academics, 1992-2007

Page

・ To what extent do institutional type and discipline continue to shapeacademic work in much the same powerful way as Clark described in 1987?
・ To what extent have type of appointment and gender emerged as anadditional set of organizing principles for academic work in the U.S.?
Data source and method
The first seeds of answers to questions like these are contained in a newinternational survey, the Changing Academic Profession (CAP), undertaken in2007 as a fifteen year follow-up to the original 1992 Carnegie Foundation
International Faculty Survey. For purposes of addressing the research questions
posed above, we sought to compare U.S. faculty responses in 1992 and 2007 on
five common survey items that serve as indicators of the faculty work role:
weekly hours spent in teaching and weekly hours spent on research, total weekly
work hours, reported orientation to teaching vs. research, articles published overthe past three years and to disaggregate those responses by institutional type,academic field, type of appointment and gender. Specifically, we sought todetermine whether inter-institutional and inter-disciplinary differences in theabove work activities in 1992 were larger, smaller, or about the same as those in2007. Were those institutional type and interdisciplinary differences affected
when type of appointment or gender were controlled in either 1992 or 2007?
Were there systematic differences in work activities by type of appointment andgender in 1992 or 2007? If so, how large were those differences, especiallyrelative to those associated with institutional type and academic field? In either
year (1992 or 2002) were any differences discerned greater, lesser or the samefor new entrants than for experienced faculty?1
Population and sampling
The data to examine the balance between teaching and research in thefaculty work role were collected from the 1992 Carnegie survey and the 2007
CAP survey data files for the U.S. sample. 2
The 1992 survey conducted by Philip Altbach and an international facultyteam under the auspices of the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of
1
In Finkelstein et al., The New Academic Generation (Johns Hopkins , 1998), it was shownthat new tends that were barely discernible in aggregate data became striking when that samedata was disaggregated by year of entry to the academic profession; that is, that new
developments clearly affecting new recruits might be largely hidden by aggregate data.
2
The 1992 U.S. data file was made available by Professor William Cummings, George
Washington University.

Martin Finkelstein 217

Page

Teaching was a twelve page paper survey that was mailed to a random sample of
7,588 U.S. faculty at 40 randomly selected four-year colleges and universities,
twelve of which were research universities. Responses were received from3,588 faculty for a 46.5% response rate. The data file was weighted by gender,
tenure status and academic field to ensure broad generalizability to the generalfour-year collegiate faculty population3.
In the 2007 CAP Survey, the universe of 4000+ four-year colleges anduniversities in the U.S. was stratified by two characteristics: size ∕ degree level
and control. A total of 80 institutions were selected from among four strata(defined by large ∕ graduate, small ∕ undergraduate, public, and private). Using
their faculty lists we determined the proportion of full-time faculty in the
population in each of the four institutional strata. A random sample of faculty
was selected within each institutional stratum to approximate to their proportionsin the population. This approach yielded a total sample of 5,772 faculty at 80
four-year colleges and universities across the United States.
Data collection
The U.S. team contracted the Research Services Division of SPSS Corporation
to program and host the on-line American English version of the CAP survey.
The survey link with an individually coded identifier was e-mailed to all 5,772
faculty on October 3, 2007. A total of five reminders were sent out
electronically between October 15 and December 7, 2007. In March, 2008, a
paper version of the survey was mailed to approximately 1,000 of the
non-respondents in an effort to capture additional responses from those who
were unwilling to respond to an on-line survey. Ultimately, a total of 1,048
responses were received from faculty at nearly 80 institutions for an effective
response rate of 21.4%. Subsequent analysis showed that respondents differedmodestly from the sample in institutional type (over-representing PhD granting
universities and under-representing liberal arts colleges), gender (women wereslightly over-represented), and rank (slight over-representation of senior faculty).
The data file was therefore weighted by institutional type, academic field, genderand rank to ensure generalizability to the general faculty population.
Dependent variables
Five identical items were selected from the 1992 Carnegie survey and the2007 CAP survey to serve as dimensions of the teaching and research balance3

For further details on technical aspects of the survey, see Altbach (1996).

218 The Balance between Teaching and Research in the Work Life of American Academics, 1992-2007

Page

within the faculty work-role.

These included:

(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)

total self-reported weekly work hours;
total weekly self-reported hours spent in teaching;total weekly self-reported hours spent in research;self-reported orientation to teaching vs. research (ranging from heavily inresearch to heavily in teaching); and(5) self-reported published articles in the last three years.
Independent variables
For both surveys, we employed the same independent variables:
institutional type; academic field; gender; appointment type and career stage.
While the options for institutional type varied somewhat across the two surveys,
we dichotomized the institutional type variable for both 1992 and 2007 into
universities (including research and doctoral granting) and other four-year
institutions. For academic field, we tri-chotomized the data for both 1992 and2007 into the following four clusters: life and medical sciences; physicalsciences and engineering; humanities and social sciences; and other, including
the professions. The type of appointment variable was dichotomized as either
tenured or tenure-track (career ladder) or contract (non-ladder). For career
stage, we used the traditional seven-year probationary period as the criterion todichotomize respondents into two subgroups: new entrants (seven years or lesssince first full-time appointment; and senior faculty (including what are usuallyconsidered mid-career faculty, i.e. those who have spent eight years or more in
the profession)
Data analysis
The data analysis proceeded in two stages: a descriptive stage and amultivariate stage as follows.
Descriptive. For each dimension of the faculty work-role in each bookend
year, crosstabs were computed for each independent variable categorized asabove. The cross tabulations were then compared for observable trends.
Inferential. A series of logistic regression analyses were undertaken for eachof the five outcome (dependent) variables. Each logistic regression analysis
included three models: an initial model that tested the effects of institutional typeand academic field only; a second model to which appointment type and career
stage were added; and a third model to which gender was added. In the processof generating the correlation matrix upon which the regression analyses wereMartin Finkelstein 219

Page

conducted, appropriate tests for multicollinearity among predictor variables was
conducted.
Prologue to results: trends in academic work, 1970-1992
Before proceeding directly to an examination of the results, it seems
necessary, by way of establishing the context for interpreting these findings, tolocate for the reader the status of the teaching vs. research in the U.S. faculty role
for the period immediately prior to the fifteen years period examined here: theperiod from about 1970-1992 in which American higher education’s golden age
had begun receding and had been replaced by a period of fiscal constraint andre-examination and assessment. If the 1992 Carnegie survey provides thebaseline for the current study, we need to provide the reader with a sense of thebaseline that those undertaking the 1992 Carnegie survey had when they took
their snapshot of faculty work. We try to do so by using data from earlier U.S.
national surveys to provide an overview of the two decades prior to the Carnegie
survey.
In the early 1970s, faculty in the U.S. reported an about 40-42 hour work
week in national surveys, a figure that rose sharply by the late-1980s to close to
50 hours (with perhaps a quarter reporting 55 or more weekly hours). Most ofthat rise was attributable to an increase in research hours and publication
activity; indeed, the overall rise masked a slight decline in weekly teaching hours.
This trend represented the widespread diffusion of the research modelthroughout the four-year sector of American higher education. This is theperiod when college rankings, especially by U.S. News and World Report madetheir debut and focused attention on factors such as faculty credentials, external
research dollars generated and faculty publications as key factors in attracting
the best students and driving campus positions in the ratings game (Wildavsky,2010). It is also the period when student consumerism received its biggest
boost, the 1972 Amendments to the Higher Education Act of 1965, targeting
individual students rather than institutions as the recipients of federal scholarshipgrants. Ultimately, the confluence of these developments led to unfetteredpursuit by students of the most highly rated colleges and reinforced institutional
jockeying for ever better positions in the prestige race.
The early 1990’s saw something of a teaching correction in American
higher education. The decade opened with the publication of Ernest Boyer’s
widely influential “Scholarship Reconsidered: Priorities of the Professorate”.
That volume not only decried the knee-jerk embrace of research and decried its
displacement of teaching as the overriding focus of most four-year institutions,220 The Balance between Teaching and Research in the Work Life of American Academics, 1992-2007

Page

but provided a conceptual framework and rationale for expanding conceptions offaculty research and scholarship to include “the scholarship of teaching”, a
species of legitimation of teaching’s importance employing the language of
research and scholarship. That clarion call was supported by the increasing
disaffection of state legislators and other public officials with undergraduate
education, which was increasingly relegated to graduate teaching assistants andother part-time faculty. In several states these concerns effectively translated
into higher teaching loads − or at least the enforcement of legal teaching loads −and a concomitant decline in research effort (facilitated, too, by a concurrent
decline in federal research support). These trends were reflected in astabilization or slight regression to earlier (i.e. lower) levels of weekly work
hours, mostly at the expense of research hours.
This was the context into which the 1992 Carnegie survey introduced itself.
And now, thus armed, we turn to the results.

Findings
Descriptive results
Table 1 below reports overall weekly work hours, weekly hours in teaching
and in research, teaching vs. research orientation, and publications for U.S.
faculty in 1992 and 2007. These data appear to confirm the sort of “teachingcorrection” post-1990 we postulated in the preceding section: weekly time
devoted to teaching increased by 12% and research time declined by more than
27% in the fifteen year period, thus allowing for an actual decline in total weekly
work hours despite the teaching effort uptick. This re-allocation of effort isreflected in a slight decline in reported orientation to research and a substantial
decline in reported publication activity.
Institutional type
When we examine differences in teaching and research effort between
institutional types in both 1992 and 2007 (Table 2), we find a consistent patternof difference between research and non-research institutions in each year: faculty
in research institutions spend less time in teaching than their “other four-year”
counterparts, they are more research oriented, they publish much more and work
longer hours. Moreover, the magnitude of the institutional type differences
appears to remain equally large, suggesting that type of institution continues toplay a formative role in shaping the character of faculty work.

Martin Finkelstein 221

Page

Table 1. U.S. faculty teaching and research, 1992, 2007: all faculty
1992

2007

Percent Change’92-‘07N≈3300 N≈1066

Teaching hours, weekly
Research hours, weekly
Total work hours, weekly
Teaching oriented
Research oriented

Teaching or research oriented

18.68

20.93

+12.0%

16.46

11.89

-27.8%

50.93

47.70

-6.3%

49.2%

57.0%

+7.8%

50.8%

43.0%

-7.8%

Journal articles published last 3 yrs
6.42
4.10
-36.1%
Source: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching (1996); CAP (2009)

Table 2. U.S. faculty teaching and research by institutional type, 1992, 2007
1992

Teaching hours,
weeklyResearch hours,
weeklyTotal work hours,
weeklyTeaching or
research oriented

Teachingoriented
Researchoriented

2007

Nonresearch% Difference
Non% Difference
Research Res vs. Non Research Research Res vs. Non

N≈980

N≈2370

23.43

16.71

11.05

N≈611

N≈475

-28.7%

24.19

18.20

-24.8%

18.63+68.6%

9.05

16.31

+80.2%

47.83

52.18

+9.1%

47.18

50.31

+6.6%

73.9%

38.9%

-35.0%

72.8%

37.7%

-35.1%

26.1%

61.1%

+35.0%

27.2%

62.3%

+35.1%

Journal articles
3.32
7.53
+126.8%3.04
6.36
published in 3 yrs
Source: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching (1996); CAP (2009)+109.2%In an effort to detect whether any more subtle changes in the power of
institutional type may be operating for certain faculty subgroups (but not others)
and thus be effectively masked in the aggregated analyses, we sought to repeat
the cross tabulation of institutional type and faculty work activities, controllingfor career stage. The hypothesis here was that if indeed there was someattenuation in the effect of institutional type on faculty work, it should be mostnoticeable among the most recent faculty hires. Table 3 reports the effect of
institutional type and work activities for faculty in the first seven years of theircareer only, i.e. typical probationary faculty in their first academic appointment.
The data here show that while among new hires, the basic pattern of differencesin teaching effort, research effort and orientation between research andnon-research institutions remains, differences in total weekly work effort
between institutional types virtually disappear and publication differentials are222 The Balance between Teaching and Research in the Work Life of American Academics, 1992-2007

Page

cut in half. This suggests that the spread of the competitive research andpublication ethos throughout the four year sector described earlier may indeed bemanifesting itself, if not yet in allocation of time to research, in efforts toincrease the tangible products of research − scholarly publications.
Table 3. U.S. faculty teaching and research by institutional type, 1992, 2007.
New entrants only
1992

Teaching hours,
weeklyResearch hours,
weeklyTotal work hours,
weeklyTeaching or
research oriented

Teaching
Oriented
Researchoriented

2007

Nonresearch% Difference
NonResearch Res vs. Non research% Difference
Research Res vs. Non

N≈260

N≈560

N≈177

N≈109

22.37

16.36

-26.9%

26.05

19.61

-24.7%

10.18

20.54

+101.8%

9.79

18.50

+89.0%

42.72

52.71

+23.4%

48.89

49.34

+0.9%

69.2%

37.5%

-31.7%

67.5%

32.4%

-35.1%

30.8%

62.5%

+31.7%

32.5%

67.6%

+35.1%

Journal articles
2.41
5.93
+146.1%
2.62
4.57
published in 3 yrs
Source: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching (1996); CAP (2009)+74.4%

Academic discipline
Table 4 shows weekly hours for teaching, research, and all activities,
research orientation and publication in 1992 and 2007 for faculty in four clustersof academic fields: (1) life and medical sciences, (2) physical sciences,mathematics and engineering, (3) humanities and social sciences, and (4) otherfields, including the professions (health sciences as well as law, architecture,
education and business). In 1992, the position of the four disciplinary clusters
is roughly as expected: faculty in the natural sciences (life sciences and physicalsciences combined) spend less time teaching, more on research, work more
hours overall, are more research oriented and publish nearly twice as much as
their colleagues in the humanities and social sciences and other fields, including
the professions (although the relative position of the life and physical scienceschanges slightly from item to item). By 2007, the basic pattern persists, with,however, some notable exceptions: the gap in overall work hours and research
hours favoring natural scientists (the former a function primarily of their greater
effort allocated to research) narrows as do differences in research orientation and,to a lesser extent, publications. While disciplinary differences remain, they

Martin Finkelstein 223

Page

appear, like differences attributable to institutional type, to be somewhat
attenuated.
Table 4. U.S faculty teaching and research by academic field, 1992, 2007
1992

Teaching hours,
weeklyResearch hours,
weeklyTotal work hours,
weekly2007

Physics Social
Life&
Sci. &&Engineer- HumaniMedical
ing
ties

Other
Life
(incl.
&
ProfessMedical
ions)

Physics Social&
Sci. &Engineer- Humaniing
ties

Other
(incl.
professions)N≈1035N≈590

N≈1025

N≈675

N≈230

N≈195

N≈333

N≈300

13.44

20.01

21.62

21.09

18.83

19.20

22.50

21.97

18.47

19.40

14.67

13.32

12.62

14.22

12.00

9.77

52.54

51.77

49.16

50.07

48.80

47.83

47.97

46.69

Teaching
42.7%
40.4%
52.0%
62.7%
53.9%
52.3%
54.0%
oriented
Teaching or
research oriented Research
57.3%
59.6%
48.0%
37.3%
46.1%
47.7%
46.0%
oriented
Journal articles
8.59
7.83
4.16
4.68
5.49
5.28
3.07
published last 3 yrs
Source: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching (1996); CAP (2009)

65.8%
34.2%
3.25

GenderTable 5 displays gender differences in the focal faculty role activities in1992 and 2007. The pattern that emerges in both 1992 and 2007 is largely as
expected: men spend less time in teaching and more time in research than female
colleagues; they are more oriented to research and publish much more. Twopoints are worthy of note. First, the magnitude of the differences between thegenders seems smaller than between the institutional types and academic fields
overall. Second, the differences are especially small in overall weekly hours
devoted to work (indeed by 2007, women reported working longer hours thanmen) and the gender disparity in publications seems to narrow by 2007. In aneffort to further locate and analyze these gender differences, Table 6 shows thegender differences on the five focal work dimensions for research university
faculty only (controlling for institutional type) and Tables 7a and 7b show thegender differences after controlling for academic discipline. The message ofTable 6 is clear: at research universities (vis-à-vis the general institutional
population), gender differences have to some extent always been attenuated; but,
more to the point, by 2007, gender differences in weekly hours devoted to work,
research orientation and publications had virtually disappeared. The data in

224 The Balance between Teaching and Research in the Work Life of American Academics, 1992-2007

Page

Tables 7a and 7b suggest that in no small part the attenuation of genderdifferences in research orientation and publications is likely to be attributable towomen faculty in the humanities and social sciences and the professions who
have largely eliminated any gender disparities in publication in those fields.
These findings are largely consistent with the trends in faculty research
productivity noted by Schuster and Finkelstein (2006) in their recent overview ofthe evidence gleaned from more than three decades of national faculty surveys in
the United States.
Table 5. U.S. faculty teaching and research by gender, 1992, 2007
1992

Teaching hours,
weeklyResearch hours,
weeklyTotal work hours,
weeklyTeaching or
research oriented

Teachingoriented
Researchoriented

2007

Female

Male

N≈880

N≈2400% Difference
Male vs.
Female

20.55

18.03

-12.3%

22.51

20.00

-11.2%

13.51

17.50

+29.5%

10.26

13.03

+27.0%

49.93

51.26

+2.7%

48.50

47.41

-2.2%

57.2%

46.3%

-10.9%

62.6%

53.3%

-9.3%

42.8%

53.7%

+10.9%

37.4%

46.7%

+9.3%

Female

Male

N≈400

N≈650

Journal articles
4.26
7.14
+67.6%
3.47
4.50
published in 3 yrs
Source: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching (1996); CAP (2009)% Difference
Male vs.
Female+29.7%

Table 6. U.S. faculty teaching and research by gender. Research Universities only
1992

Teaching hours,
weeklyResearch hours,
weeklyTotal work hours,
weeklyTeaching or
research oriented

Teachingoriented
Researchoriented

Female

Male

N≈570

N≈17802007% Difference
Male vs.
FemaleFemale

Male

N≈168

N≈302

% Difference
Male vs.
Female

18.02

16.31

-9.5%

19.42

17.53

-9.7%

16.35

19.37

+18.5%

15.24

17.01

+11.6%

52.03

52.22

+0.4%

50.63

50.28

-0.7%

44.4%

37.1%

-7.3%

38.4%

36.8%

-1.6%

55.6%

62.9%

+7.3%

61.6%

63.2%

+1.6%

Journal articles
5.36
8.19 +52.8%
6.15
6.49
published in 3 yrs
Source: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching (1996); CAP (2009)+5.5%

Martin Finkelstein 225

Page

Table 7a. U.S. faculty teaching and research by academic field and gender, 1992

Teaching hours,
weeklyResearch hours,
weeklyTotal work hours,
weeklyTeaching or
research oriented

Teachingoriented
Researchoriented

Life & Medical

Physics &EngineeringSocial sciences &Other
Humanities(incl. professions)

F

M

F

M

F

M

F

M

N≈320

N≈ 793

N≈58

N≈553

N≈326

N≈737

N≈230

N≈476

15.58

12.42

23.73

19.33

22.62

20.53

21.42

20.47

13.84

17.02

14.71

17.88

11.89

14.87

11.17

13.47

49.38

52.23

49.73

51.41

48.31

48.46

48.74

49.37

49.5%

39.8%

58.5%

38.6%

56.1%

50.2%

69.4%

59.5%

50.5%

60.2%

41.5%

61.4%

43.9%

49.8%

30.6%

40.5%

4.15

2.95

4.44

Journal articles
5.26
8.39
4.43
7.33
3.25
published last 3 yrs
Source: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching (1996)

Table 7b. U. S. faculty teaching and research by academic field and gender, 2007
Life & Medical

Teaching hours,
weeklyResearch hours,
weeklyTotal work hours,
weeklyTeaching or
research oriented

Teachingoriented
Researchoriented

Journal articles
published last 3 yrs
Source: CAP (2009)

Physics &EngineeringSocial sciences &Other
Humanities(incl. professions)

F

M

F

M

F

M

F

M

N≈121

N≈126

N≈46

N≈159

N≈132

N≈202

N≈112

N≈192

21.35

15.64

20.85

18.27

21.51

22.61

23.49

19.98

9.57

13.90

9.35

14.74

10.55

12.41

10.25

9.37

47.74

49.35

47.53

48.44

45.54

48.80

50.25

42.61

67.5%

41.0%

70.8%

45.8%

54.1%

53.4%

62.6%

67.6%

32.5%

59.0%

29.2%

54.2%

45.9%

46.6%

37.4%

32.4%

3.90

5.49

3.70

4.42

2.46

3.46

3.24

2.66

Type of appointment
Table 8 shows the differences in the focal faculty role activities in 1992 and2007 by type of appointment: tenured and tenure-track (often referred to as
career ladder) vs. non-tenure track (non-ladder). The pattern of differences in1992 is minimal in all but two respects: most notably, there is a sharp differential
in publication activity in the expected direction with tenured and tenure track
faculty publishing more than their contract colleagues by nearly 50%; andsomewhat incongruously, it is contract faculty that taught nearly 10% less than226 The Balance between Teaching and Research in the Work Life of American Academics, 1992-2007

Page

the tenured and tenure-track faculty. 4 There is little appreciable difference ineither orientation to teaching vs. research or in weekly effort devoted to research.
By 2007, both the scope and absolute magnitude of differences in role activities
had strikingly expanded: large differences were discernible in all areas except
weekly teaching hours, including a decided gap in research orientation, weekly
research effort and the previous publication gap between appointment types had
increased. This suggests that relatively muted differences had developed into asubstantial work-role differentials by 2007.
Table 8. U.S. faculty teaching and research by appointment type, 1992, 2007
1992

2007

% Difference% Difference
Tenured/Tenured/Contract
Tenure vs. Contract
Tenure vs.
On-track
On-track
contract
contract
Teaching hours,
weeklyResearch hours,
weeklyTotal work hours,
weeklyTeaching or
research oriented

Teachingoriented
Researchoriented

N≈704

N≈2804

N≈360

N≈718

17.04

18.72

+9.9%

19.98

20.58

+3.0%

14.56

15.19

+4.3%

8.49

12.84

+51.2%

49.29

50.31

+2.1%

43.78

48.76

+11.4%

48.0%

49.5%

+1.5%

70.7%

49.6%

-21.1%

52.0%

50.5%

-1.5%

29.3%

50.4%

+21.1%

Journal articles
4.54
6.03
+32.7%
2.32
4.18+80.2%
published in 3 yrs
Source: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching (1996); CAP (2009)

When we examine the scope and magnitude of the role activities gap
controlling for career stage (Table 9), we find that new entrants in 1992 largely
reflected the aggregate (except for a decidedly smaller gap in publication
activity), while in 2007 the gap between contract and tenured/tenureable faculty
among new entrants vis-à-vis more senior faculty had expanded especially in theareas of weekly research effort and publication, (although inexplicably contract
faculty also seem to teach 10% less than their tenureable colleagues). Thissuggests, at least with respect to research effort and publication activity, that theaccentuation of appointment type differences was especially visible among the4This unexpected (at least in terms of direction) teaching differential may reflect thedisproportionate number of contract faculty in this earlier period with research as theirprincipal activity, especially at the research universities. Such faculty typically teach muchless (Schuster & Finkelstein, 2006).

Martin Finkelstein 227

Page

newest entrants to the profession. The data in Table 10, which controls for
institutional type, shows that the appointment type related gap in work activities
is largely replicated in research universities where differences in research effort,
weekly work hours and research orientation persist among different types offull-time faculty appointees, while the gap in publication activity is somewhat
attenuated. This suggests that irrespective of appointment type, there is amodestly durable institutional type effect.
Table 9. U.S. faculty teaching and research by appointment type, 1992, 2007. New
entrants only
1992

Tenured/Contract On-track
Teaching hours,
weeklyResearch hours,
weeklyTotal work hours,
weeklyTeaching or
research oriented

Teachingoriented
Researchoriented

N≈375

N≈479

17.15

18.56

15.59

2007

% Difference% Difference
Tenured/Tenure vs. Contract
Tenure vs.
On-track
contract
contract
N≈155

N≈159

+8.2%

20.34

22.78

+12.0%

15.26

-2.1%

8.81

14.25

+61.7%

49.57

47.76

-3.7%

44.33

49.62

+11.9%

43.4%

51.2%

+7.8%

70.8%

47.1%

-23.7%

56.6%

48.8%

-7.8%

29.2%

52.9%

+23.7%

Journal articles
4.31
4.89
+13.5%
1.87
3.55+89.8%
published in 3 yrs
Source: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching (1996); CAP (2009)

Table 10. U.S. faculty teaching and research by appointment type, 1992, 2007.
Research Universities only
1992

Tenured/Contract On-track
Teaching hours,
WeeklyResearch hours,
WeeklyTotal work hours,
WeeklyTeaching or
research oriented

Teachingoriented
Researchoriented

N≈496

N≈1995

14.85

16.93

16.34

2007

% Difference% Difference
Tenured/Tenure vs. Contract
Tenure vs.
On-track
contract
contract
N≈97

N≈394

+14.0%

16.58

18.26

+10.1%

16.94

+3.7%

11.01

16.53

+50.1%

50.90

51.42

+1.0%

44.78

51.06

+14.0%

40.3%

38.6%

-1.7%

60.8%

31.2%

-29.6%

59.7%

61.4%

+1.7%

39.2%

68.9%

+29.7%

Journal articles
5.27
7.05
+33.8%
4.10
6.02+46.8%
published in 3 yrs
Source: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching (1996); CAP (2009)

228 The Balance between Teaching and Research in the Work Life of American Academics, 1992-2007

Page

Table 11. U. S. faculty teaching and research by appointment type and gender,
1992, 2007

Teaching hours,
WeeklyResearch hours,
WeeklyTotal work hours,
WeeklyTeaching or
research oriented

1992
2007
Contract
Tenure ∕ On-track
Contract
Tenure ∕ On-track
F
M
F
M
F
M
F
M
N≈263 N≈438 N≈673 N≈2128 N≈154 N≈197 N≈245 N≈469

Teachingoriented
Researchoriented

19.35

15.70

20.30

18.24

20.05

19.97

22.98

19.33

12.48

15.86

12.61

15.96

8.97

8.37

10.68

14.00

48.39

49.85

49.02

50.66

44.32

43.70

49.54

48.43

53.1%

44.8%

58.8%

46.6%

73.3%

67.8%

54.3%

47.1%

46.9%

55.2%

41.3%

53.4%

26.7%

32.2%

45.7%

52.9%

2.52

3.81

4.37

Journal articles
3.16
5.32
4.34
6.50
2.18
published last 3 yrs
Source: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching (1996)

Table 11 shows the work-role gap in 1992 and 2007 for contract vs.
tenureable faculty by gender. There are few surprises in the overall data, with a
few notable exceptions: the persistent gender gap in weekly teaching andresearch effort and in orientation to research that is visible in the aggregate(Table 10) and among tenured and tenure track faculty in 2007 and appears topersist across both institutional types (Table 6) and academic fields (Tables 7aand 7b) largely disappears among contract faculty in 2007. Male contract
faculty teach about the same amount − twenty hours weekly − in 2007 as female
contract faculty and spend about the same amount of time − nine hours weekly −in research; and the gender gap in research orientation is the lowest among any
faculty subgroup defined by institutional type, academic field, and type of
appointment. This is in stark contrast to the gender gap for tenured andtenure-track faculty which remains relatively large in 2007. The only area inwhich the gender gap among contract faculty surpasses that of tenured andtenure track faculty is in publication activity, where men publish more than
women by nearly 40%. That that type of appointment appears to neutralize thepersistent effects of gender on work-role definition suggests clearly andpersuasively that appointment type may now serve as an independent arbiter ofwork-role definition.
Inferential results
Table 12 displays the results of the final (third) model of the logistic
regression analyses for all five dependent variables for 1992. At firstMartin Finkelstein 229

Page

inspection, the results provide clear and resounding empirical confirmation of
the basic Clark conceptualization: both institutional type and academic field
emerge as significant predictors of all five faculty work dependent variables,
although between the two, institutional type was more powerful. In 1992
faculty members at a research university were about five times more likely thanthose at another type of four-year institution to be highly oriented to research(rather than teaching) and to expend a large weekly effort on research; they were
three times more likely to have published above the median that faculty at otherfour-year institutions; about 1.5 times as likely to work above the median
number of weekly hours; and about one-third as likely to teach above the median
number of weekly hours. Less powerfully, 1992 faculty members in the naturalsciences were about twice as likely as those outside the natural sciences to beoriented to research (rather than teaching), to devote more than the median
weekly number of hours to research and to publish more than the median numberof articles. They were about half as likely as non-scientists to teach above themedian number of weekly hours; and no different from non-scientists in total
weekly work hours.
Table 12. Logistic regression, predictors of work-role: 1992

Teaching Hours(X2=293.668,
df=7, p<=.000)
Sig.

Articles Published Teaching/research(X2=194.174,
Orientation
df=7, p<=.000)(X2=339.283,
df=7, p<=.000)

Exp(B)Sig.

Exp(B)

Sig.

.000*** 4.731.001**

1.469.000*** 3.073.000*** 5.009.000***.344.000*** 1.487

.053

1.261

.000*** 1.882.000*** 1.984.010**.726.000*** 2.342

.238

1.182

.002**

1.615.000*** 2.318

.561

1.062

.095

1.199

.427

.907

.011*

.720

.000*** 1.581

.537

1.069

.157

1.159

.405

1.101

.052

1.279

.624

.952

career age*4

.255

.894

.025*

1.243

.724

.963

.121

.832

.109

1.160

gender*5.000***.705.000*** 1.524

.052

1.221

.000*** 1.453

discipline:
life/medical
or not*2
discipline:
physical sciencesor notdiscipline:
humanities
appointment
types*3*1

Sig.

Total Working
Hours(X2=30.999,
df=7, p<=.000).367

Institutional types*1 .000***

Exp(B)

Research Hours(X2=310.082,
df=7, p<=.000)

Coded as “0” = other four-year institution and “1” = research university
Coded as “0”= no and “1” = yes*3
Coded as “0” = contract and “1” = tenured ∕ on-track*4
Coded as “0” = senior and “1” = new entrants*5
Coded as “0” = female and “1” = male
Source: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching (1996)*2

Exp(B)Sig.

Exp(B).000*** 1.391

230 The Balance between Teaching and Research in the Work Life of American Academics, 1992-2007

Page

Beyond institutional type and academic field, gender emerges, even as early
as 1992, as a significant arbiter of work-role behavior almost on a par withacademic field (a close third). Male faculty members in 1992 were about one
and one-half times as likely as females to be above the median in weekly
research hours, in research orientation and in publication; conversely they wereabout 3 ∕ 4 as likely to be above the median in weekly teaching hours. Type ofacademic appointment is, however, largely invisible as a determinant of
academic work-role in 1992: contract faculty were no more or no less likely thantenured and tenure-track (career ladder) faculty to expend any greater (or lesser)
effort in teaching, research, the overall job or to publish more.
Table 13 displays the results of the final (third) model of the logistic
regression analyses for all five dependent variables for 2007. The Exp B values
suggest first that while the determinative power of institutional type persists
across four of the five dimensions of the work-role, it is slightly attenuated.
The only dependent variable upon which the predictive power of institutional
type remains equally strong is faculty orientation to research: a 2007 faculty
member at a research university is still about five times more likely than one at
another four-year institution to be above the median in research orientation.
They are slightly less likely, however, than a faculty member in 1992 to be above
the median in research hours (Exp B = 2.7 vs. 3.3) and publications; (Exp B =3.7 vs. 4.0) and show no significant difference from other four-year institution
faculty in total work hours (they were significantly higher in 1992). The
determinative power of both academic field and gender appear to persist at about
the same level of power: Exp B in the neighborhood of 1.5 for scientists vs.
non-scientists and for men vs. women on research orientation, teaching andresearch hours and publications.
The new and big story revealed by Table 13 is the emergence of type of
appointment as a powerful predictor of work-role behaviors (nearly) rivaling
academic field and gender as second only to institutional type as an arbiter ofacademic work. The table shows that a career ladder (tenured or tenure-track)faculty member, who in 1992 showed no visible differences on any of the fivedimensions of academic work from a contract faculty member, was by 2007 twoand half times more likely than a contract faculty member to be above the medianin research orientation and weekly research hours, twice as likely as a contract
faculty member to be above the median in publication and one and a half times as
likely as a contract faculty member to be above the median in total weekly work
hours. This suggests that by 2007 appointment status had developed very
quickly as a fourth pillar defining the complexion of academic work.

Martin Finkelstein 231

Page

Table 13. Logistic regression, predictors of work-role, 2007

Teaching Hours(X2=66.217,
df=7, p<=.000)

Research Hours(X2=99.085,
df=7, p<=.000)

Total Working
Hours(X2=23.451,
df=7, p<=.001)

Articles Published Teaching/research(X2=53.191,
Orientation
df=7, p<=.000)(X2=153.985,
df=7, p<=.000)

Sig.

Exp(B)Sig.

Exp(B)Sig.

Exp(B)Sig.

Exp(B)Sig.

Exp(B).000***.393.000***

3.774

.698

.944

.000***

2.670.000***

5.132

.013*

.619

.680

1.087

.030*

1.483

.011*

1.876

.007**

1.677.008**

.566

.012*

1.708

.035*

1.513

.244

1.365

.007**

1.748

.916

1.018

.166

1.294

.143

1.279

.410

.836

.001**

1.842

appointment types .359.871

.000***

2.041.001**

1.646.000***

2.534.000***

2.684

career age

.216

1.205

.541

1.102

.724

.950

.340

1.209

.655

1.070

gender.006**.677.004**

1.528

.111

.806

.634

1.090

.022*

1.385

Institutional types
discipline:
medical or notdiscipline:
physical sciencesor notdiscipline:
humanities

Source: CAP (2009)

Discussion and conclusions
Based on the above analyses, what then can we say first, most generally,
about the changing balance of teaching and research in American higher
education? In the past 15 years, we have suggested that a rebalancing ofteaching and research towards teaching is observable. The self-reported total
number of weekly hours devoted to academic work has stabilized or declined
slightly: teaching orientation and hours have increased across the board; research
hours have declined across the board (although there has been a much smaller
decline in observable research orientation); and publication volume and rate has
declined, but is distributed more widely within the four-year system.
Within the context of this broader teaching “correction,” which can beinterpreted as nothing more than a swing of the pendulum (although, to be sure,it may be a lengthy swing), what can we say more fundamentally about thefactors that shape academic work in the United States? To what extent do
Burton Clark’s observations of a quarter century ago still hold? To what extent
do they need to be modified or even supplanted? The results of our analyses
suggest several layers of conclusions. Most generally, at the macro level, theysuggest that institutional type and academic field remain powerful arbiters
shaping how faculty members go about their work. Moreover, our analyses

232 The Balance between Teaching and Research in the Work Life of American Academics, 1992-2007

Page

suggest that even as Professor Clark wrote, gender had already emerged as anearly co-equal third axis shaping academic work, both within institutional anddisciplinary settings.
By 2007, however, while institutional type, academic field and genderpersist as arbiters of academic work, the available evidence suggests that type of
appointment has emerged − and very quickly − as a major shaper of theacademic work-role, second only to institutional type. This is the single mostdramatic and far reaching conclusion of this analysis. Clearly, in the past 15
years, new types of full-time appointments, which were just emerging in the
1990s have become major factors in the academic workplace, not only as afunction of their rapidly growing numbers, but also in terms of the powerfuldefinition, or redefinition, that they give to the academic work-role, acrossinstitutional and disciplinary settings and even within the boundaries of gendersocialization. As a fourth arbiter of the complexion of academic work has
emerged, the available evidence suggests some subtle shifts in their interactions.
There is some evidence that gender differences are being attenuated by thepower of institutional type (e.g. by the elimination of many differences,
especially in publication behavior at research universities) and appointment type(males and female work patterns differ less in contract appointments than intenure-track appointments). There is even some evidence that the power of
institutional type is attenuating slightly as publication expectations spread more
uniformly across the system, even in the midst of a “teaching correction.”
There is some further evidence that career stage may be entering the picture,
insofar as new entrants to the profession may differ less among themselves intheir work orientation and behavior than their senior colleagues.
Taken together, the findings suggest that we are witnessing an increasing
differentiation of academic work. If a quarter of a century ago, Professor Clark
could explain half the variance in a professor’s work life based on only two bitsof information (institutional type and academic field), we can say with someconfidence that he would need to add at least two additional contributors today:
gender and appointment type. And perhaps most significantly, the newly
emergent arbiter of academic work, appointment type, promises increasing
specialization in the work-role rendering questions of teaching and researchbalance increasingly moot (or rather increasingly irrelevant to an ever larger
segment of the U.S. instructional faculty.

Martin Finkelstein 233

Page

References
Altbach, P. (ed.) (1996). The International Academic Profession: Portraits of Fourteen
Countries. Princeton, NJ: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.

Baldwin, R.G., & Chronister, J.L. (2001). Teaching Without Tenure. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins
University Press.

Boyer, E. (1990). Scholarship Reconsidered: Priorities of the Professoriate. Princeton, NJ:
Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.

Clark, B. (1987). Academic Life: Small Worlds, Little Worlds. Princeton, New Jersey: Carnegie
Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.

Cross, J., & Goldenberg, E. (2009). Off Track Profs: Non-Tenured Teachers in Higher
Education. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Finkelstein, M. (1984). The American Academic Profession: A Synthesis of Social Scientific
Inquiry Since World War II. Columbus, OH: The Ohio State University Press.

Finkelstein, M., Seal, R., & Schuster, J. (1998). The New Academic Generation. Baltimore:
Johns Hopkins University Press.

Gappa, J., & Leslie, D. (1993). The Invisible Faculty. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Kezar, A., & Sam, C. (2010). Understanding the New Majority of Non-tenure Track Faculty inHigher Education: Demographics, Experiences and Plans of Action. ASHE Higher
Education Reports, 36 (5).

Schuster, J., & Finkelstein, M. (2006). The American Faculty; The Restructuring of Academic
Work and Careers. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Slaughter, S., & Rhoades, G. (2004). Academic Capitalism and the New Economy: Markets,
State, and Higher Education. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Wildavsky, B. (2010). The Great Brain Race: How Global Universities are Reshaping theWorld. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

234

235

Conclusion

236

235
RIHE International Seminar Reports, No.15, 2010 Page

Changes and Realities in Teaching and Research
Activities of the Academy

Futao Huang

The Research Institutes for Higher Education (RIHE) of Hiroshima
University and of Hijiyama University in Hiroshima jointly organized theinternational conference entitled “The Changing Academic Profession inInternational and Quantitative Perspectives: A Focus on Teaching and Research
Activities,” from January 13-14, 2010. This conference was the fourth andfinal conference to be held in Hiroshima as part of the Changing Academic
Profession (CAP) Project. At the conference, 15 speakers from 9 countries
made presentations, and with participants from across Japan, approximately 60
people attended the conference.
The major theme was proposed to focus mainly on the teaching andresearch activities of the academic profession in each country, mainly based on
the major findings from the national surveys of 2007-2008. In reality, thepresentations and discussion covered more diverse topics and included,- the relationship between teaching, research, and learning,- an analysis of research productivity,- the correlation between teaching, research and administration, and- the special factors contributing to service activities.
All these topics were touched on at diverse levels and from a range ofperspectives. At an international level, Prof. Arimoto argued that, in aknowledge-based society the necessity to integrate research and teachingactivities, which is based on the concept of the Humboldtian model of theuniversity, should be recognized. By using data for a sub-group of countries,Professor, RIHE, Hiroshima University, e-mail: futao@hiroshima-u.ac.jp

236 Changes and Realities in Teaching and Research Activities of the Academy

Page

Prof. Cummings made a comparative study of the most important factors
affecting differential research productivity in the USA, Japan, Korea, Australiaand Hong Kong. At a system level, Prof. Rostan’s presentation was mainly
concerned with a comparative study of Italy with other major European countries.
He provided a relatively gloomy picture of the academic profession in his
country due to the reforms relating to the Bologna process. In contrast, inSouth Africa, Prof. Higgs described significant changes that are resulting in atransformation of higher education and the great changes that still need to beachieved.
From the presentations and discussion it was evident, in the conference, thata more refined analysis of the convergence-divergence debate on teaching andresearch activities was being made within and between systems by a number of
speakers by the use of various sub-groups. Exemplifying this was a case studyof Germany by institution and academic rank (professorial and junior staff), in
which Prof. Teichler emphasized that there has been a narrowing gap in the
differences between professors and junior staff as well as in those working atuniversities and Fachhochschulen, but substantial differences still remained overthe period 1992-2007 in Germany.
Prof. Huang and Dr. Li, in a case study of China by type of institution andby academic rank, argued that there seems to be a clear division in the characterof academic work between different institutions and between different academic
ranks in Chinese higher education institutions especially since 1998 when aquick and fast expansion in higher education has been achieved.
Prof. Hasegawa and Prof. Ogata reported on Japan’s academic profession
with a focus on teaching and research activities by institution and by academic
discipline. They showed that, similarly, there is in Japan a clear division in thecharacter of the academic work between the national research universities andprivate non-research universities as well as between different academic
disciplines in recent years.
A further case study of Japan by Prof. Fukudome and Dr. Kimoto used arange of international, comparative perspectives to show that for age cohorts andby gender there exist diverse models for faculty development. Though somechanges are happening concerning teaching and research by female academics, agreat disparity could still be found between male academics and female
academics in Japan.
Prof. Zain from Malaysia focused on the research, teaching, andadministration of academic staff by rank and academic discipline. His
sophisticated analysis identified factors affecting the ability of MalaysianFutao Huang 237

Page

academics to achieve international prestige and to make academic impact at aninternational level.
A special case study by Prof. Shin focused on the service work of Korean
academics in a comparative perspective by institution, career, and gender, He
argued that, apart from different perceptions of the definition of service byinstitution, career, and gender, one of the important conclusions is that Korean
academics are more actively involved with scientific service, but less with
community activities than academics elsewhere.
Prof. Galaz-Fontes presented a case study of Mexico with a focus onteaching and research by the minority full-time faculty by level of degree and bymembership of the national system. He concluded that there has been an
intensified separation between teaching and research and a creation of two
different academic worlds due to the implementation of public policies.
An analysis by Prof. Finkelstein, of total weekly work hours, teachingorientation, and numbers and rate of publications by the USA academic
profession in terms of institution, gender, and discipline, found that in the past 15
years, there has been a rebalancing of teaching and research towards teaching in
the USA. Academic work in the USA has become increasingly complicatedand diversified for various sub-groups over the period 1992-2007.
Additionally, some other interesting topics and questions attracted
discussion, including the following issues.
- Should the Humboldtian ideal be pursued even in countries in which massor universal-access higher education systems have been established?
- Do teaching and research activities mutually reinforce each other, or arethese activities substantially un-related or disaggregated?
- To what extent have significant changes happened to both teaching andresearch activities of the AP, in the USA and elsewhere, over the last 15
years?
- What factors have affected the changing pattern of academic work,
especially teaching and research activities? And- What changes will happen to the academic profession’s orientations or
preferences towards teaching and research as well as other activities incountries like the USA and Mexico in the future?
Compared with all the previous conferences which have been held in
Hiroshima, we have gained some clearer perceptions from both presentations
and discussions; in particular these relate to a number of important aspects.

238 Changes and Realities in Teaching and Research Activities of the Academy

Page- There has been a widening gap between teaching and research activities by
the academic profession evident not only among different systems, but also
within systems by sub-group.
- The separation between teaching and research might be attributed to various
factors depending on different countries. However, in some countries,
such as Italy, South Africa, Malaysia, and Mexico, national HE reforms andpublic policies seem to have played a central role in substantially affecting
the changing pattern of teaching and research of the AP. Some of them
have brought healthy changes to the AP, while others have not.
- Many contributory relations, including supporting systems, national
policies, domestic and international connections, etc., are of great
importance in stimulating research productivity.
- Most countries, except notably the USA, have shown an increase inresearch productivity while devoting rather less time to research and moretime to teaching.
Although four international conferences on the changing academic
profession have been held in Hiroshima since 2006, there remain many issues tobe dealt with in the future. Three of the more important are listed below.
- What models or patterns can be identified through refined analyses of theacademic profession at national levels and especially within systems forvarious sub-groups?
- What role should the academic profession seek to play in this changing
world?
- What implications can our academic outcomes have for social, political andlegal decisions which might lead to positive and healthy impacts on theacademic profession in individual countries?

239

Appendices240

Appendix 1:

Conference Program

239

The Changing Academic Profession in International and Quantitative
Perspectives: A Focus on Teaching & Research Activities
Date: January 13-14, 2010
Venue: Hiroshima Garden Palace

Wednesday, January 13
8:30 -

Registration*** Opening Ceremony ***9:00 - 9:20
Opening Remarks
Toshimasa Asahara, President, Hiroshima University, Japan
Susumu Takahashi, President, Hijiyama University, Japan
Shinichi Yamamoto, Director & Professor, Research Institute forHigher Education, Hiroshima University, Japan
Akira Arimoto, Director & Professor, Research Institute for Higher
Education, Hijiyama University, Japan*** Keynote Speeches ***Chairs:Takekazu Ehara, Professor, Institute for Teaching and Learning,
Ritsumeikan University, Japan
Jesús F. Galaz-Fontes, Professor of Education, Autonomous
University of Baja California, Mexico
9:20 - 9:50
Keynote Speech 1“Differentiation and Integration of Research, Teaching and
Learning in the Knowledge Society”
Akira Arimoto, Director & Professor, Research Institute for Higher
Education, Hijiyama University, Japan
9:50 - 10:20
Keynote Speech 2“Academic Productivity in the Pacific Rim”
William K. Cummings, Professor of International Education andInternational Affairs, The George Washington University, USA
10.20 - 10:50
Keynote Speech 3“Teaching and Research in Germany: narrowing the gaps between
institutional types and staff categories?”
Ulrich Teichler, Professor & former Director, International Centre
for Higher Education Research Kassel (INCHER-Kassel), The
University of Kassel, Germany
10:50 - 11:00
Q&A
11:00 - 11:15
Coffee Break240 Conference Program*** Presentations 1-2 ***11:15 - 11:45
Presentation 1: Italy“Research and Teaching in a Changing Environment: the academic
work in Italy”
Michele Rostan, Professor & Director, Center for Study andResearch on Higher Education Systems, The University of Pavia,
Italy
11:45 - 12:15
Presentation 2: South Africa“Teaching and Research Activities in South African Universities”
Philip Higgs, Research Professor, School for Graduate Studies, The
University of South Africa, South Africa
12:15 - 12:30
Discussion
12:30 - 13:30
Lunch*** Presentations 3-8 ***Chairs:Tsukasa Daizen, Professor, Research Institute for Higher Education,
Hiroshima University, Japan
Martin Finkelstein, Professor, Seton Hall University, USA
13:30 - 14:00
Presentation 3: China“Teaching and Research Activities in the Chinese Academics”
Futao Huang, Professor, Research Institute for Higher Education,
Hiroshima University, Japan
Min Li, Research Fellow, Research Institute for Higher Education,
Hiroshima University, Japan
14:00 - 14:30
Presentation 4: Hong Kong
“Explaining Preferences of Hong Kong Academics toward
Research and Teaching”
Gerard Postiglione, Professor & Head, Division of Policy,
Administration and Social Sciences, Faculty of Education, The
University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China
Li-fang Zhang, Associate Dean, Faculty of Education, The
University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China
Shiru Wang, Postdoctoral Fellow, Division of Policy,
Administration and Social Sciences, Faculty of Education, The
University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China
Hei-hang Hayes Tang, Ph.D. Student, Division of Policy,
Administration and Social Sciences, Faculty of Education, The
University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China
14:30 - 15:00
Presentation 5: Japan“Convergence and Divergence of Teaching and Research Activityof Japanese Academic Profession”

241

15:00 - 15:15
15:15 - 15:45

15:45 - 16:15

16:15 - 16:45

16:45 - 17:30
18:00 - 20:00

Yusuke Hasegawa, Assistant Professor, Research Institute forHigher Education, Hijiyama University, Japan
Naoyuki Ogata, Professor, Research Institute for Higher Education,
Hiroshima University, Japan
Coffee Break
Presentation 6: Japan
“Teaching and Research in Japanese Academic Profession:
Focusing on Ages and Gender”
Hideto Fukudome, Associate Professor, Research Institute forHigher Education, Hiroshima University, Japan
Naomi Kimoto, Assistant Professor, Comprehensive Education
Center, Prefectural University of Hiroshima, Japan
Presentation 7: Malaysia“Presenting Malaysian Academics to the World: what’s holding us
back?”Morshidi Sirat, Director, National Higher Education ResearchInstitute (IPPTN) / Dean, Platform for Social Transformation
Research, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Malaysia
Ahmad Nurulazam Md Zain, Associate Professor, IPPTN and
School of Education, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Malaysia
Munir Shuib, Associate Professor, IPPTN and School of
Humanities, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Malaysia
Melissa NG, Lecturer, IPPTN and School of Education, Universiti
Sains Malaysia, Malaysia
Presentation 8: South Korea“Nexuses between Faculty Teaching, Research, and Service”
Jung Cheol Shin, Assistant Professor, Department of Education,
Seoul National University, South Korea
Discussion
Reception at Hiroshima Garden Palace

Thursday, January 14
8:30 -

Registration*** Presentations 9-11 ***Chairs:Jun Oba, Associate Professor, Research Institute for Higher
Education, Hiroshima University, Japan
Gerard Postiglione, Professor & Head, Division of Policy,
Administration and Social Sciences, Faculty of Education, The
University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China

242 Conference Program
9:00 - 9:30

9:30 - 10:00

10:00 - 10:30

10:30 - 11:15
11:15 - 11:30
11:30 - 11:45
11:45 - 12:00

Presentation 9: Argentina“Teach and Research: a study on the current challenges of theArgentine academic profession”
Mercedes del Valle Leal, Associate Professor, The National
University of Tucuman, Argentina
María Adelaida Maidana, Associate Professor, The National
University of Tucuman, Argentina
Presentation 10: Mexico“The Divergent Worlds of Teaching and Research among Mexican
Faculty: tendencies and implications”
Jesus F. Galaz-Fontes, Professor of Education, Autonomous
University of Baja California, Mexico
Jorge G. Martinez-Stack, Professor, National Autonomous
University of, Mexico, Mexico
Etty H. Estevez-Nenninger, Professor, University of Sonora
Ana L. de la Cruz-Santana, Professor, University of Colima
Laura E. Padilla-Gonzalez, Professor, Autonomous University ofAguascalientes, Mexico
ManuelGil-Anton,
Professor-Researcher,
Autonomous
Metropolitan University, Iztapalapa, Mexico
Juan J. Sevilla-Garcia, Researcher, Autonomous University of Baja
California, Mexico
Jose L. Arcos-Vega, Researcher, Autonomous University of Baja
California, Mexico
Presentation 11: USA“The Interrelationship of Teaching and Research in the American
Academic Context: findings from the Changing Academic
Profession Survey, 2007”
Martin Finkelstein, Professor, Seton Hall University, USA
Discussion
Coffee BreakConcluding Remarks
Futao Huang, Professor, Research Institute for Higher Education,
Hiroshima University, Japan
Closing Speeches
Akira Arimoto, Director & Professor, Research Institute for Higher
Education, Hijiyama University, Japan
Shinichi Yamamoto, Director & Professor, Research Institute forHigher Education, Hiroshima University, Japan

243

Appendix 2:

List of Participants

OVERSEAS PARTICIPANTS
Invited Experts
Germany
Ulrich Teichler

Italy

Michele Rostan

Malaysia

Ahmad Nurulazam Md
Zain

MexicoJesus F. Galaz-Fontes

South Africa
Philip Higgs

South Korea

Jung Cheol Shin

USA

William K. Cummings
Martin Finkelstein

Participants
MexicoProfessor & former Director, INCHER-Kassel, Universityof Kassel
Professor & Director, Center for Study and Research on
Higher Education Systems, The University of Pavia
Associate Professor, National Higher Education ResearchInstitute (IPPTN) and School of Education, Universiti
Sains
Professor of Education, Autonomous University of Baja
California
Research Professor, School for Graduate Studies, The
University of South Africa
Assistant Professor, Department of Education,
Seoul National University
Professor of International Education, Graduate School of
Education and Human Development, The George
Washington University
Professor, College of Education and Human Services,
Seton Hall University Seton Hall University

Juan J. Sevilla-Garcia
José L. Arcos-Vega

Researcher, Autonomous University of Baja California
Researcher, Autonomous University of Baja California

Elaine M.Walker

Associate Professor of Education Department of
Education Leadership, Management & Policy, Seton Hall
University
and another 5 overseas participantsUSA

As of January, 2010

244 List of ParticipantsJAPANESE PARTICIPANTS
Presidents

Toshimasa Asahara
Susumu Takahashi

Invited Experts

Akira Arimoto
Takekazu Ehara
Yusuke Hasegawa
Naomi Kimoto

President, Hiroshima University
President, Hijiyama University
Director and Professor, Hijiyama University
Professor, Ritsumeikan University
Assistant Professor Hijiyama University
Assistant Professor, Prefectural University of Hiroshima

Research Institute for Higher Education（RIHE）
Shinichi Yamamoto
Ikuo Kitagaki
Tsukasa Daizen
Futao Huang
Naoyuki Ogata
Jun ObaMasataka Murasawa
Kazunori Shima
Satoshi Watanabe
Hideto Fukudome
Yumiko Hada
Keith J. Morgan

Director and Professor
Professor
Professor
Professor
Professor
Associate Professor
Associate Professor
Associate Professor
Associate Professor
Associate Professor
Associate Professor
Visiting Professor

and another 31 Japanese Participants

245

R.I.H.E. PUBLICATION IN ENGLISH
RIHE International Publication SeriesNo. 1: Kaneko, M. (1987). Enrollment Expansion in Postwar Japan.
No. 2: Guocai, Z. (1989). Higher Education Research in China: An Annotated Bibliography.
No. 3: Abe, Y. (1989). Non-University Sector Higher Education in Japan.
No. 4: Kaneko, M. (1989). Financing Higher Education in Japan: Trends and Issues.
No. 5: Kaneko, M. (1992). Higher Education and Employment in Japan: Trends and Issues.
No. 6: Morgan, J. Keith (1999). Universities and the Community: Use of Time in Universities
in Japan.
No. 7: Arimoto, A. (ed.) (2001). University Reforms and Academic Governance: Reports ofthe 2000 Three-Nation Workshop on Academic Governance.
No. 8: Arimoto, A. (ed.) (2002). University Reforms and Academic Governance
Reconsidered: Report of the Six-Nation Higher Education Research Project.
No. 9: Arimoto, A., Huang, F., and Yokoyama, K. (eds.) (2005). Globalization and Higher
Education.
No.10: Huang, F. (ed.) (2006). Transnational Higher education in Asia and the Pacific Region.

Higher Education Forum
Higher Education Forum Vol. 1 (2003).
Higher Education Forum Vol. 2 (2005).
Higher Education Forum Vol. 3 (2006).
Higher Education Forum Vol. 4 (2007).
Higher Education Forum Vol. 5 (2008).
Higher Education Forum Vol. 6 (2009).
Higher Education Forum Vol. 7 (2010).

Higher Education Research in Japan
Higher Education Research in Japan Vol. 1 (2003).
Higher Education Research in Japan Vol. 2 (2005).
Higher Education Research in Japan Vol. 3 (2006).
Higher Education Research in Japan Vol. 4 (2007).
Higher Education Research in Japan Vol. 5 (2008).

246

COE Publication Series
No. 6: Construction and Quality Assurance of 21st Century Higher Education (Reports of the2003 COE International Symposium) (2003).
No. 7: Mergers and Cooperation among Higher Education Institutions: Australia, Japan andEurope (Reports of the 2003 COE International Seminar on Mergers and Cooperation)(2004).
No.11: Organization Reforms and University Governance: Autonomy and Accountability(Reports of COE International Seminar) (2004).
No.12: Enhancing Quality and Building the 21st Century Higher Education System (Reports
of COE International Seminar/Eight-Nation Conference) (2004).
No.20: Quality, Relevance, and Governance in the Changing Academia: International
Perspectives (Reports of Changing Academic Profession Project Workshop) (2006).
No.21: A Cross-National Analysis of Undergraduate Curriculum Models: Focusing on
Research-Intensive Universities (2006).
No.22: Gender Inequity in Academic Profession and Higher Education Access: Japan, theUnited Kingdom, and the United States (2006).
No.23: Constructing University Visions and the Mission of Academic Profession in AsianCountries: A Comparative Perspective (Reports of COE International Seminar) (2007).
No.29: Changing Governance in Higher Education: Incorporation, marketisation, and otherreforms  A Comparative study  (2007).

RIHE International Seminar Reports
No. 1: Perspectives for the Future System of Higher Education (Report of the Hiroshima
International Seminar on Higher Education) (1977).
No. 2: Higher Education for the 1980s: Challenges and Responses (Report of the Second
Hiroshima International Seminar on Higher Education) (1980).
No. 3: Innovations in Higher Education: Exchange of Experiences and Ideas in International
Perspective (Reports of the Hiroshima/OECD Meeting of Experts on Higher Educationand the Seminar on Innovations in Higher Education) (1981).
No. 4: Comparative Approach to Higher Education: Curriculum, Teaching and Innovations in
an Age of Financial Difficulties (Reports of the Hiroshima/OECD Meetings ofExperts) (1983).
No. 5: The Changing Functions of Higher Education: Implications for Innovation (Reports
from the 1984 OECD/JAPAN Seminar on Higher Education), (1985).
No. 6: Higher Education Expansion in Asia (Reports from the 1985 International Seminar on
Asian Higher Education) (1985).
No. 7: Public and Private in Asian Higher Education Systems: Issues and Prospects (Reports
from the Third International Seminar on Higher Education in Asia) (1987).
No. 8: The Role of Government in Asian Higher Education Systems: Issues and Prospects

247(Report from the Fourth International Seminar on Higher Education in Asia) (1988).
No. 9: Foreign Students and Internationalizaion of Higher Education (Proceedings of
OECD/JAPAN Seminar on Higher Education and the Flow of Foreign Students)(1989).
No.10: Academic Reforms in the World: Situation and Perspective in the Massification Stageof Higher Education (Reports of the 1997 Six-Nation Higher Education Project
Seminar) (1997).
No.11: Higher Education Reform for Quality Higher Education Management in the 21stCentury: Economic, Technological, Social and Political Forces Affecting Higher
Education (Proceedings of the 1999 Six-Nation Presidents’ Summit in Hiroshima)(2000).
No.12: The Changing Academic Profession in International Comparative and Quantitative
Perspectives (Report of the International Conference on the Changing Academic
Profession Project, 2008) (2008).
No.13: The Changing Academic Profession over 1992-2007: International, Comparative, andQuantitative Perspectives (Report of the International Conference on the Changing
Academic Profession Project, 2009) (2009).
No.14: Producing Qualified Graduates and Assuring Education Quality in the
Knowledge-Based Society: Roles and Issues of Graduate Education (Report of theInternational Workshop on Graduate Education, 2009) (2010).

248

RIHE International

Seminar Reports

No.15, December 2010

ISBN978-4-902808-60-5