RIHE International Seminar Reports
No.13, September 2009

Report of the International Conference on
the Changing Academic Profession Project, 2009

THE CHANGING ACADEMIC PROFESSION OVER
1992-2007: INTERNATIONAL, COMPARATIVE, AND
QUANTITATIVE PERSPECTIVES

Research Institute for Higher Education
HIROSHIMA UNIVERSITYThe Changing Academic Profession over 1992-2007:
International, Comparative, and Quantitative Perspectives
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:
Takatoo Print Media Co.Ltd.
3-2-30, Senda-machi, Naka-ku, Hiroshima City
730-0052, Japan
TEL: +81-82-244-1110, FAX: +81-82-244-1199
September 2009
ISBN978-4-902808-53-7

i

FOREWORD

The role of universities and other higher education institutions has become
far larger in the recent knowledge-based economies and more people, including
those of us who are working for university running or for policy making, havebecome interested in universities themselves. An understanding of the natureand changes of the academic profession has become crucial for us to understandcurrent university reform movement around the world, in addition to a deep
understanding of the system, finance, teaching and research, all of which areimportant for this purpose. For this reason, the Research Institute for Higher
Education in Hiroshima University started a program of research on the
Changing Academic Profession (CAP) in 2005. This research is funded by the
Ministry of Education and Science as a grant-in-aid for scientific research headedby Professor Akira Arimoto, Director of the Research Institute for Higher
Education, Hijiyama University and Professor-Emeritus of Hiroshima University.
Before the conference in 2009, we had already held three international
conferences on this topic.
The fourth conference was held in Hiroshima in January 2009. Thisconference 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 over
1992-2007: International, Comparative, and Quantitative Perspectives”. We
invited speakers and participants from various countries which had all conductedsurveys in both 1992 and 2007-08 to come to Hiroshima. The major purpose of
the conference was to examine the nature and extent of the changes experienced
by the academic profession over the period 1992-2007 through the national
surveys in individual countries. The conference addressed issues concerning
the following three specific themes.
1. Internationalization of the profession: the major findings about
international experience, international education and research activities
undertaken by the profession, the impact of internationalization on theprofession, and views about internationalization by the profession.
2. Education and research activities of the profession: education andresearch conditions, workload, views on the nature and the extent of thechanges in education and research activities experienced by theacademic profession.
3. Personal characteristics or careers of the profession: biography, prior

ii

career, employment and work situation, mobility, and workload etc.
The conference, as you may find in this publication, was not meant to be
simply for the presentation of data, but instead to provide a setting for morethoughtful, focused reactions to the presentations of each speaker. We arehoping that, based on the past several international conferences and workshops
on similar themes concerning the CAP, the outcome will be a better and moresophisticated understanding of the main comparative trends in the CAP and of
the specific situation of the CAP in each country.

July 2009
Shinichi Yamamoto
Director and Professor,
Research Institute for Higher Education,
Hiroshima University

CONTENTS
Foreword
Shinichi Yamamoto ··································································i

Keynote Speeches
Keynote Speech 1
Changing Academic Profession in the World from 1992 to 2007
Akira Arimoto ·······················································

1

Keynote Speech 2
Teaching versus Research in the Contemporary Academy
William K. Cummings ··············································

39

Keynote Speech 3
Biographies, Careers and Work of Academics
Ulrich Teichler ·······················································

57

Country Reports on Internationalization
Australia
International Dimensions of the Australian Academic Profession
Leo Goedegebuure, Hamish Coates, Jeannet van der Lee
and Lynn Meek ······················································

79

Japan
The Internationalization of Japan’s Academic Profession 1992-2007: facts andviews
Futao Huang ························································· 97
USA
The Internationalization of the American Faculty: where are we, what drives ordeters us?
Martin J. Finkelstein, Elaine Walker, and Rong Chen ·········· 113

Country Reports on Education and Research Activities
BrazilThe Academic Profession in a Diverse Institutional Environment: converging ordiverging values and beliefs?
Simon Schwartzman and Elizabeth Balbachevsky·············· 145

JapanEducation and Research Activities of the Academic Profession in Japan
Hideto Fukudome and Tsukasa Daizen ··························· 165
MexicoThe Academic Profession in Mexico: changes, continuities and challenges derived
from a comparison of two national surveys 15 years apartJesús F. Galaz-Fontes, Manuel Gil-Antón, Laura E.
Padilla-González, Juan J. Sevilla-García, José L. Arcos-Vega, andJorge G. Martínez-Stack ············································ 193
South Korea
Teaching and Research across Academic Disciplines: faculty’s preference, activity,and performance
Jung Cheol Shin ····················································· 213
UK
Teaching and Research in English Higher Education:
new divisions of labour and changing perspectives on core academic roles
William Locke and Alice Bennion ······························· 231

Country Reports on Careers
Germany
The Changing Employment and Work Situation of the Academic Profession inGermany
Anna Katharina Jacob and Ulrich Teichler ····················· 253
Japan
The Changing Academic Profession in Japan
Yusuke Hasegawa and Naoyuki Ogata ·························· 271

Conclusion
What Changes happened to the Academic Profession over 1992-2007?
Futao Huang ························································· 289

Appendices
1. Conference Program ····························································· 295
2. List of Participants ······························································· 299

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

RIHE International Seminar Reports, No.13, 2009 1

Changing Academic Profession in the World from1992 to 2007

Akira Arimoto∗

Introduction
The CAP (Changing Academic Profession) Project is an international
research project consisting of more or less than twenty countries throughout theworld. Related to this project, the Japan Project started its activity four years
ago, conducting last year an international conference with its focus on the topic“Changing Academic Profession in International Comparative and Quantitative
Perspectives.” The proceedings of that conference were published in 2008 by
the RIHE, Hiroshima University in a report titled “The Changing Academic
Profession in International, Comparative and Quantitative Perspectives” (RIHE,
2008).
This year, the Japan Project deals with the topic of “The Changing
Academic Profession over 1992-2007: International, Comparative, andQuantitative Perspectives,” by inviting eight countries including Japan. These
countries, participated in this conference, and met the condition that they
conducted two questionnaire surveys in 1992 and 2007.
My keynote address this time is intended to focus on the “Changing
Academic Profession in the World from 1992 to 2007”; last year it sought toemphasize the “International Implications of the Changing Academic Profession
in Japan” (Arimoto, 2008a). Based on the purpose of the conference, as
indicated in the title, my aim is to explore how the academic profession in theworld has or has not changed between 1992 and 2007. Therefore, this reportwill argue the following three issues.
∗

Director and Professor, Research Institute for Higher Education, Hijiyama University, e-mail:arimoto@hijiyama-u.ac.jp

2

Changing Academic Profession in the World from 1992 to 2007

First, it deals with four aspects of the academic profession’s perspective:- the research framework and methodology,- the function of knowledge,- the environmental changes of the academic profession, and- the term and object of research.
A new academic professional vision as well as a university vision should be
proclaimed today when society is shifting from its old structure to a new one.
In pursuit of the university’s vision as well as the academic profession’s vision,
the knowledge function, which forms the basis of their activities, plays asignificant role. Especially, the functions of research and teaching areimportant in order to enhance academic productivity, which itself consists ofresearch productivity and teaching productivity. The process of the academic
profession is substantially involved in creative academic work and academic
productivity (Shinbori, 1973; Arimoto, 2005a, 2005b, 2006).
Second, it deals with the changing academic profession in the world.
Considering the prototype of the academic profession, the contemporary
universities in the world are changing by processes of succession, modificationand innovation. This fact will be illustrated in the present report so as to
identify the past and present realities. As its premise, this report aims to testify
to the reality of the situation of fourteen countries (U.S., U.K., Germany,
Netherlands, Russia, Sweden, Mexico, Brazil, Chile, Australia, Japan, Korea,
Israel, and includes one area, Hong Kong) based on the results of the Carnegie
survey in 1992 (Altbach, 1996; Arimoto & Ehara, eds., 1996).
Third, it deals with an international comparison of the academic profession
from a Japanese perspective, reflecting the considerable changes that theacademic profession has experienced in the past fifteen years. The reportattempts to introduce a series of outcomes gained from the Japan Projectquestionnaire survey in 2007, which used the same questionnaire to academics inthe same institutions as were targeted in the Carnegie survey of 1992.
Accordingly, the report is based on the content of the 2007 survey that was
analyzed in “The Changing Academic Profession in Japan” (in Japanese)
published in 2008 (Arimoto, ed., 2008).
In this context, it should be noted that this report is not based on the 2007
CAP survey, which is dealt with later in the three reports from Japan.
Nevertheless, almost the same things are identified in the comparison of the two
sets of data from the 1992 Carnegie survey and the 2007 CAP survey and fromthose of the 1992 Carnegie survey and the 2007 Japan Project survey. The
results obtained from the Japan Project survey and the Japanese CAP survey,

Akira Arimoto 3

both in 2007, appear to be fairly closely similar, although the questionnaires usedin the two surveys are not entirely identical.
The changes in Japan shown by the results from the Japan Project survey
refer specifically to the Japanese academic profession and do not necessarilyreflect the situation in other countries. However, the changing trends of theJapanese academic profession are thought to have similarities to those in its
counterparts in other countries as many similarities are observable throughout theworld arising from factors such as the emergence of globalization, knowledge
society orientation, and marketization that impose similar pressures on theacademic profession.
As Maurice Kogan and Ulrich Teichler discussed systematically in theirrecent volume, there are some key challenges to the academic profession
worldwide: the increasing expectation of relevance; internationalization as achallenge to the academic profession; the changing role of graduate/doctoral
education, training and work; management and its interface with the academic
profession (Kogan & Teichler, eds., 2007). In addition, William Locke andUlrich Teichler have recently discussed intensively the problem of the changing
conditions for academic work and careers (Locke & Teichler, eds., 2007).
These problems are important issues to be discussed by researchers in theacademic profession together with some problems we are going to discuss in thismeeting. A comparison of the Japanese academic profession between the pastand present times establishes, as it were, a vertical axis, which is an inevitablepreposition for a horizontal axis defining a comparison of the academic
professions of Japan and other countries.

The viewpoint of academic profession research
Research framework and methods
As shown in Figure 1, society is changing from Society 1 to Society 2 andalso higher education is changing from higher education 1 to higher education 2.
Higher education (i.e. university 1 & 2) is a social structure including knowledge,
which internally consists of factors such as system, organization, and group, andexternally keeps an intimate relation with the society through the social condition
and function. The social condition is the means by which a knowledge
economy connected with globalization and marketization, or the social changes
from a post-industrial society, an information society, and a knowledge-basedsociety affect higher education (including its systems, organizations, and groups).
The social function is the means by which higher education affects the social

4

Changing Academic Profession in the World from 1992 to 2007

development by academic productivity (including research and teachingproductivity). Knowledge causes a re-construction of knowledge by its own
logic due to scientific development, bringing about direct and indirect effects
upon academic productivity.
Knowledge society 1=university

Knowledge society 2= university+ society
research

researchknowledge
serviceadministration

serviceserviceteaching

knowledge
serviceteaching

administration
University 1
Society 1

University 2Society 2

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

The transformation from Society 1 to Society 2 coincides with thetransformation from the 20th century to the 21st century, which implies the adventof the emerging knowledge society by way of the post-industrial society. In
other words, it needs a transformation from higher education (university) with a
non-creative and import type of knowledge to that with a creative and export
type of knowledge. Traditional Japanese society is a Society 1 connected to ahigher education 1; in the future, transformation to a Society 2 will be
accelerated in correspondence to a worldwide trend of social changes such as aknowledge economy related to the trend of globalization, marketization, and aknowledge society orientation.
At the same time, the world of higher education also needs to transformfrom a non-creative knowledge type to a creative knowledge type, in other words
from the knowledge import type to the knowledge export type (Figure 2).
Accordingly, in looking at the transformation of society as well as of higher
education, it is necessary to ascertain the social structure and function of higher
education 2 accompanying the knowledge creative and export type.

Akira Arimoto

Figure 2.

5Knowledge, society, and university

The knowledge function
The knowledge function increases in a knowledge society. Knowledge hasvarious faces enabling various kinds of definitions. As Maurice Kogan
observed, there is quite a large distance between hard knowledge and soft
knowledge (Kogan, 2007, pp.38-40). On the hard knowledge side, where aconcept of internal approach prevails, CUDOS works as an ethos of science forthe certified knowledge that Robert Merton discussed (Merton, 1973). In thisterritory of knowledge theory, Biglan‟s knowledge theory, with a combination ofpure, applied, life, and non-life, applies (Biglan, 1973). On the other hand, on
the side of soft knowledge, the social relation of knowledge is thought to bestronger than in the case of internal knowledge; Thomas Kuhn‟s paradigm theory
and Mulkey‟s scientific community theory apply here (Kuhn, 1970; Mulkey,1977).
The knowledge function consists of factors such as discovery, dissemination,
application, and control, and among these functions research and teaching are
significant as the two vehicles in universities and colleges (Clark, 1983; Arimoto,ed., 1996; Arimoto, 2006). It is important in Society 2 as well as higher
education 2 to pay attention to the function of academic discipline as advanced
knowledge so as to increase a large stock of creation and export knowledge. Itmeans certainly that the importance of academic productivity and of research
productivity and teaching productivity, as its two vehicles, become increasingly
important. These kinds of creative activities in the realms of research and6Changing Academic Profession in the World from 1992 to 2007

teaching are considered to be valuable behaviors by extending the frontier of
research and teaching in connection to knowledge. They belong not only togeneral academic work but also to the specific academic work of cultivating afrontier of scholarship. Research and teaching activities have a normative
control of discipline and also a social mechanism that Tony Becher observed
from a study of the lives of academics and researchers, whom he compared withtribes (Becher, 1989; Becher & Trowler, 2001).
As Figure 3 shows, in the process of scientific socialization, academics, who
specialize in specific academic disciplines, encounter a social control ofscientific ethos and norms which is related to their specialized disciplines.
They gradually form their own social identities in the environments intrinsic totheir disciplines and which accompany the manifest and latent functions and, in
addition, the formal and tacit knowledge. By these means they are influenced
in such processes as: selection of themes; attainment of research technology;
doctoral supervision; various kinds of material resources including scholarships
and supports; human resources including researchers inside and outsideacademia; research environments including culture, climate, and the researchstyle of natural and social sciences, and of humanities (Parry, 2007, pp.39-52).
Figure 3 Knowledge functions
society
government
Social changes
National
Globalization
・globalization
policy・Knowledge society

・Economic pressures

Social side

Academicdiscipline

university
Teaching groupResearch group
・Culture・Climate

Scientific socialization → Identity
Methodology
Cognitive side

enquiry / research
Scientific frontier

KNOWLEDGE・knowledge
reconstruction

Figure 3. Knowledge functions

Tony Becher also identified factors working in the process. These cover
the wider social change including internationalization, economic pressures,legislation and national policy; the intermediate context including managerialism,
business values, client attitudes; the cognitive change including information
technology, specialism and sub-specialism, new knowledge and techniquesAkira Arimoto 7(Becher, 1989, pp.61-88).
As Becher and Parry pointed out, there are cognitive and social sides to theacademic discipline (Becher & Parry, 2007, pp.9-144). In the case of the former,
every discipline has its own methodology of enquiry, research methodology, andscientific frontier. In the latter case, every discipline has its own research group,
culture, and climate; and in this context, the activities of enhancement for
academic productivity are conducted both manifestly and latently.
Production of knowledge shifts from the traditional type on the basis of
discipline to a post-traditional type involving a social utility so that, as Michael
Gibbons and others pointed out, it corresponded to a shift from Mode 1 to Mode
2 (Gibbons, Limoges, Nowotny, Schwartzman, Scott & Trow, 1994). The
scientific community including the graduate schools, as the location of thefrontier of knowledge, pursues knowledge reconstruction ceaselessly, bringing
about in reality a scrap-and-build of disciplines. The phenomenon ofknowledge reconstruction is nothing but a dislocation in the frontier ofknowledge development. In other words, it is in the Centers of Excellence(COE), or bases of creativity, in which creativity is most highly exercised.
The environment of the academic profession
As shown in Figure 4, all environmental changes around academia, such as
the social changes, the government policies, and the reconstructions ofknowledge, cause academic reforms and reform of the academic profession(arrows a, c, e, and g in the figure) (Arimoto, 2008b, p.20). The recent fifteenyear term is an epoch making one in which great social changes worldwide andthe consequent academic reforms occurred without pause. The focus on socialchanges suggests a shift from an information oriented society to aknowledge-based society together with a society oriented to globalization,marketization, and lifelong learning. In addition, the national government’s
somewhat ‘less-control’ policy for the academic establishment, which wasintroduced in 1991, has been accelerated greatly in accordance with an increasing
marketization. At the same time, academics have shown a more or lesseffective response to the social changes rather than accepting their effects
passively (arrows b, d, f, and h in Figure 4).
Through these processes of import and export mechanisms, academics haveattempted to build a new academic profession, pursuing academia’s role, forming
their own identities, and constructing ideals and missions for the academic
profession. As a result, academics are facing various changes in relation to theenvironmental changes.

8 Changing Academic Profession in the World from 1992 to 2007
government

c
d
a

ｇ

b

ｈ

societyknowledge

university

Academic professionfeFigure 4. Environmental change of the academic profession

The term and object of research① Term: comparison of the outcomes of the Carnegie Survey in 1992 withthose from the Japan Project survey conducted in 2007 (Figure 5). The
term covered by the report is fifteen years, short in the eight hundred yearsof higher education history but important years with a counterpoint of thepast and future (ibid, p.18). During this period in Japan, epoch making
proposals, such as the University Council (UC) reports in 1991 and 1998,
and the Central Council of Education (CCE) report in 2005, were issued atseven year intervals and which are considered to have affected theconsciousnesses and behaviors of academics (UC, 1998; CCE, 2005).
Figure 25 past and present
The deep past

→

past

present

１９８０→ １９９０→１９９５→ ２０００ → ２００５
Inforrmation
Information
based society

Postwar→

Knowledge
based society→

future２０１０

Globalization
Marketization
Lifelong learning

1991 survey

2007 survey

CARNEGIE
Project

CAP ProjectJAPAN Project

UC report(1991)

CCE report(2005)UC report（1998）

Transition

Figure 5. Past and present② Object of research: the questionnaires cover a wide range of subjects:
academic careers; research and teaching; internationalization; university andsociety. However, this international meeting is to concentrate on three ofthe topics: academic careers, research and teaching, and internationalization.

Akira Arimoto 9

The changing academic profession in the world from its prototype
The origin of universities around the world is derived and developed fromthe medieval university: those that started later usually adopted the originalmodels and patterns that the foregoing universities had already developed. The
following discussion addresses some of the problems related to such prototypes,
since this meeting deals directly and indirectly with some of the problems inconnection to academic careers, teaching and research, internationalization, andadministration and management.
Academic careers in terms of sex, age, mobility, and form of employment
Various kinds of realities are engraved on the academic career: sex, age;academic discipline; positions and status; sector; section (faculty, department,
chair); hierarchy (ranking); mobility; scientific socialization.
① Sex: female academics belonged for a long time to a minority group in theacademic world dominated by male academics. They have gradually
increased their numbers and proportions in modern universities. The ratioof female academics is gradually increasing all over the world, while inJapan, as we see later, it is increasing very slowly.
② Age: teachers are usually older than students in academia. Their age
extends over the range of around 30 to 70 years old (or more). In the caseof Japan, the average age of academics was 48 years in 2003. Aging of theprofession was promoted in Japan where the lifelong employment system
had been defended constantly and strongly. Now, the unemployment of
post-doctorals has become one of the social issues to the extent that their
recruitment to academic posts is a problem to be resolved immediately.
③ Academic discipline: in the pre-modern university era, there were only four
Faculties: Law, Medicine, Divinity, and Liberal Arts. In contrast, many
academic developments and hence chairs, departments, and Faculties havebeen established in the modern university owing to the institutionalizationand differentiation of disciplines. Culture and behavior are inclined todiffer from each other in the old disciplines and the emerging disciplines.
④ Academic positions and status: a clear differentiation between academic
positions in academia, indicates the social stratification that is clearly
established among academic staff. In this structure the post of full
professor belongs to the highest level of the ladder, followed by the posts ofassociate professor, lecturer, and assistant professor. The process ofacademics’ upward mobility on the ladder is substantially related to10 Changing Academic Profession in the World from 1992 to 2007

academic scientific socialization.
⑤ Sector: the national, public, and private sectors have their own cultures foracademics, even though these sectors belong to the same general categoryof academia.
⑥ Section: the different sections such as chair, department, and institute are thebasic units of academic organization to which academics belong in order to
conduct academic work including research, teaching, and service. Amongthese, the chair was originally invented in the pre-modern universities; andlater the modern universities invented other units, though the chair was
introduced into a modern university in Japan. These sections reflect thedifferent characteristics of the disciplines that academics specialize in. As
described above, the differences of discipline produce differences ofacademic culture, climate, character, behavior pattern, and consciousness.
⑦ Hierarchy: there is a hierarchy among universities and colleges as we assessthem by the indicators of their history, tradition, quality, and academic
productivity. Ranking also works at the level of academics as well as thatof universities and colleges (THES-QS, 2008; Ben-David 1977; Arimoto,ed., 1996).
⑧ Mobility: mobility was usual in the pre-modern universities un-supported bynational government, whereas it is unlikely to be usual in the modern
universities, with national government support attempting to develop
national interests. Mobility is higher in the universities and colleges in
Europe and the U.S., but is lower in their counterparts in Japan.
In 1992, the proportions of academics who had worked in more than
three higher education institutions were: the Netherlands 36%; Australia
32%; Brazil 31%; U.K. 27%; Israel 26%; Hong Kong 25%; U.S. 23%;
Sweden 21%; Germany 20%; Chile 20%; Mexico 12%; Japan 11%; Russia
9%; Korea 5% (Arimoto, ed., 1996, p.35).
One of the reasons for low mobility in Japan is perhaps the highinbreeding ratio. Table 1 shows a trend of inbreeding in the research
universities from 1954 to 2003 (Yamanoi, ed., 2007). The prestigious
universities such as Tokyo, Kyoto, Waseda and Keio recorded
inbreeding ratios of more than 70%; Keio’s ratio is still high in 2003
(63.8%) though it has decreased. The same phenomenon may berecognized in universities and colleges in Asian countries including China
and Korea. The reasons for this lie in some traditional attitudes such as
Han-batsu (a han-based clan), Kenjin-batsu (a prefecture-based clan),Zai-batsu (a great industrial family), Gaku-batsu (an academic clique),Akira Arimoto 11

Iemoto (a Japanese family system). There is a theory that the principle of
kin-tract works in Japan (Hsu, 1963).
Moreover, the permanent
employment system has been established in Japan for a long time.
Table 1. Trend of inbreeding in research universities in Japan(%)

universities

１９５４

１９６３

１９７４

１９８４

１９９９

２００３

Tokyo
Kyoto
Waseda
Keio

98.0
86.6
83.1
75.3

96.7
87.5
79.2
69.7

94.3
86.8
82.3
81.2

89.5
84.1
82.9
78.8

83.6
80.1
72.3
70.1

78.0
72.3
71.1
63.8

Hokkaido
TohokuNagoyaOsaka
Kyushu

55.1
52.4
21.6
42.0
52.8

63.7
56.9
22.0
42.9
60.4

64.9
55.6
29.7
57.2
64.1

62.4
59.0
44.6
60.2
65.6

59.1
62.5
53.8
61.4
62.9

51.0
55.6
44.4
59.6
55.8

Tsukuba
TIT
Hitotsubashi
Hiroshima

46.6
30.7
58.0
36.8

46.5
42.3
58.8
40.7

54.8
48.3
47.4
37.9

29.5
52.9
50.3
43.1

40.2
58.9
43.4
39.4

40.7
56.1
32.1
38.9

Source: Yamanoi, 2007, p.246.

(Source: Yamanoi,
Yamanoi, 2007, p.246)⑨ Scientific and academic socialization: students participate in scientific andacademic socialization in the various kinds of structure, culture, and climate
so that they finally build their own identities with the disciplines sufficient
to become members of the academic profession. Because academics are
involved in the different cultures and climates intrinsic to their own
academic disciplines, they differ from other academics specialized in otherdisciplines. Burton Clark pointed out the academic world as a “small
world but different world” (Clark, 1987).
Teaching and research with a focus on teaching orientation, researchorientation, and integration of teaching and research
In universities and colleges, faculty members pursue academic work on thebasis of knowledge. They conduct activities such as research, teaching, service,
and administration and management in response to the knowledge functions suchas discovery, dissemination, application, and control. The academics conduct
these activities so that they can contribute to the development of disciplines,
which in turn contribute to the development of the universities and colleges andin addition to the development of society.
・ Among teaching and research, the former had monopolized the main part ofacademic work in the university for several centuries from the birth of themedieval university to the rise of the modern university. Academics then

12 Changing Academic Profession in the World from 1992 to 2007

participated in teaching as teachers and educationists. The ideal feature ofan academic was to be a ‘good teacher’ as shown in the expressions‘pastoral care of undergraduates’, and also ‘learned teacher’ and ‘scholar
and teacher’. As teachers they were expected to take care of students as in‘loco parentis’ and to sustain an ‘osmosis process’ (Halsey & Trow, 1971;
Ross, 1976; Arimoto, 1981, p.58).
・ On the other hand, in the modern university, which internallyinstitutionalized the sciences, academics were expected to take part inresearch as scientists and researchers. The different kinds of disciplinesthat were established in modern academia by the scientific revolution
needed specialists who conducted teaching in response to the needs of thespecific disciplines. At this time, an academic career emerged for the firsttime in the history of higher education from the institutionalization of thesystem for training students in the graduate school (Brubacher & Rudy,
1968, p.183; Light, 1974). As a result the academic profession undertook
to conduct both research and teaching together.
・ Accordingly, academia attempted to integrate teaching, institutionalized in
the medieval university, and research, institutionalized in the modern
university. Wilhelm von Humboldt proposed an integration of teaching
and research as a vision useful for the modern university (Clark, ed., 1993;
Clark, 1995). Is this ideal actually realized or not (cf. Ushiogi, 2008)?
Internationalization from universal, national, international, and global
perspectives
・ The academic world in the medieval era was a universal orientation asshown in the fact that students gathered to Bologna and Paris from all over
the world, albeit one restricted to the Christian sphere of influence.
Graduates from the universities were offered the venia legendi (permission
to read or to teach), or the ius ubique docendi (right of teaching), a
credential permitting the holder to teach a particular subject at universities
anywhere in the world (Rashdall, 1936, pp.8-15; Yokoo, 1999, p.46).
In contrast, this universality decreased in modern society as national
universities were established in many countries in accordance with the riseof modern nations seeking to use these new universities for their own
economic prosperity (Kerr, 1994, p.26). Even at this stage, however, theuniversities tended to pursue universal characteristics of internationalizationin accord with a norm of a universalist orientation rather than one ofparticularism.

Akira Arimoto 13

・ From the latter part of the 20th century, the connection of knowledge-basedsociety and marketization appeared throughout the world owing to the factthat a globalization of the knowledge economy strengthened its trend of
penetration into the realms of education and culture. Even in academia,
where academic work is undertaken on the basis of knowledge as stuff, thevalues of rationalization and efficiency of research, teaching, service, andadministration are increasingly evident.
Accordingly, academia haschanged drastically from a community of knowledge to an enterprise ofknowledge.
Administration and management
・ In the medieval university, its academic and business sides developed
together so as to retain a community of knowledge on the basis of an
academic guild.
・ However, the modern university, where the academic organization changed
from a uni-versity to a multi-versity, lost the power of cohesion as acommunity. Simultaneously, the business side of organization increased
its size so that the non-academic staff increased their own organizational
territory and culture together with the relevant bureaucracy (Clark, 1983).
・ At the same time, a bottom-up type of administration, characteristic of thechair and department developed at the time of guild, shifted to a top-down
type of administration that strengthened the power of the steering committee
and the president and accompanied the shift from a community ofknowledge to an enterprise of knowledge.
・ If we borrow Burton Clark’ s model, the organization of the European and
the Japanese types of universities, in which both the nation state and theprofessors have strong powers, have shifted to an organization in which thepresidents and vice-presidents have strong powers (Clark, 1983). The U.K.
type in which the professors and deans always had strong powers has beentransformed to a new type in which they have to accept national control.
The U.S. type, differed in that both the national government and theprofessors had weaker powers compared to the university which sought tolocate itself at some intermediate level between the top and bottom of thenational academic system. At the university there, the steering committee
as well as the president has stronger powers than the professors.
The U.S. type president, whom the steering committee selected fromthe top, had strong powers compared to the European type rector, whom
professors elected from the bottom. Today, it is said that the rector has

14 Changing Academic Profession in the World from 1992 to 2007

become a president under the changed environment in which the academicorganization is shifting from the bottom-up to a top-down type. In general,
the fact that universities in the world are considered to have weaker powers
implies a forfeiture of the powers of academic freedom and facultyautonomy located at the bottom.

The actualities of the academic profession in 1992
The international survey on the academic profession in 1992 in the fourteen
countries (including one area) considered a wide range of issues (Table 2).
Table 2. The actualities of the academic profession in 1992

Academic career

Scholarship(research andteaching)

Internationalization

①
②
③
④
⑤
①
②
③
④
⑤
⑥
①
②
③
④
⑤

Sex
Age
Average number of institutions academics belonged intheir career
Permanent employment
Personal Strain
Teaching orientation
Loyalty to discipline
Publication of more than one paper
Successful research is important
No tenure without publication
Activities evaluated regularly
Foreign student enrolled
Curriculum should be more international
Academics traveled abroad to study
Experience of a faculty member in another country
Publication in language other than mother tongue

Academic career
An overall view of the international trend of academic career is revealed in
Figure 6, in which Japanese academics occupy high proportions in responses
including ‘permanent employment’, ‘personal strain’, and ‘age’; and low ones inregard to ‘sex’ and ‘mobility’.
① Sex: the average proportion of female academics among all academics was
as low as 24%, reaching its highest values, of over 30%, in Latin Americancountries with 27% in the U.S., and the smallest proportion of 8% in Japan(Arimoto & Ehara, ed., 1996, p.33).

Akira Arimoto 15② Age: the average age was 45.5
years (male 46 years old andfemale
43
years
old).
Among the countries, Mexico
showed the youngest age (39years old), three countries,
Israel, Russia, and Japan,
shared the oldest age (51years
old) (ibid, p.33).
③ Mobility: the average numberof institutions to which
academics belonged in theircareers were 1.8 for males and1.7 for females. One third ofacademics belonged to morethan three institutions incountries such as Hong Kong,
Australia, Brazil, Israel, andthe U.S., while three-fifths
belonged
to
only
one
institution in Japan (ibid, p.33).
As previously described, thefact of smaller mobility inJapan probably reflects custom,
protected by the lifelong
employment system in which
academics were apt to stay in
one institution until theirretirement age of aroundFigure 6. Academic careers (%)
65 (this varies, depending on institutions, being 60, 63, 65, 70 years old).
④ Mode of employment: almost all (87%) of academics were employedpermanently in academic institutions from their recruitment to retirement.
The proportion was as high as 99% in Japan and all of the younger
generation in their 20s and 30s were usually employed permanently (thougha contract system was introduced in 1996). On the other hand, in Latin
American countries, temporary employment is popular as was shown in thehighest temporary employment rate of 44% in Brazil (ibid, p.33).

16 Changing Academic Profession in the World from 1992 to 2007
Israel19
39

Hong kong

50

Korea

56

Japan
46

Australia
35

Chile
25

BrazilMexico21
45

Sweden51

RussiaGermany

38
47

UK
US

37

Figure 7. Comparison of personal strain by country (%)⑤ Personal strain: the proportions of responses of academics worldwide to thequestion “My job is a source of considerable personal strain.” demonstrated
overall a fairly even distribution between agreement (40%), neutrality(22%) and disagreement (38%). But between countries there were marked
differences (Figure 7) (Ogata, 1996, p.236). The group showing thehighest agreement with the statement consists of the countries Japan 56%;
Russia 51%; South Korea 50%; while the group showing least agreement
consists of Israel 19%; Mexico 21%; Brazil 25%. There were differencesof 37 percentage points between Japan and Israel. Why do they have suchgreat differences? In order to examine aspects of the psychological stress,
four groups were identified as follows: Group A (Japan, Russia, South
Korea); B (U.K., Australia, Sweden); C (Hong Kong, Germany, U.S.,
Chile); D (Brazil, Mexico, Israel). As a result, some findings emerge (ibid,
pp.236-237).
・ Salary: the group A, indicating high stress, tended to possess highproportions showing poor monetary support for teaching and research
activities including ‘Paid sabbatical leave’ and ‘Travel funds foracademics’ (ibid, p.239).
・ Teaching and research environment: the high stressed group A
indicated low scores for relationships between faculty andadministration and little approval of the institutional sense ofcommunity. Generally speaking, many academics belonging to thisAkira Arimoto 17

group were apt to have complaints on human relations and few of them
responded positively to the ‘Clarity of the institutional mission’.
Their assessment of the institutional ‘intellectual atmosphere’ was also
low (ibid, pp.240-241).
・ Teaching and research orientation: the groups with higher stressshowed stronger research orientation, devoting many hours to researchand teaching during both term and non-term periods. In contrast, thegroups indicating less stress also spent fewer hours on research andteaching (ibid, pp.243-244).
・ Ascription: comparison of the four groups in terms of sex, age, position,and discipline, showed that the group with lower stress contained great
differences between male and female academics with the stress being
higher for the female than the male academics. No clear differenceswere recognizable in the other ascriptions (ibid, pp.245-246).
Scholarship: the place where academics’ interests lie
An overall view of international trends on scholarship (the place where
academics’ interests are located) is shown in Table 3. Japanese academics
showed high scores in the items of ‘productivity’ and ‘discipline orientation’, andlow ones in the items ‘teaching orientation’, ‘evaluation by students’, ‘evaluated’,and ‘tenure’.
Table 3. Scholarship: the place where academics’ interests lie (%)
US

UK

Ger

Net

Rus

Swe

Mex

Braz

Chi

Aus

Jap

Kor

HK

Isra

Teaching

49

44

34

25

68

33

65

62

67

48

28

44

46

39

Discipline

75
55
32

64
40
18

62
15
8

-------

66
57
45

55
46
19

71
60
56

95
78
76

87
66
65

--48
---

69
39
31

80
65
37

68
46
28

75
55
42

Productivity

(7)
7.5

(8) 7.8(4) 6.6

(13)
8.6

(2)
5.7

(3)
6.3

(12)
7.9

(9)
7.8

(5)
6.9

(10)
7.9

(1)
5.6

(11)
7.9

(14)
9.5

(6)
7.4

Tenure

88

64

48

60

81

Evaluated

86

79

25

Evaluation by
Evaluation
by student
students

72

44

7

Department
DepartInstitute

78
35

71
47

44
41

9

5

Research orientation and teaching orientation (“Regarding your own
preferences, do your interests lie primarily in teaching or in research?”): theaverage proportion of those indicating a teaching orientation was 44%. Threetypes are distinguishable among countries: a German type (research orientationtype) consists of five countries: the Netherlands, Japan, Sweden, Germany, and18 Changing Academic Profession in the World from 1992 to 2007

Israel; a Latin type (teaching orientation type) consists of four countries: Russia,
Chile, Mexico, and Brazil; and an Anglo-Saxon type (research and teachingorientation type) consists of four countries: U.K., U.S., Australia, and Hong
Kong (Arimoto & Ehara, ed., 1996, pp.150-154).
Figure 8 shows the orientation to research and teaching by selected
countries on the basis of the above analysis.

Teaching

Research

33.3

Chile

66.7
50.8

US

49.2
55.6

UK
44.4

55.7

Korea
44.3

Germany

65.7
34.3
72.5

Japan

27.5

Netherlands
24.8

0

10

20

30

40

%

50

60

70

80

Figure 8. Orientation to research and teaching by selected countries (1992)
Table 4. Scholarship: teaching orientation
Type

Countries

Latin

RussiaChile
MexicoBrazil

68
67
65
62

US
Australia
Hong Kong
Korea
UK

49
48
46
44
44

IsraelGermany
SwedenJapan
Netherlands

39
34
33
28
25

Anglo-Saxon

GermanAverage

Teaching orientation

44

(%)

66

46

32

Akira Arimoto 19

As Table 4 shows, the average proportions conforming to a teachingorientation differ among the three types as follows: 66% in Latin; 46% in
Anglo-Saxon1; 32% in German.
① Loyalty to “my academic discipline,” “my department in this institution,”and “this institution”: to the question “Please indicate the degree to which
each of (these) affiliations is important to you.” the proportion of “veryimportant” responses followed the sequence: the discipline 71%, thedepartment 47%, and the institution 32% (Daizen, 1996, p.53). It isinteresting to note that the discrepancy between loyalty to the discipline andto the institution was high in countries such as Germany (62%-8%=54
percentage points), the U.K. (64%-18%=46 percentage points), and the U.S.
(75%-32%=44 percentage points), all countries which were, or are at theworld’s center of academic excellence. Japan (69%-31%=38 percentage
points) does not show such a large discrepancy.
② Publication of papers: the response to “How many of the following
scholarly contributions have you completed in the past three years?”
showed that on average many academics (91%) had published more than
one paper in that period. In Japan the response (96%) was higher than the
average (ibid, p.54). The aggregated totals of papers published across all
disciplinary areas are as follows: (1) Japan 5.6; (2) Russia 5.7; (3) Sweden
6.3; (4) Germany 6.6; (5) Chile 6.9; (6) Israel 7.4; (7) U.S. 7.5; (8)U.K. 7.8;
(9) Brazil 7.8; (10) Australia 7.9; (11) Korea 9.5; (12) Mexico 7.9; (13)Netherlands 8.6;(14) Hong Kong 9.5 (ibid, p.55).
③ Importance of research achievement: more than three-quarters of academics
responded “yes” to the question “A strong record of successful research
activity is important in faculty evaluation at this institution” (ibid, p.55).
In Japan 80% of respondents agreed. Generally speaking, all countries
categorized in the group of research orientation share a strong agreementwith the statement.
④ Tenure: the average response to the question “In my department it isdifficult for a person to achieve tenure if he or she does not publish.” wasfairly positive (63%) (ibid, p.56). High positive responses were seen inseveral countries including the U.S. (88%), Israel (81%), Germany (78%)
and Australia (64%) with somewhat lower proportions in some othercountries including Hong Kong (60%) and Japan (48%). The mechanismof “Publish or perish” was working in some countries including the U.S.,
1

plus Korea.

20 Changing Academic Profession in the World from 1992 to 2007

and in this sense publication has not been demanded strictly in Japan where
the tenure system has substantially worked for about 30-40 years from thetime of recruitment in the first academic position to the time of retirement.
⑤ Evaluation of activities: a substantial majority agreed (62%) that academic
activities were appraised or evaluated regularly. Responses from countries
such as the U.S. (86%), the U.K. (79%) and Chile (71%) showed a higher
proportion than the average; conversely, others, such as Germany (25%),
Russia (35%), Japan (44%) showed a lower than average proportions (ibid,p.57).
For the specific periodic evaluation of teaching, research and service
activities, the average positive responses showed high scores, in order, inteaching (48%), research (45%) and service (22%). At the individual
country level, evaluation in the U.S. (79%) and the U.K. (71%) was high inteaching; and in the U.S. (69%) and the U.K. (70%), high in research; and in
addition in the U.S. (54%) high in service. While the U.S. and the U.K.
were high in these aspects of evaluation, on the other hand, Germany (9%)
and Japan (18%) showed very low proportions indicating a periodic
evaluation of teaching.
As for periodic evaluation of teaching activity by students, theproportion responding “yes” was more than 40% in countries such as the
U.S. (72%), Sweden (47%), the U.K. (44%), and Australia (41%), and lessthan 10% in countries such as Japan (9%), Germany (7%), and South Korea(5%). In Japan, the proportion was low in 1992, but subsequently it has
increased following introduction of the faculty development (FD) system in1998 and 2004, and of the accreditation system in 2007.
Internationalization
As Table 5 shows, Japanese academics were not strongly positive inaffirming items related to internationalization, although their conformity to items
such as “Have you written an article or book in a language other than yourmother tongue” and “Our students have studied abroad” was fairly high among
academics in the countries participating in the survey.
① Sending and acceptance of international students: positive responses(“frequently” plus “occasionally”) to the statements “Foreign students havebeen enrolled” and “Our students have studied abroad”, were seen in the
U.S. (enrolled, 97%; studied abroad, 76%), Japan (86%; 81%), and Sweden(78%; 69%), but scored less than 50% in Mexico, Brazil, and Hong Kong
(Yamanoi, 1996, p.93). An extremely low level was indicated in SouthAkira Arimoto 21

Korea (5%; 12%), showing apparently delayed internationalization. There
were large differences in internationalization between individual countries.
(%)

Table 5. Internationalization
US

UK

Ger

Net

Rus

Swe

Mex

Bra

Chil

Aus

78
69

Jap

Kor

HK

Isra

Enrolled
Abroad

97
76

86
81

curriculum

41

---

57

---

59

59

75

61

79

47

67

76

66

29

Traveled
abroad

43

53

65

70

36

75

43

37

61

62

56

62

72

94

Facultymember

13

16

25

34

9

22

12

6

22

15

7

7

30

65

Article or
book

1

1

8

15

2

14

1

2

5

1

10

4

10

② Internationalization of the curriculum: many positive responses to thestatement that “The curriculum at this institution should be moreinternational in focus.” were supplied from Chile, South Korea, and Mexico
with proportions greater than 70%; and in Japan, Hong Kong, and Brazil
they accounted for more than 60%. Negative responses, with proportions
less than 50% were provided by Australia, and the U.S. (ibid, p.94). In
some countries, such as Chile, South Korea, Mexico, Hong Kong, andBrazil, where the responses indicate that fewer foreign students had been
accepted, there was seen to be a need for internationalization of thecurriculum. Japan showed the enrollment of many foreign students andalso showed a high proportion (67%) supporting internationalization of thecurriculum. This figure seems to confirm the fact that academics wereconsidering a delayed development of internationalization. This trend isalso recognized in the current survey in 2007 in which Japanese academics
seem to be more contented with the improved internationalization fifteen
years later (Huang, 2008, p. 306).
③ Experience of learning and research overseas: a majority of academics(57%) had traveled abroad to study or to do research in the past three years(Yamanoi, 1996, p.27). Individual countries in which a majority has
worked overseas include Israel, (with over 90%); Sweden, Hong Kong and
the Netherlands (all with over 70%); Germany, Australia, South Korea, andChile (all with over 60%); and Japan and the U.K. (with over 50%).
Mexico, the U.S., Brazil, and Russia all indicate less than 50%.
In terms of internationalization, these countries can be categorized into
three groups: countries advanced in internationalization with a proportion of

22 Changing Academic Profession in the World from 1992 to 2007

more than 70%; emerging countries with a proportion of more than 50% but
less than 70%; and developing countries with a proportion of less than 50%.
According to these categories, it is interesting that of three countries that atsome time have become or been world centers of academic excellence, one,Germany, is located in the second group and the U.K. and the U.S. in thethird group where the majority have not had experience overseas.
④ Experience as a member of faculty at an institution in another country:
overall, those who had such experience constitute 17%, of respondents (ibid,p.97). Academics in Israel showed the highest proportion (60%), followedby the Netherlands, Hong Kong, Germany, Chile, and Sweden with morethan 20%; the U.K., Australia, the U.S., and Mexico had more than 10%,
Russia, South Korea, Japan, and Brazil the least, with less than 10%.
⑤ Publication activity: the average response ratio to the question “Have you
written an article or book in a language other than your mother tongue” inthe past ten years was as high as 6.1 times (ibid, p.99).
Those in countries such as Israel, the Netherlands, Sweden, Japan, andHong Kong belonged to an upper group with more than 10% of respondents
having done so. Countries such as South Korea, Brazil, Russia, Mexico,
Australia, the U.S., and the U.K. constitute a lower group with less than 5%(ibid, p.101). It is noteworthy that three countries, Australia, the U.S. andthe U.K., where English is the mother tongue, record almost the lowest
proportions: probably they find no need to use a language other than theirown. Elsewhere, respondents in countries categorized in the researchorientation group were likely to indicate higher proportions.
As for Japan, the average was 10%; and in more detail there weresignificant differences among disciplines: humanities 2%; social sciences
3%; sciences 16%; engineering 13%; health 15%; arts 2%. Similar trends
were observable internationally: humanities 3%; social sciences 3%;
sciences 10%; engineering 7%; health 8%; arts 1% with an overall average
response across all disciplines of 6%. This suggests that universalism isworking in areas such as the sciences, engineering, and health more than inthose such as humanities, social sciences, and arts.
What kinds of changes does the current international CAP survey reveal?
To learn the outcomes will be interesting. Each individual system has its own
characteristics on the basis of its own tradition, history, culture, so that it tends toseek a vision of the academic profession that maintains the characteristics
intrinsic to the system itself. On the other hand, the academic profession isAkira Arimoto 23

seeking a new vision tending to converge in a common direction worldwide
under the effects of environmental changes including globalization,knowledge-society-orientation, and marketization.
How to see these two trends is necessary in basic research on the academic
profession worldwide today. The academic profession is expected to contributeto scholarship as well as to academia not only in an individual country andsociety but also in international society. Pursuit of a vision of the academic
profession sustainable in the 21st century is possible as well as inevitable on thebasis of such basic research.
Table 6. Trends of change in the AP in Japan in 1992 and 2007

Academic
careerScholarship
Internationali
zation1992 world

1992 Japan

2007
Japan

①Sex

24% (female)

8% (female)

－

12%

②Age

45.5 ys. old

51.4 ys. old＋

52.2(50.4)③ Average number of institutions academics
belonged in their career (mobility)

Aspects

Items

－
－

1.6

④Permanent employment

87%

99%

＋

⑤Personal Strain

40%

56%

＋

50%

①Teaching orientation

44%

25% (47%)－ （＋）

31% (42%)②Loyalty to discipline

71%

69%

＊

68%(67%)③Publication of more than one paper

91%

96%

＋

④Successful research is important

79%

80%

＊

⑤ No tenure without publication

63%

48%

－

⑥Activities evaluated regularly

62%

44%

－

75%

①Foreign students enrolled

US 97%

87%

－

90%

②Curriculum should be more international

40%

67%

＋

52%

③Academics traveled abroad to study

57%

56%

＊

④Experience of a faculty member in anothercountry

17%

7%

－

⑤publication in language other than mothertongue

6.1 times

10.3 times＋

An international comparison of the academic profession: from aJapanese perspective
As described previously, the Japan Project seeks to resolve the academic
profession’s realities in the past fifteen years on the basis of the two surveys in1992 and 2007 (Arimoto, ed., 2008). Accordingly, the aim of this report is to
identify the changes that have occurred in the fifteen years in terms of factors
such as: response to environmental changes; response to academic organizationalchanges; the state of academic productivity; and export of information to society.

24 Changing Academic Profession in the World from 1992 to 2007

The most important problem in this survey is an examination of the academic
profession’s realities. What kind of real and unreal images does the academic
profession possess in the midst of the changing academic profession?
Definition of the academic profession as a profession may enable us todistinguish between it and other occupations by endorsing the significant factors
as follows: a long educational career; profound scholarship; academic freedom;
professional ethic; social prestige; and academic productivity. Some of thefollowing real and unreal images are gained as a result of examination of thesefactors.
A long educational career・ Those who are involved in academic work on the basis of knowledge havedeveloped career paths corresponding to a mastery of academic disciplines.
Academic degrees have differentiated into three main levels: bachelors’
degrees (BA, BSc), masters’ degrees (MA, MSc); doctoral degrees (PhDetc.).
・ The higher degree system has followed two routes in Japan, that of adissertation and that of course work. The latter was not institutionalized
well for many years after importing it from the U.S., especially in the areasof humanities and social sciences in which doctoral degree holders weremuch fewer than those in the areas of natural sciences and technology.
However, the Central Council of Education recommended in 2005 that thedegree system should be integrated into a course work type in the future sothat this type has been increased rapidly since then (CCE, 2005)
・ Recognition of the problem of gender bias has allowed recruitment offemale academics to increase gradually mainly to middle and lower
positions on the academic ladder. Academics holding a PhD degree were
60% of male and 25% of female faculty in 1992: but these proportions hadchanged to 75% and 50% respectively in 2007, that is, increases of fifteen
and twenty-five percentage points respectively. The increasing scale offemale academic appointments is apparent (Kimoto, 2008, p.127).
・ The tradition of lengthy preparation before entering an academic career isincreasingly challenged by a new trend of recruiting by non-academic paths
from occupations outside academia. As El-Khawas showed, the new
reality is an emerging structure of diverse academic roles and career paths
worldwide. These roles consist of five categories: university professors,
part-time academic staff, academic services staff, research professors, andresearch scientists (El-Khawas, 2008, pp.34-39). Four of these categories,

Akira Arimoto 25

other than university professors who hold tenured or tenure-track positions,
are in part-time positions and are increasing today.
Scholarship・ Scholarship is a concept with a special relationship to academia’s ideal.
Nevertheless, scholarship in Japanese academia has sunk into a state ofanomie to the extent that the reconstruction of it is inevitable as soon as
possible.
・ The so called “research paradigm” has become prevalent in Japan just as inother countries, especially in systems identified as research oriented. The
fact that scholarship is almost equivalent to research has been established inacademic work, while too little attention has been paid to research andteaching as two vehicles.
・ In contrast, a concept of scholarship emphasizing teaching has been
introduced into Japan to a considerable degree since Earnest Boyer
published Scholarship Reconsidered (Boyer, 1990).
Scholarship’s reconstruction was not improved swiftly until 1998 whenteaching was established as a semi-obligation by the institutionalization of
FD into academia (UC, 1998). In 2007, attention to teaching became alegal obligation and since then third party accreditation agencies have been
expected to assess the improvement of teaching in individual institutions
every seven years. In this context, academics have to shift their emphasis
from a research to a teaching orientation. In 1992, the proportion ofacademics indicating a teaching orientation was 28%, compared with aresearch orientation of 73%. By 2007, the proportions had become 32%
and 68%, a shift of five percentage points (Fukudome, 2008, p.265). As
such, the response has not improved as much as might have been expected,
even though the institutional requirement has increased. Nevertheless, thefact that national policy has not defined explicitly a concept of integration
among research, teaching, and learning has brought about confusion in bothphilosophy and reality.
・ Academics, who had a strong conformity to a research orientation fifteen
years ago, have revealed ambivalent attitudes in terms of their current
conformity to research and teaching. In the present situation, thediscrepancy, between an enforced conformity to teaching at institutional
level and a strong orientation to research at the level of individual
consciousness, has necessarily deepened the state of anomie previously
mentioned.

26 Changing Academic Profession in the World from 1992 to 2007

Academic freedom・ Academic freedom has contracted due to the transformation from aknowledge community to a knowledge enterprise that has proceeded largelyin the past fifteen years. This fact has brought about a differentiatedsociety among academics by severe competition for resources in terms ofacademic funding and research budget allocation (Asonuma, 2008). It isinteresting that those who are able to get sufficient research funding do notnecessarily show a good return for it. One of the reasons is that an
involvement in free and challenging research is difficult for many
academics to undertake due to the risk of failure (Urata, 2008, p.179).
In addition, in a system of increasing evaluation, many academics
regard their own lives as being under difficult conditions that place further
restraints on undertaking research activity based on the exercise of free andflexible ideas (Murasawa, 2008, p.292).
・ A top-down type of academic governance replacing the bottom-up type has
become evident following the start of the national university corporations in
2004. This pattern differs markedly from that of the traditional university
view, the essence of which was that both academic freedom and academic
autonomy were positioned well. As a result, faculty members, especiallythose of the national university corporations, increasingly complain about
decreasing academic and research freedom.
National universities, especially non-research universities, havesuffered erosion of their academic freedom because of decreases in theirresearch budgets in line with government policy of “selection andconcentration” of resources. Introduction of the corporate system in thenational universities in 2004 transformed latent differences into manifest
differences among the institutions by a changed allocation of resources inaccordance with a market mechanism (I. Amano, 2008). One result is thedifferent reactions to the national government by academic staff in thenational research and non-research universities. In 1992, agreement withthe statement that “The effectiveness of higher education is being threatenedby growing bureaucracies.” was expressed by 63% of respondents in thenational research universities and 62% in the national non-research
universities: there were no differences between two groups. However, in
2007, those in the research universities showed reduced agreement at 55%,
while in the non-research universities agreement had increased to 67%.
The result means that these two groups now have quite different reactions togovernment policy (Fujimura, 2008, pp.163-164).

Akira Arimoto 27

If we make an international comparison with respect to the threat frombureaucracy, in 1992 responses in the U.S. showed agreement as high as
67% with the statement and similarly the U.K. showed 76% agreement,
while Japan showed 57%. It is said that in the past fifteen years, Japan hasreached the same level of bureaucratization. It is also said that thephenomenon of “differentiated universities” has developed both manifestly
and latently in the national universities.
・ In addition with the introduction of the national university corporations, agreat deal of the deterioration of research time has a profound relationshipwith decreased academic freedom. This is evident from analyses offaculty members’ working conditions, daily lives, and personal strain (cf.
Nanbu, 2008; Hasegawa, 2008; Nishimoto, 2008; Yamasaki, 2008).
Whenever academics enjoy abundant academic freedom, they are
confronted with the perpetual problem that the academic organization should
conform to the logic of universalism rather than particularism. One of its
barometers is a trend of mobility enshrined in the academic career. The 1992
survey identified the mobility of Japanese academics as feeble by international
standards, especially as much of the limited mobility is enforced. For example,
as is shown in Table 1, the most influential universities in Japan such as Tokyo,
Kyoto, Waseda, and Keio had inbreeding ratios of more than 60% in 2003,
restricting their recruitment of academics graduated from other universities(Yamanoi, ed., 2007).
It is manifest that there are many differences between these institutions andtheir American counterparts including Harvard and Yale where markedly lower
inbreeding ratios, of less than 30%, were achieved almost one century ago(Pierson, 1952; Arimoto, 1981). Unless this situation changes, Japaneseinstitutions will become anachronic in the age of knowledge orientation andglobalization.
Professional ethics
・ The ethics of the academic profession have the essence that academics makeethical judgments by their own insight. This identifies a true profession
because professional prestige is not realized without maintaining
self-discipline. Professional ethics are still in good health in the sense thatthe faculty meeting usually practices punishment and expulsion ofacademics who violate the ethical norms and codes.
・ On the other hand, however, the problems of dishonest science and deviant

28 Changing Academic Profession in the World from 1992 to 2007

behavior have exposed numerous unethical actions, such as themisappropriation of research money, plagiarism and forgery, and themanipulation of data. However, in addition to these, moral hazards,
including sexual, academic and power harassments, have been frequently
dealt with by the mass communication media rather than the profession(Arimoto, 2008c, p.342).
Social prestige
・ Evidence that the social power and prestige of the academic profession is
tending to decline is illustrated by a number of facts: the massification ofhigher education; the degeneration of the university into the high school; thedecline of the power in the administration and management by “a hard
method of administration and management” with “corporation” and“enterprise” (Trow, 1994, pp.11-18) which was already recognized byacademics in Europe and the U.S. in the 1992 survey (Fujimura, 2008,
p.147); the loss of academic freedom; the deterioration of working
conditions in the organization of universities in terms of “relationships withcolleagues” (27%→23%), “the opportunity to pursue your own ideas” (70%→67%), and “the way this institution is managed” (30%→21%) (Nanbu,
2008, pp.191-192); the decrease of government funding for the system tothe point that no increase is expected for the next five years (T. Amano,
2008, p.223); the depressed budget and resources allocation (Asonuma,
2008; Urata, 2008); the proportion of psychologically stressed respondents
remaining at an internationally high level, although it has decreased slightly(56%→50%) (Nishimoto, 2008, pp.236-237). The quantitative increase
and massification of the academic staff from 11,000 in 1950 to 167,000 in
2007, an increase of 15 times, is necessarily bringing a weakening ofprofessional ethics (Arimoto, 2008b, pp.16-17).
・ The title of “professor emeritus” has been degraded in an era in which it isbeing mass produced by deregulation of its qualification control andsimultaneously by the emergence of disgraced professors to the extent that it
becomes familiar in scandals appearing in mass communication media suchas television, radio and newspapers. In this context, it is understandable
that the academic profession has lost respected social authority and prestige
to a considerable degree.
・ A comparison of the social status of some professions, such as lawyers,
senior officers, doctors, company presidents, and professors, was madeabout forty years ago when the social prestige of professor was fairly highAkira Arimoto 29(Shinbori & Arimoto, 1969). Comparing the facts related to the status andprestige between then and now, we can recognize the diminution that has
occurred for the professoriate. It cannot be denied that the academic
profession’s professional appeal has declined.
・ According to the present survey, however, academics still have very strong
attachments to the academic profession through their responses to thestatement: “This is an especially creative and productive time in myfield.” The proportion who agree, 57% in 2007, is still high, though it
decreased slightly from 63% in 1992 (Nanbu, 2008, pp.192-194). The
proportion agreeing with the statement that “If I had it to do over again, I
would not become an academic” decreased to 11% from 16% in 1992.
This result implies that a positive attitude in the academic profession has
increased in the past fifteen years. It is possible that the responding faculty
members at the time of their recruitment have accepted the good image
conveyed by their professors because the traditional culture and climate ofacademic tribes had been well maintained. Today, they consciously retain
this good image, while yet recognizing that status and prestige are declining
institutionally. If so, this may suggest an increasing difficulty in attractingsome of the best and brightest brains in the next generation to theprofession.
Academic productivity
The cultivation of high quality academic productivity is a key concept toestablish a true profession. In other words, the pursuit of academic work suchas research, teaching and service, especially research and teaching, so as to yieldhigh academic productivity is thought to be central to the academic profession.
・ The Japanese academic profession was considered to have low teachingproductivity owing to its less positive attitude to teaching; conversely, it wasconsidered to have high research productivity owing to its positivecommitment to research. As has been pointed out, a symptom of
improvement in these attitudes and commitments can be recognized in thecurrent survey and in this sense the effects of university reforms during thepast fifteen years become evident. Nevertheless, whether real highacademic productivity can be achieved needs further verification.
・ It is true to say that academic productivity has improved over the fifteen
years, if we compare quantities of publications: “Articles published in an
academic book or journal” (7.72→9.15); “Research reports or monographs
written for funded projects” (1.26→1.65); “Papers presented at a scholarly30 Changing Academic Profession in the World from 1992 to 2007

conference”(7.43 → 9.06) (Daizen, 2008, p.247). They have increased
significantly. But it is necessary also to analyze the factors that determine
the numbers of publications. Factors such as “Total amount of received
research funding”, “During past three years, how many
disciplinary/scientific conferences did you attend?”, “Regarding your own
preferences, do your interests lie primarily in teaching or in research?” havea close relationship to productivity (ibid, pp.259-260).
・ The fact that productivity is quantitatively higher than, or almost equivalent
to that in the previous years was made in spite of a deterioration of the timespent on research (Hasegawa, 2008, pp.205-208). However, the quality of
research seems to be problematic because of a declining indication ofresearch intensity and quality due to deterioration in research time andenforcement of the teaching orientation by law. Moreover, quality
assurance of teaching also seems to be problematic because teaching timeincreased too much and too rapidly for quality to be controlled (ibid, p.205).
・ High research productivity is expected to contribute to scientificdevelopment by exploiting the invention and discovery of knowledge, whilehigh teaching productivity is expected to form excellence in students’scholastic achievements and abilities at the time of their graduation.
Theoretically, high academic productivity is cultivated by integration andcooperation of research and teaching. In reality, the breakdown ofscholarship’s ideal has become overt so that any previously existing
integration of research and teaching has been lost rapidly.
・ The “Subject Benchmark Statements on Degrees” issued by the Quality
Assurance Agency for Higher Education (QAA) in the U.K. offers aninternationally leading case for an ideal standard in terms of quality
assurance from the integration of research and teaching.
Theestablishment of such a standard is demanded in Japan and it is currently
under development (Arimoto, ed., 2007). The trends indicated by theJapan Council of Science deserve our attention since the Council has juststarted to give attention to improving this situation.
From the discussion of these six factors we can understand that the realsituation of academics today is neither successful in constructing an ideal state
for the academic profession nor for pursuing a sense of duty proper to theprofession. Within the past fifteen years, academics, who were already far fromany ideal of the academic profession, have fallen into a state of anomie and lackany sense of which direction to go. Far from promoting academic productivity

Akira Arimoto 31

their inactivity invites their emasculation and decline.

Concluding remarks(1) This report has sought to provide a perspective of the academic profession in
Japan by focusing on four problems: the research framework andmethodology; the function of knowledge; the environmental change of theacademic profession; the term and object of research. The knowledge
function plays an important role in the pursuit of the vision of the university
and the academic profession. The research and teaching function areespecially important in order to enhance academic productivity, which
consists of research and teaching productivity and for which the academic
profession is expected to be responsible.
(2) The Japanese academic profession has changed to a considerable degree inthe past fifteen years. The facts related to this are perhaps special to Japanand do not necessarily reveal the situation in other countries. A comparisonof the past and present facts occurring in Japan provides a vertical axis
which can be combined with a horizontal axis formed by a comparison of theacademic professions in Japan and other countries to identify the extent ofchange.
(3) The academic profession has changed, more or less, from the historic
prototype and continues to change by modification and innovation.
Researchers in higher education intend to make clear the realities underlying
the past, present, and future stages of the changes. This paper has
attempted to establish the realities of the changes in the academic profession
in the fourteen countries (including one area) in the Carnegie survey held in
1992.
(4) The Japanese academic profession has, in many respects, changed to aconsiderable degree in the past fifteen years. Among them, three topics,
academic careers, education and research, and internationalization are to betreated intensively in this meeting. Related to these topics, some of thetraits are shown in the following descriptions.
① There is both a trend toward lengthy preparation before entering an
academic career as seen in the phenomenon of increasing proportions of
PhD holders, and a new trend of recruitment to an increasing
non-academic path group from various occupations outside academia.
② Academics, who fifteen years ago had a strong conformity to research,
have revealed an ambivalent attitude in terms of conformity to both

32 Changing Academic Profession in the World from 1992 to 2007

research and teaching. There is an increasing situation in which
conformity to teaching is strongly encouraged by national law at theinstitutional level, while conformity to research is still strong in the
consciousness of academics.
③ Academic freedom has shrunk due to the transformation from aknowledge community to a knowledge enterprise which has proceeded
largely in the past fifteen years. This has created a the differentiatedsociety in academia by the increasingly severe competition among
academics for resources as testified by the constraints on academic
funding and research budget allocations.
Many academics seethemselves as living is under difficult conditions that place restraints on
their ability to undertake research activities that exercise unconstrained
ideas.
④ The survey conducted in 1992 recognized the feeble mobility ofJapanese academics. In particular, there was little self-chosen mobility,
although there was a large proportion of compulsory and closed mobility.
One of reasons for this situation is thought to be the prevailinginbreeding evident in influential universities and a consequently closed
recruitment for national and international academics.
Such basic changes (or non-changes) as occurred in Japan in the past fifteen
years provide a basis for comparison with the situation in other countries.
(5) There are some expectations for this international meeting.
The international meeting is providing at least two approaches to attaina fruitful and meaningful outcome.
First, it offers the opportunity to discuss many problems but with afocus on three topics: academic careers, education and research, andinternationalization.
Second, it has a format of three keynote speeches, eight country reports,
and the relevant discussions.
The keynote speeches are expected to discuss comprehensive and basic
problems, while the country reports are expected to analyze the past andpresent situations related to the situation in individual countries so as toclarify the problems proper to these countries. The relevant discussions are
expected to delve deeper into the contents of the presentations in order togenerate a frank exchange of views between the participants.
On the basis of the discussion of these basic problems, the seminar has
the following problems to be clarified.
① Participating countries will clarify the changes that have occurred in theAkira Arimoto 33

fifteen years as indicated by the results of the two surveys.
② The meeting is to discuss intensively the three identified topics on thebasis of the situations in individual countries. With this approach, andby making an international and historical comparison, there will be an
opportunity to make clear both the similarities and dissimilarities of theacademic professions in the participating countries.
③ Related to ②, it will become possible and important to seek to clarify
contemporary problems by utilizing vertical and horizontal axes.
Historical changes of the academic profession worldwide can be
examined on the basis of an enquiry of historical changes of theacademic profession in individual countries. At the same time, it isimportant to clarify the common problems that the academic profession
now faces throughout the world so as to develop research in theacademic profession.
④ Publication of a report presenting the proceedings of the meeting is
expected to appear as a publication succeeding that of the previous CAP
meeting conducted last year in Hiroshima.

References
Altbach, P.G. (1996). The International Academic Profession: Portraits of Fourteen Countries.
Princeton: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.
Amano, I. (2008). Whereabouts of Corporation of National University: Between Independence
and Difference (in Japanese). Tokyo: Toshindo Publishing Co.
Amano, T. (2008). Salary and Income (in Japanese). The Changing Academic Profession in
Japan (CAPJ) (pp.222-234). Tokyo: Tamagawa University Press.
Arimoto, A. (1981). Sociology of Academics (in Japanese). Tokyo: Gakubunsha Publishing Co.
Arimoto, A. (1987). Sociology of Science in Robert K. Merton: Formation and Development of
its Paradigm (in Japanese). Tokyo: Fukumura Publishing Co.
Arimoto, A. (2005a). Academic Profession and FD: U.S. and Japan (in Japanese). Tokyo:
Toshindo Publishing Co.
Arimoto, A. (2005b). National Research Policy and Higher Education. Journal of Educational
Planning and Administration, 175-198.
Arimoto, A. (2006). National Research Policy and Higher Education in Japan. In L. Meek, &C. Suwanwela (eds.), Higher Education, Research and Knowledge in the Asia and PacificRegion (pp.153-173). New York: Palgrave Mcmillan.
Arimoto, A. (2007). Remarks on the Relationship between Knowledge Functions and the Role

34 Changing Academic Profession in the World from 1992 to 2007of the University. In S. Sorlin & H. Vessuri (eds.), Knowledge Society vs. Knowledge
Economy: Knowledge, Power, and Politics (pp.175-197). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Arimoto, A. (2008a). International Implications of the Changing Academic Profession in Japan.
In RIHE (ed.), The Changing Academic Profession in International, Comparative andQuantitative Perspectives (RIHE International Seminar Report 12) (pp.1-31). Hiroshima:
RIHE, Hiroshima University.
Arimoto, A. (2008b). The Academic Profession in Japan: past and present (in Japanese). CAPJ
(pp.13-40). Tokyo: Tamagawa University Press.
Arimoto, A. (2008c). Perspective of the Academic Profession (in Japanese). CAPJ
(pp.325-351). Tokyo: Tamagawa University Press.
Arimoto, A. (ed.) (1996). Study on the Centers of Learning (in Japanese). Tokyo: Toshindo
Publishing Co.
Arimoto, A. (ed.) (2007). Benchmark Statement on Degrees: Subject Benchmark Statement by
the QAA (Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education in the U.K.) (in Japanese).
Hiroshima: RIHE, Hiroshima University.
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(ICAP) (in Japanese). Tokyo: Tamagawa University Press.
Asonuma, A. (2008). University Funding (in Japanese). CAPJ (pp.81-110). Tokyo: Tamagawa
University Press.
Becher, T. (1989). Academic Tribes and Territories: Intellectual enquiry and the cultures of thedisciplines. Milton Keynes: Open 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.
Becher, T., & Trowler, P. R. (2001) Academic Tribes and Territories: Intellectual enquiry andthe cultures of the disciplines. Second Edition, Buckingham: The Society for Research
into Higher Education & Open University Press.
Ben-David, J. (1977). Centers of Learning. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Biglan, A. (1973). The Characteristics of subject matter in different scientific areas. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 57, 204-213.
Boyer, E.L. (1990). Scholarship Reconsidered: Priorities of the Professoriate. Princeton:
Carnegie Foundation of the Advancement of Teaching.
Brubacher, J., & Rudy, W. (1968). Higher Education in Transition. New York: Harper andRow.
CCE (Central Council of Education) (2005). Future Vision of Higher Education in Japan (inJapanese). Tokyo: Central Council of Education.

Akira Arimoto 35
Clark, B.R. (1983). Higher Education Systems: Academic Organization in Cross-National
Perspective. Berkley: University of California Press.
Clark, B.R. (1987). The Academic Life: Small Worlds, Different Worlds. Princeton: The
Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.
Clark, B.R. (ed.) (1993). The Research Foundations of Graduate Education: Germany, Britain,
France, United States, and Japan. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Clark, B.R. (1995). Places of Inquiry: Research and Advanced Education in the Modern
University. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Daizen, T. (1996). Professional activity (in Japanese). ICAP (pp.51-61). Tokyo: Tamagawa
University Press.
Daizen, T. (2008). Research Productivity (in Japanese). CAPJ (pp.245-262). Tokyo: Tamagawa
University Press.
El-Khawas, E. (2008). Emerging Academic Identities: A New Research and Policy Agenda. In
A. Amaral, I. Bleiklie & C. Musselin (eds.), From Governance to Identity: A Festschrift
for Mary Henkel (pp.31-44). Springer.
Fujimura, M. (2008). Administration and Management (in Japanese). CAPJ (pp.145-167).
Tokyo: Tamagawa University Press.
Fukudome, H. (2008). Conflicts of research and teaching (in Japanese). CAPJ (pp.263-279).
Tokyo: Tamagawa University Press.
Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P. Z., & Trow, M. (1994).
The New Production of Knowledge: the dynamics of science and research incontemporary societies. London: Thousand Oaks; and New Delhi: Sage.
Halsey, A.H., & Trow, M. (1971). The British Academics. Boston: Harvard University Press.
Hasegawa, Y. (2008). Time schedule for living (in Japanese). CAPJ (pp.198-221). Tokyo:
Tamagawa University Press.
Hsu, F.L.K. (1963). Clan, Caste, and Club. Princeton: D.Van Nostrand Co., Inc.
Huang, F. (2008). Internationalization (in Japanese). CAPJ (pp.297-311). Tokyo: Tamagawa
University Press.
Kimoto, N. (2008). Gender bias: what of the female academics changed? (in Japanese). CAPJ
(pp.123-142). Tokyo: Tamagawa University Press.
Kerr, C. (1994). Higher Education Cannot Escape History: Issue for the Twenty-first Century[Translated by Kazuyuki, Kitamura, 1998]. New York: State University of New York
Press.
Kogan, M. (2007). Modes of Knowledge and Patterns of Power. In S. Sorlin & H. Vessuri(eds.), Knowledge Society vs. Knowledge Economy: Knowledge, Power, and Politics(pp.35-51). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Kogan, M., & Teichler, U. (eds.) (2007). Key Challenges to the Academic Profession,
UNESCO Forum on Higher Education, Research and Knowledge. Werkstattberichte, 65,

36 Changing Academic Profession in the World from 1992 to 2007
175-190.
Kuhn, T.S. (1970). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press. (First Published in 1962)
Light, D.W., Jr. (1974). The Structure the Academic Professions. Sociology of Education, 47(1),2-28.
Locke, W., & Teichler, U. (2007). The Changing Conditions for Academic Work and Careers
in Select Countries. Werkstattberichte, 66, 195-210.
Times Higher Education Supplement/ QS (THES-QS) (2008). Quacquarelli Symonds.
Retrieved from www.topuniversities.com.
Merton, R.K. (1973). The Normative Structure of Science. In R.K. Merton & N. Storer (ed.),The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Investigations. Chicago: The
University of Chicago Press.
Mulkey, M.J. (1977). Sociology of the Scientific Research Community. In Spiegel-Rosing, Ina,
& Price, Derek de Solla (eds.) Science, Technology and Society: A Cross-Disciplinary
Perspective. London and Ververly Hills: Sage Publications.
Murasawa, M. (2008). Evaluation (in Japanese). CAPJ (pp.280-294). Tokyo: Tamagawa
University Press.
Nanbu, H. (2008). Conditions of Work (in Japanese). CAPJ (pp.183-197). Tokyo: Tamagawa
University Press.
Nishimoto, H. (2008). Stress (in Japanese). CAPJ (pp. 235-242). Tokyo: Tamagawa University
Press.
Ogata, N. (1996). Restraints and their backgrounds in relation to work (in Japanese). ICAP
(pp.235-250).
Parry, S. (2007) Disciplines and Doctorates. Dordrecht: Springer.
Pierson, G.W. (1952). Yale College: An Educational History 1871-1921. New Haven: Yale
University Press.
Rashdall, H. (1936). The Universities of Europe in the Middle Ages Volume 1. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
RIHE (2008). The Changing Academic Profession in International, Comparative andQuantitative Perspectives. (Report of the International Conference on the Changing
Academic Profession Project, 2008).
Ross, M.G. (1976). The University: The Anatomy of Academe. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Shinbori, M. (1973). Research of Academic Productivity (in Japanese). Daigaku Ronshu, 1,
11-19.
Shinbori, M., & Arimoto, A. (1969). An International Comparison of Academic Career.
Sociological Review, 73(3), 2-21.
Trow, M., (1994). Manegerialism and the Academic Profession: the case of England. Higher
Education Policy, 7(2), 11-18.

Akira Arimoto 37
UC (University Council) (1998). 21st University Vision and Direction for Reforms (inJapanese). Tokyo: University Council.
Ushiogi, M. (2008). Is The End of Humboldt’s Ideal?: New Dimension of Modern University(in Japanese). Tokyo: Toshindo Publishing Co.
Urata, H. (2008). Allocation of Research Budget (in Japanese). CAPJ (pp.168-182). Tokyo:
Tamagawa University Press.
Yamanoi, A. (1996). International Aspect (in Japanese). ICAP (pp.91-102)．Tokyo: Tamagawa
University Press.
Yamanoi, A. (2008). Fluidity (in Japanese). CAPJ (pp.62-80). Tokyo: Tamagawa University
Press.
Yamanoi, A. (ed.) (2007). Academic Market Place in Japan (in Japanese). Tokyo: Tamagawa
University Press.
Yamasaki, H. (2008). Higher Education and Society (in Japanese). CAPJ (pp.312-324). Tokyo:
Tamagawa University Press.
Yokoo, T. (1999). Birth of University and Transformation: European University History (inJapanese). Tokyo: Toshindo Publishing Co.

RIHE International Seminar Reports, No.13, 2009 39

Teaching versus Research in the Contemporary
AcademyWilliam K. Cummings ∗Introduction
Teaching and research constitute the core work of academics, and mostacademics devote some of their time to both of these activities (Arimoto, 2005).
Historically universities modeled after the German university (as in Japan and
Israel) placed a greater emphasis on basic research, those modeled after the U.S.
land-grant model stressed applied research, and those modeled after the English
university (e.g. throughout the former British empire) placed more emphasis onteaching (Ben-David, 1977). In recent times, new forces or drivers haveinfluenced these differential emphases leading some to assert a convergence inacademic practice. The forces are diverse: the partial retreat in public fundingof higher education exerts pressure on HEIs and academics, to find alternate
funding through commercialized research and contracted training; technologicaladvances have influenced the delivery of teaching; the adolescent population has
declined, creating pressure to improve teaching in order to attract students; thoseentering the profession are more likely to have received advanced training inresearch, so the competition for securing research funds is increasing; and theacademy has become more international in composition (Cummings, 2006).
These recent trends vary by country with some countries, especially in thedeveloping world and in Asia experiencing counter-trends (Cummings, 2008).
The aim here is to survey recent trends in the work of the academy − what do
professors like to do in terms of teaching and research, what do they do, andwhat is making some components of their academic work easier, other∗

Professor of International Education, Graduate School of Education and Human
Development, The George Washington University, USA, e-mail: wkcum@usa.net

40 Teaching versus Research in the Contemporary Academy
components tougher?

Methods
In this study, we will primarily consider differences by nation (ideally wewould also like to look at differences by institutional type, field, international
status, but the data files are not yet available). We will look at 2007 patterns
across all the countries that have made their data available. For the sub-set who
participated in the 1992 survey, for certain variables we will also compare 1992
findings with those for 2007.

What is scholarship?
Ernest Boyer (1990), who was the initiator of the 1992 International Surveyof the Academic Profession suggested that academics engage in four modes ofscholarship, with their emphasis varying according to institutional mission andpersonal preference; these four modes were the scholarships of discovery, of
integration, of application, and of dissemination. In the CAP survey academics
in all 15 reporting countries were asked if they believed all four of these modes
constituted scholarship. As illustrated in Table 1, their answers were decisively
affirmative.1 Indeed, while the academy is often depicted as an ivory tower
focused almost exclusively on basic research, academics in most of the CAP
countries indicated their belief that applied and synthetic scholarship was asimportant as the creation of new knowledge.
Also in most of the reporting countries academics indicated their belief thatteaching and research are compatible or mutually reinforcing activities. The
one glaring exception was the Japanese professors who were least likely to agree(last row of Table 1).

What did my training prepare me for?
While the academic job involves both teaching and research, doctoral
training focuses almost exclusively on research. In most countries only a verysmall number received any training on instruction (the U.S. is a modest
exception), and in many systems over the course of doctoral work the current
academics had experienced little or no course work (which might have1

Table 1-13 are grouped together following the references at the end of this article (pp.45-55).

William K. Cummings 41

stimulated some reflection on what works in university teaching) (Table 2).
Of course, in most systems there is some openness to recruiting individuals
with real world experience, and it can be argued that this experience outside ofacademia is accompanied by a more practical approach in the classroom. China
is notable for its openness to recruiting individuals from outside of academia, andItaly is possibly most insular in this regard (see Table 9).
There is though some effort to provide advice on instruction, once
academics are recruited? And most academics are receptive to such advice(Table 3).

The personal ‘ideal’ balance
In terms of individual preferences between teaching and research, overall it
can be said that most systems achieve a balance with about as many academics
leaning toward research as toward teaching (Table 4).
But the emphasis varies by country with research given priority in several of
the countries influenced by the German model. While a teaching emphasis wasonce evident in Anglophone countries, recent university reforms stressing
research productivity in the UK and Hong Kong have led to a new emphasis on
research in these countries. Also notable is the strong surge in researchemphasis in Korea (2007 compared to 1992). While several countries exhibit
an increased stress on research, no country for which there is data for both 1992
and 2007 indicates a notable increase in the stress on teaching.

How time is allocatedAn obvious distinction can be made between what professors want to do andwhat they actually do. While research may be a priority for many academics,
they work in institutions which are primarily organized for the delivery ofteaching, and these organizational demands inevitably influence time budgets.
The time professors devote to their work averages, in most countries,
around 50 hours, which is somewhat above the average amount of time per week
for work of the respective labor forces (Table 5). Relative to 1992, the average
number of hours academics devote to their work is slightly up.
While the personal preference of many academics may be for research,teaching takes up the most hours in a typical week in all systems. In the U.S.
and Japan, the average number of teaching hours is up, and the average numberof hours for research is slightly down. Of course, these average numbers do nottake account of variations within the respective systems − e.g. research

42 Teaching versus Research in the Contemporary Academy
universities versus the rest.
It is notable that the number of hours devoted to service, relatively
prominent in 1992, is down − seemingly squeezed out by the pressure on
professors to respond to more pressing demands (Cummings, 1997).

What is my teaching?
Overall professors appear open to new approaches to their teaching (Table
6). One example is the large proportion who say they rely on ICT innovationsin their classroom approach. This tendency is most evident in North America
and also is widespread in Asia, but it is least common in continental Europe.
Also professors seem concerned to listen to criticism, and thereby to improvetheir teaching (see Table 10a).

What is my research?
Research is a prominent activity for many professors (Bain & Cummings,
2000). Concerning the type of research CAP academics are personally engaged
in, more indicate an involvement in applied than in basic research (Table 7).
Only a minority engage in commercially relevant research (in a relatively few
fields primarily in the life sciences). Academics in China and Malaysia are themost likely to engage in commercial research, probably because their statesystems do not have a long tradition of supporting academic research socommercial research is, for many, the only option.
Actually in most countries a far greater proportion of academics report they
are engaged in what they describe as socially relevant than commerciallyrelevant research.
Academics state they are as often engaged in multidisciplinary as
disciplinary research and in most countries they report frequent engagement inresearch that is international in scope (the U.S. is a notable exception).
In all national settings professors feel an increased pressure to bring inexternal funding (Table 8). In most cases they do not feel this has led toexcessive pressure to pursue commercially relevant research. But they do feelthere is a danger that an excessive emphasis on the quantity of research may leadto a decline in quality.

What is emphasized in promotion and tenure decisions?
In most cases, research is thought to be somewhat more important thanWilliam K. Cummings 43

teaching in the evaluation of academics. However, in those systems that are
currently prioritizing research productivity, such as Korea, research is strongly
emphasized. Service is a lesser priority.
Given the relative importance attached to teaching performance, it isinteresting that, in the evaluation of teaching, students have a prominent role
(Table 10a). In contrast, concerning the evaluation of research it is peers,
department heads, and external reviewers who have prominent roles whereas theview of students is not perceived as being important (Table 10b).

Perception of university support for teaching/research
While university management pushes for both teaching and research,
professors feel the administration does a better job in supporting teaching than insupporting research (Table 11).

Availability of facilities
Concerning the quality of facilities for accomplishing academic work,
professors in most countries say they are pretty good － though professors in
the more developed countries see little change relative to 1992, whereas a muchgreater improvement is seen to be in the developing countries and in Korea(Table 12). In fact, professors in Hong Kong give the highest rating to thequality of their facilities. Thus there appears to be a leveling in the quality ofacademic facilities around the world. In general, the facilities for teaching seemto be better than those for research.

Perception of academic freedom
The CAP survey asked only one question focused directly on the core valueof academic freedom. Overall professors indicate that their institutions areproviding reasonable protection for academic freedom (Table13). But a
substantial minority either are nor sure or disagree. Combining the answer tothis direct question with a number of other questions on such matters as theprevalence of commercial research and the prevalence of restrictions on
publishing, it might better be said that professors today are not sufficiently
satisfied with the level of protection of academic freedom in the contemporary
academy.

44 Teaching versus Research in the Contemporary Academy

Conclusion
Institutional models still affect the beliefs of today’s academics, but the
impact of the historical models is less evident in respect to actual behavior.
This survey finds some convergence in the commitment to teaching. And
similarly there appears to be convergence with regard to service, in the sense that
this activity appears to be losing support.
However, concerning research, there is an emerging pattern of divergence.
Some systems prioritize research highly, and back this up with public support
and organizational policies that involve incentives for research; but other systems
are not adjusting policies or providing related incentives. Of course, there isdifferentiation within systems so these tendencies may be in place in the upper
strata of research universities, but obscured when statistics for the system as awhole are considered.
Thus a more refined analysis of theconvergence-divergence debate will need to consider the differentiatedtendencies within systems. Finally our survey indicates a worry, albeit muted,
that in the ebb and flow of recent change, academic freedom may be somewhat
eroding.

References
Arimoto, A. (2005). Globalization, academic productivity, and higher education reforms. RIHEInternational Publication Series: Globalization and Higher Education, 9, 1-22.
Ben-David, J. (1977). Centers of Learning. New York: Wiley.
Boyer, E. (1990). Scholarship Reconsidered. Princeton, N.J.: The Carnegie Foundation for the
Advancement of Teaching.
Cummings, W.K. (1997). The service university movement in the US: searching formomentum. Higher Education, 35(1), 69-90.
Cummings, W.K. (2006). Globalization and knowledge production: An Asian tilt? Higher
Education Forum, 3, 1-25.
Cummings, W.K. (2009). Is the academic center shifting to Asia? In G. Postiglione, W. K.
Cummings & D. Chapman (eds.), Border Crossing in East Asian Higher Education.
Springer & HKU CERC (in press).
Olga, B., & Cummings, W.K. (2001). Academe’s glass ceiling: Societal, professionalorganizational, and institutional barriers to the career advancement of academic women.
Comparative Education Review, 44(4), 493-514.

67

68

60

46

73

73

DE

62

84

57

FI

62

66

87

NO

68

71

63

UK

70

81

69

US

83

70

74

CAN

81

75

77

JP

90

20

77

KR

73

79

81

HK

76

82

54

CH

72

80

71

MY

67

74

67

AU

63

84

38

BRZ

66

87

59

MX

61

78

53

AR

(%)

14
29
38
11
29
13
20
51
11
26
42
30
28
7
11
6
% who strongly agree thatteaching and research arecompatible
17
34
35
9
20
23
12
23
66
61
67
Notes: In this and the other tables, the following abbreviations are used to identify the origins of the data: IT, Italy; DE, Germany; FI, Finland; NO,
Norway; UK, United Kingdom; US, United States; CAN, Canada; JP, Japan; KR, Korea; HK, Hong Kong; CH, PR China; MY, Malaysia;
AU, Australia; BRZ, Brazil; MX, Mexico; AR, Argentina.

Scholarship includes the
preparation of reports thatsynthesize the major trends andfindings of my field
Teaching and research are hardly
compatible with each other

Scholarship is best defined as the
preparation and presentation offindings on original research
Scholarship includes theapplication of academic
knowledge in real-life settings

IT

Table 1. Please indicate your views on the following statements (Question B5)(proportion who “strongly agree” or “agree”)

William K. Cummings 45

100

96

82

You received intensive faculty
guidance for your research

21

63

8

41

81

18

25

67

11

You served on an institutional or
departmental (unit) committee
18

58

61

You chose your own research topic
You received a scholarship or
fellowship
You received an employment
contract during your studies (forteaching or research)
You received training in
instructional skills or learned aboutteaching methods
You were involved in research
projects with faculty or seniorresearchers

29

15

51

DE

You were required to take aprescribed set of courses
You were required to write a thesisor dissertation

IT

19

54

12

47

58

68

35

93

64

FI

24

44

8

64

73

62

30

95

70

NO

12

36

14

33

68

64

23

97

19

UK

31

49

34

57

71

85

70

97

83

US

CAN

3

21

15

5

49

60

60

83

36

JP

5

59

26

51

64

81

63

95

81

KR

13

42

19

38

57

84

50

97

54

HK

8

58

22

39

31

53

71

79

73

CH

32

44

15

34

73

68

41

95

34

MY

18

40

14

39

67

75

28

98

16

AU

BRZ

Table 2. How would you characterize the training you received in your doctoral degree? (Question A3)(proportion who “strongly agree” or “agree” with the statements)

28

71

36

35

38

88

87

98

68

MX

38

86

21

53

66

58

61

99

70

AR

(%)

17

46

17

42

55

65

47

93

47

Total

46 Teaching versus Research in the Contemporary Academy

78
75
38

83
45

29

3
52

36

59

DE

39

70

52

39

13

FI

65

84

52

36

47

NO

38

79

68

60

55

UK

50

68

72

39

55

US

CAN

46

79

50

20

70

JP

57

85

76

39

65

KR

44

73

68

40

52

HK

55

73

77

29

62

CH

36

66

68

49

64

MY

50

75

75

53

63

AU

BRZ

65
12
IT

In both, but leaning towards researchPrimarily in research

27
47
19

In both, but leaning towards researchPrimarily in research

32
DE
8

40

18

DE
10

In both, but leaning towards teaching

Primarily in teaching

1992

21

In both, but leaning towards teaching

Primarily in teaching

IT
2

2007

27
FI

38

21

FI
14

46
NO

42

10

NO
1

15

40

32

26
UK
12

37

27

UK
10

7

30

36

9
US
27

34

34

US
24

14
CAN

51

27

CAN
8

17

55

24

14
JP
4

57

23

JP
6

6

50

40

7
KR
5

61

29

KR
3

8

46

35

11
HK
11

52

28

HK
9

5
CH

42

42

CH
11

4
MY

43

44

MY
8

9

43

35

29
AU
13

40

23

AU
7

3

36

42

7
BRZ
20

42

42

BRZ
8

Table 4. Academic preferences. Do your interests lie primarily in teaching or in research? (Question B2)

Practically oriented knowledge andskills are emphasized in your teachingYour research activities reinforce yourteaching
Your service activities reinforce yourteaching

You are encouraged to improve yourinstructional skills in response toteaching evaluations
At your institution there are adequate
training courses for enhancing teachingqualityIT

Table 3. Please indicate your views on the following statements related to teaching (Question C4).
(proportion who “strongly agree” or “agree”)

4

37

45

5
MX
14

33

37

MX
20

74

83

88

50

55

MX

8
AR

50

37

AR
7

(%)

59

84

82

30

34

AR

(%)

William K. Cummings 47

IT

18.8
17.4

2.5
4.3

2.4
45.4

2007

Teaching (preparation of instructional
materials and lesson plans, classroom
instruction, advising students, readingand evaluating student work)

Research (reading literature, writing,conducting experiments, fieldwork)

Service (services to clients and/or
patients, unpaid consulting, public orvoluntary services)

Administration (committees,
department meetings, paperwork)

Other academic activities(professional activities not clearly
attributable to any of the categories
above)

Total
41

3.2

4.4

5.3

15.8

12.3

DE

42.5

2.3

4.8

2.2

16

17.2

FI

44.3

3.1

6.7

2.6

19.2

12.7

NO

39

5

5

4

10

15

UK

48.7

3.3

7.4

4.2

12.2

21.6

US

55.2

4.8

8.5

5.3

16

20.6

CAN

55.18

3.33

7.85

4.58

17.62

21.8

JP

54

4.3

5.2

4.9

18.2

21.4

KR

52

3.6

8.5

4

16

19.9

HK

53.2

3.6

8.3

4.8

16.4

20.1

CH

44

2

10

2

10

20

MY

45

2.3

8.8

2.4

13.9

17.6

AU

Table 5. How many hours do you spend in a typical week on each of the following professional work activities?
(Question B1) (hours/week)

38.5

2.6

4.8

2.5

9.7

18.9

BRZ

MX

43.5

5.6

7.9

0.9

7.6

21.5

(%)

48 Teaching versus Research in the Contemporary Academy

53.7

Total

9.6

6.1

19.2

16.4

DE

2.4

IT

Other academic activities(professional activities not clearly
attributable to any of the categories
above)

Administration (committees,
department meetings, paperwork)

Service (services to clients and/or
patients, unpaid consulting, public orvoluntary services)

Research (reading literature, writing,conducting experiments, fieldwork)

Teaching (preparation of instructional
materials and lesson plans, classroom
instruction, advising students, readingand evaluating student work)

1992

FI

NO

52.5

3.6

9.9

4.7

13

21.3

UK

52.8

3.4

6.8

7.4

16.5

18.7

US

CAN

55.4

3.8

6.5

4.1

21.3

19.7

JP

51.6

3.0

4.6

3.8

17.1

23.1

KR

50.3

3.8

8.6

5.3

13.6

19

HK

CH

MY

AU

50.7

2.6

5.3

8.3

12.6

21.9

BRZ

46.2

4.1

6.0

8

11.2

16.9

MX

William K. Cummings 49

42
13

36
48

51
17
9
86
34
88

Practice instruction/ laboratory work
ICT-based learning/computer-assisted
learning

Distance education
Development of course material

Curriculum/program development
Electronic communications (e-mail) withstudents
87

67

33
76

40

64

47

81

FI

84

58

7
45

19

38

50

87

NO

95

76

22
88

42

41

60

84

UK

94

76

29
88

28

41

56

81

US

CAN

56

27

5
29

32

62

25

79

JP

68

50

13
64

11

51

48

58

KR

90

66

9
78

30

38

60

79

HK

51

42

5
27

31

53

26

71

CH

80

68

15
72

49

64

77

70

MY

92

75

36
88

43

42

51

81

AU

35
60
35

33
75
33
66

International in scope or orientation
Based in one discipline

Multi-/interdisciplinary

63

22

16

Basic/theoretical
Applied/practically-oriented
Commercially-oriented/
intended for technology transfer
Socially-oriented/ intended for the
betterment of society

DE
57
69

IT
58
60

58

34
60
39

19

FI
58
65

57

34
70
56

21

NO
54
70

63

66
65
40

16

UK
56
66

67

75
40
31

15

US
49
68

CAN

53

31
47
60

22

JP
66
69

53

36
33
46

19

KR
62
74

67

50
65
34

11

HK
58
72

80

63
67
27

50

CH
78
85

62

58
50
41

38

MY
65
73

73

61
68
19

19

AU
52
77

BRZ

BRZ

Table 7. How would you characterize the emphasis of your primary research this (or the previous) academic year?
(Question D2) (proportion indicating “very much” or “much”)

3
32

37

33

Learning in projects/project groups

36

95

DE

Individualized instruction

IT

Table 6. During the current (or previous) academic year, which of the following teaching activities
have you been involved with? (Question C2) (proportion indicating “strongly agree” or “agree”)

63

55
44
55

18

MX
55
69

79

66

15
76

67

63

58

78

MX

63

47
45
45

17

AR
49
62

(%)

75

48

16
70

39

49

36

42

AR

(%)

50 Teaching versus Research in the Contemporary Academy

49

53
49

High expectations of useful results andapplication are a threat to the quality of research
52

47

86

91

68

38

37

Research funding should beconcentrated(targeted) on the most productive
researchers
High expectations to increase research
productivity are a threat to the quality of
research

62

36

50

29

87

52

External sponsors or clients have no influence
over my research activities

32

DE

78

12

Restrictions on the publication of results frommy privately-funded research have increased
since my first appointment

The pressure to raise external research funds
has increased since my first appointment
Interdisciplinary research is emphasized at myinstitution
Your institution emphasizes
commercially-oriented or applied researchYour research is conducted in full-compliancewith ethical guidelines

16

Restrictions on the publication of results frommy publicly-funded research have increased
since my first appointment

IT

48

73

28

88

40

65

78

47

17

13

FI

55

66

35

95

50

58

80

56

21

18

NO

55

75

23

85

54

67

78

35

9

11

UK

41

52

23

82

31

51

53

37

6

7

US

60

71

21

95

40

59

74

55

12

11

CAN

54

60

25

86

29

41

80

31

20

32

JP

52

63

39

82

30

35

58

36

29

45

KR

60

71

35

90

35

62

78

55

11

19

HK

51

58

46

82

41

54

57

34

23

27

CH

40

46

55

80

63

68

48

34

9

12

MY

Table 8. Research. Do you agree with the following statements? (Question D6)(proportion indicating “strongly agree” or “agree”)

58

73

29

94

63

65

86

45

16

15

AU

44

52

32

95

25

48

58

36

16

17

BRZ

40

50

55

85

26

53

56

36

25

27

MX

43

51

31

88

21

42

42

56

15

20

AR

(%)

William K. Cummings 51

26
27
37

60
49

11
10
7

15
23

19

20

24

31

29

41

FI

23

15

19

30

22

43

NO

38

31

23

29

30

63

UK

57

33

23

24

47

39

US

43

21

16

18

32

49

CAN

18

27

22

26

39

60

JP

29

29

19

15

24

33

KR

46

23

21

25

43

69

HK

54

31

47

53

49

56

CH

42

36

39

37

45

40

MY

6

No one at or outside my institution

925

Yourself (formal self-assessment)

External reviewers
8

35

6

11
80

3

4
3
87

Senior administrative staff at this institution
Your students

15
18

DE

20
33

IT

3

0

12

11
84

5

34
55

FI

8

27

10

16
85

5

22
25

NO

2

53

33

11
93

13

65
52

UK

1

61

8

36
90

18

54
79

US

CAN

8

40

10

35
48

5

21
31

JP

3

22

4

31
81

7

24
25

KR

0

46

24

31
93

10

38
71

HK

6

37

21

37
67

21

53
62

CH

3

49

20

17
83

14

30
66

MY

Evaluation. By whom is your teaching regularly evaluated? (Question E3)(proportion who “strongly agree” or “agree” with each of the statements)

56

DE

23

IT

Your peers in your department or unit
The head of your department or unit
Members of other departments or units at thisinstitution

Table 10a.

Considering the research quality when making
personnel decisions
Considering the teaching quality when making
personnel decisions
Considering the practical relevance/applicability of thework of colleagues when making personnel decisions
Recruiting faculty who have work experience outsideof academia
Encouraging academics to adopt service
activities/entrepreneurial activities outside theinstitution
Encouraging individuals, businesses, foundations etc.
to contribute more to higher education

4

52

6

17
85

11

33
67

AU

50

36

27

24

28

50

AU

Table 9. To what extent does your institution emphasize the following practices? (Question E6)(proportion indicating “very much” or “much”)

BRZ

35

20

30

29

38

29

BRZ

1

52

25

25
81

26

45
62

MX

35

29

25

28

34

34

MX

8

41

20

30
62

15

46
45

(%)
AR

19

14

24

28

30

23

AR

(%)

52 Teaching versus Research in the Contemporary Academy

18

No one at or outside my institution

2

13

35

50

7

0

53

3

17

23

66

49

FI

12

23

41

3

13

12

44

53

NO

6

51

62

3

23

21

64

42

UK

14

49

35

3

30

18

60

40

US

CAN

10

43

15

2

39

4

31

18

JP

10

27

36

3

41

16

19

28

KR

1

47

59

3

40

21

79

36

HK

8

37

25

11

38

17

52

25

CH

5

46

35

6

25

28

62

30

MY

4

43

55

4

22

16

70

35

AU

19

18

There is a supportive attitude ofadministrative staff towards teachingactivities

There is a supportive attitude ofadministrative staff towards research
activities

IT

33

25

DE

24

25

FI

47

41

NO

29

42

UK

46

50

US

48

48

CAN

35

57

JP

46

28

KR

39

42

HK

48

37

CH

36

34

MY

37

39

AU

Table 11. Administrative support from the institution for teaching and research (Question E4)(proportion who “strongly agree” or “agree” with the following statements)

24

Yourself (formal self-assessment)

2
44Your students

External reviewers

3

Senior administrative staff at this institution

23

10

8

33
17

38
30

The head of your department or unit
Members of other departments or units at
this institution

DEYour peers in your department or unit

IT

Table 10b. Evaluation. By whom is your research regularly evaluated? (Question E3)(proportion who “strongly agree” or “agree” with each of the statements)

30

42

BRZ

BRZ

35

42

MX

4

40

47

4

21

33

42

34

MX

4

26

72

3

28

28

21

24

AR

26

37

AR

(%)

(%)

William K. Cummings 53

45

54

46

35

65

16

17

8

Library facilities and services

Your office space

Secretarial support

Telecommunications (Internet,
networks, and telephones)

Teaching support staff

Research support staff

Research funding

Average of first 8 in 1992

39

72

31

Average of first 8 in 2007

62

29

Research equipment andinstruments
Computer facilities

47

60

34

38

26

84

50

68

56

64

56

37

Laboratories

51

38

DE

Technology for teaching

IT

Classrooms

2007

FI

64

20

33

43

80

53

67

75

71

52

53

72

71

59

24

19

17

84

30

71

74

77

54

49

60

56

NO

33

39

17

34

35

42

28

42

55

43

34

39

39

32

UK

54

48

16

17

27

73

41

58

57

60

25

25

61

53

US

52

23

28

32

72

44

62

66

57

36

33

63

52

CAN

JP

18

29

18

9

9

53

16

35

39

37

9

9

53

33

11

33

14

11

14

73

19

48

43

40

24

2

44

48

KR

64

30

29

36

80

47

59

82

76

52

50

82

68

HK

43

18

30

40

43

28

37

47

46

33

39

54

62

CH

40

24

19

27

55

22

48

50

55

24

35

45

43

MY

37

51

23

26

28

67

27

62

75

62

42

41

52

47

AU

Table 12. How would you evaluate each of the following facilities, resources, or personnel you need tosupport your work at your institution? (Question B3) (proportion who indicate “excellent” or“very good”)

27

47

18

24

37

56

47

40

51

52

36

46

46

57

BRZ

35

41

14

18

25

47

35

44

46

47

30

37

43

47

MX

(%)

25

10

21

22

31

23

16

38

30

18

20

25

27

AR

54 Teaching versus Research in the Contemporary Academy

The administration supports
academic freedom

The administration supports
academic freedom

Library facilities and services
Your office space
Secretarial support
Average of first 8

Computer facilities

1992

2007

1992
Classrooms
Technology for teaching
Laboratories
Research equipment and instruments
22
43
39
34
33
33

46
60
53
37
44
47

53
68
62
45
44
54

US
55
49
54

CAN

JP

14
25
31
17
12
18

15
14
12
7
13
7
21
6
11

KR
19
9
9
38
69
49
50
40
50

HK
51
60
42

CH

48

IT

15

DE

40

DE
22

FI

NO

45

UK

33

UK

65

US

59

US
61

CAN

71

JP

56

JP

34

KR

50

KR

49

HK

54

HK

53

CH

41

MY

Table 13. Academic freedom. (Question E5)(proportion who “strongly agree” or “agree” with the statement)

UK
31
32
32

DE
43
42
48

43

AU

38

AU

MY

54

BRZ

48

BRZ

28
53
40
40
36
37

AU
31
35
33

45

MX

76

MX

(%)

15
25
34
29
35
27

BRZ
39
21
22

61

AR

22
43
39
34
33
35

MX
47
32
32

William K. Cummings 55

RIHE International Seminar Reports, No.13, 2009 57

Biographies, Careers and Work of Academics

Ulrich Teichler*

1. Introduction
1.1 The aim of this study
The aim of this study is to analyse changes in recent years in the biographies,
careers and work of academics in economically selected countries. Emphasis
will be placed on describing common elements and differences by country and bycareer status. The study will address only academics employed at institutions ofhigher education who are responsible, more or less equally, for both teaching andresearch. The analysis draws from the two major comparative questionnaire
surveys undertaken so far, the “Carnegie study” undertaken in 1992, and the“Changing Academic Profession” (CAP) study undertaken in 2007.
Before the major findings are presented and interpreted, the rationales, thechoices and the limitations of this study should be explained briefly.
1.2 Employment and work: the thematic area of analysis
The academic profession tends to be portrayed as one of people strongly
driven by intrinsic motives and concentrating primarily on the subject matter of
their work, i.e. the substance of teaching and research. Many of them seem to
be willing to devote much time and to forego some of the conveniences of life
outside academia in favour of interesting and demanding academic work. Not
infrequently, they are described as isolated from the world of work andabsent-minded. These observations might lead us to conclude that we do notneed to pay attention so much to the details of their biographies, careers,
employment and work conditions, work habits and so forth in explaining the role
they actually play with regard to teaching and research.
*

Professor, International Centre for Higher Education Research Kassel (INCHER-Kassel),
University of Kassel, Germany, e-mail: teichler@incher.uni-kassel.de58 Biographies, Careers and Work of Academics

The popular discussions about the academic profession, in contrast, make us
believe that details of their biography, employment and work are of the utmost
importance for the proper functioning of academic work. We hear not only
stories about ascetic hard-working academics, but also of those who spend morethan half of the year gliding across oceans on their yachts. Some experts claimthat the academic productivity of young researchers is undermined by job
insecurity, while others consider their unstable employment situation is a
productive incentive mechanism. Often, facilities are viewed as crucial for thequality of teaching and learning as well as for research. Last but not least theacademics themselves seem to be more prone than in the majority of professions
to pay attention to rites and symbols (e.g. titles) and to embark on heated debateson minute distinctions as far as employment and working conditions areconcerned (cf. various articles in Enders, ed., 2001; Enders & de Weert, eds.,
2004).
Therefore, this article will describe various issues of the biography, thecareer, the employment and work of members of the academic profession. Thismay help to illustrate the individual situation of ‘workers’ in the academic system.
It is not intended here, at this early stage of work in the framework of the CAP
project (see the first results in Research Institute for Higher Education (RIHE),
ed., 2008), to analyse the extent to which the individual characteristics and thecareer, employment and work process actually influence the processes and resultsof teaching and research; these questions will be left open for further analysis.
1.3 Analysing changes in the academic profession
The international comparative study “The Changing Academic Profession”(CAP) is not only interested merely in undertaking a snapshot of the situation of
the academic profession in the year the survey was undertaken (2007), but also inchanges over time. Changes can be established, in principle, through fourmeans.
• First, the data for the concurrent situation, i.e. 2007, could beinterpreted by the members of the research team in historicalperspective. Thus, the authors’ general knowledge of changes overtime would be the basis.
• Second, comparisons of the responses by age groups of respondents
could be undertaken. If, for example, the views of academics in theirthirties about the quality of higher education management were morenegative than those of academics in their sixties, we could conclude that
academics’ attitudes toward higher education management becomeUlrich Teichler 59

more negative. This interpretation, however, is only appropriate, if wehave reasons to assume that the attitude towards management in higher
education does not change substantially over the years of service inhigher education or with the career position one holds in the academic
profession.
• Third, change over time could be measured through retrospective
questions, such as “What changes did you observe over the last five
years with respect to …?” In fact, a few questions of that type wereposed in the 2007 questionnaire. This interpretation is appropriate, if
we assume that retrospective views are not strongly affected by biases,
e.g. by the stereotypical belief that the world or one’s life had been
better in general in the past, or worse in general in the past than it isnow.
• Fourth, changes can be established through a time-series analysis, i.e.
through a comparison with findings of surveys undertaken earlier. In
fact, the CAP research team had been inspired by the existence of thefirst major comparative study on the academic profession, the Carnegie
study undertaken in 1992 (see Boyer, Altbach & Whitelaw, 1994;
Altbach, 1996); some questions posed in the 2007 survey were identicaland some were similar to those posed in 1992.
It is this time-series analysis that will be the major approach in analysingchanges of the biographies and careers in the academic profession in thesubsequent text. Therefore, responses to identical and similar questions posed
in 1992 and 2007 will be the focus of analysis.
We have to bear in mind, though, that change over time cannot be measured
easily through a time-series approach. On the one hand, some issues relevant in
the past are no longer seen as important in the course of change and, therefore,
are not addressed in a subsequent survey. On the other hand, some newly
emerging issues are likely not to have been addressed at all or addressed in adifferent way in the past. Therefore, the volume of themes possibly analysedthrough a time-series approach might turn out to be small. In fact, the researchteam conducting the study, “The Changing Academic Profession”, came to theconclusion that so many issues deserve attention newly or differently from theprevious study that the proportion of questions posed identically or similarly in2007 to the questions posed in 1992 turned out to be small. This state of affairs
caused the Japanese research team to conduct a second study of the academic
profession in 2007 in which the questionnaire of 1992 Carnegie study was
employed, so obtaining a better means than teams in other countries to measure60 Biographies, Careers and Work of Academics

change over time (see Arimoto, 2008).
It should be added that the study, “The Changing Academic Profession”,
started off with the assumption that the conditions for academic work havechanged substantially in recent years. The researchers involved came to theconclusion that three major contextual changes of this kind have to be taken into
consideration in order to understand the perceptions, views and actions of theacademic profession:• an increasing expectation that teaching and research ought to be visibly
relevant;• an increasing managerial power within higher education institutions; and• a growing internationalisation of higher education and its wider context(see Brennan, 2006; Kogan & Teichler, eds., 2007).
These contextual changes could come into play in the survey of theacademic profession in three different ways.
• First, these changes could merely be considered in interpreting findings.
For example, in noting that academics write more publications in recent
years we might argue that increasing managerial power might be a factor
to explain this growth.
• Second, the academics might be asked to state how they perceive theirrelevant context. For example, they might be asked whether both in1992 and 2007 the power of the leaders at their university was high.
• Third, the academics might have been asked at both points of time
whether their attitudes and activities are clearly in tune with thechanging context: for example, what role international activities playedin their academic life.
The research team, obviously, opted for all three approaches in theiranalysis. The subsequent text, however, is an early and tentative contribution tothis analysis. It puts prime emphasis on actual changes in their views andactivities, as far as their biographies and careers are concerned, while the major
three contextual changes addressed in the research project are addressed only
occasionally. For example, the finding presented subsequently of a substantialchange in the gender composition of the academic profession cannot be
attributed to any of the three major contextual factors discussed above.
1.4 Junior and senior academics in research-oriented universities
Academic careers are characterized in many countries by a long period of
concurrent learning and productive work. Often, but not in all countries, this iscombined with clear status distinctions between junior staff and fully establishedUlrich Teichler 61

senior staff, with a high selectivity of the academic career, and with a long periodof job insecurity (see various articles in Enders & de Weert, eds., 2004; Teichler,ed., 2006). In many countries, academics are only accepted and stable membersof the academic profession when they have reached a position termed associate
professor in the US or a similar status in other countries.
No matter, whether the delineation between junior and senior positions isrelatively soft or relatively dichotomous, a distinction between junior and senior
makes sense in analysing the responses to the questionnaire survey of theacademic profession for two reasons.
• As a rule, the work assignments for junior staff differ systematicallyfrom those for senior staff, reflecting the double function of learningand productive work of the former during their ‘formative years’(Teichler, ed., 2006); and also in their access to resources, their powerin the institutions and many other matters related to their status within
the profession affect their employment and work situation strongly.
• There are enormous differences between countries as regards the startof employment at universities, e.g. predominantly before the doctorate
or predominantly after the doctorate, and in the ratio of employment ofyoung researchers per senior position eventually to be filled. As aconsequence, in some countries, the majority of academic staff aresenior academics and in other countries less than a quarter. If one
looks only at the total figures of academic respondents, country
differences might be spurious because they may arise from only thediffering size and composition of junior positions.
In most countries of the world, some institutions of higher education expect
their senior academic staff to be more or less equally active in research andteaching; these institutions, as a rule, are also primarily the ones that train thenext generation of scholars, e.g. through doctoral training or throughaccommodating larger numbers of junior staff. There are other institutions
where the prime function of the senior academic staff is to teach, while research
activities might be exceptional, less theoretically based or as a rule with less time
devoted to them.
In various European countries, for example, only those institutions arecalled “universities” that have the right to award doctoral degrees and that expect
their senior staff to be more or less equally active in research and teaching. In
some countries, such universities are characterized as “research universities” or
as “doctoral granting universities”. In order to avoid country-specificterminologies, here we call these institutions research-oriented universities (see62 Biographies, Careers and Work of Academics

the discussions of varying models of diversity in higher education in Teichler,
2007b).
This study concentrates only on the senior and junior staff ofresearch-oriented universities.
Senior staff and junior staff from otherinstitutions of higher education surveyed in the CAP study and the Carnegie
study are excluded here, because the public debates in the countries included inthis study about careers in higher education and about the strengths andweaknesses of a nexus between teaching and research activities all haveprototypically the research-oriented universities in mind.
1.5 The varying situation in economically advanced countries
Neither of the comparative studies on the academic profession addressed
here has been limited to specific regions of the world, nor to certain levels of
economic advancement and possibly related resources for high-quality higher
education, and nor to certain levels of expansion of student enrolment. Rather,roughly half of the countries included might be characterized as ‘economicallyadvanced countries’, and others as economically ‘emerging’ or ‘middle-income
countries’, while ‘low-income’ countries or typical ‘developing’ countries were
not included.
The subsequent analysis addresses only five economically advanced
countries. The choice of these countries is operationally determined. At thetime the analysis was conducted (in December 2008), only for these fivecountries were data sets available from both 1992 and 2007 that could be
differentiated by type of higher education institutions (‘research-oriented’ vs.
others) and by status of the respondents (‘junior staff’ vs. ‘senior staff’).
The focus on five economically advanced countries ensures a certain degreeof common conditions: relatively favourable conditions for research, a relatively
high proportion of research-oriented academics, and a relatively high entry levelof academic credentials and prior experience to senior positions; in contrast,
research at universities in economically less favoured countries often is an‘endangered species’ (see Vessuri & Teichler, eds., 2008).
A comparison by country, however, reveals an enormous variety evenamong economically advanced countries.
Though academic knowledgetranscends borders, and academics are among the most international professions
often with ‘cosmopolitan’ values, the institutional fabric of higher education
systems, the rules for study programmes, the governance of higher education
institutions, funding of higher education and, last but not least, the institutionalframeworks for academic careers and for the employment and work

Ulrich Teichler 63

characteristics are strongly shaped nationally; this holds true even if many of thesupervisory and funding responsibilities rest on smaller geographical entities (e.g.
the states in the US or the Länder in Germany).
Therefore, the observation differences by country stood in the foreground of
the Carnegie study (see Altbach, 1996; Enders & Teichler, 1995; Teichler, 1996).
Also, the researchers involved in the project, the “Changing Academic
Profession”, were active in the early phase of the project in analysing thedifferent country settings before the actual data analysis started (see RIHE, ed.,2006; Locke & Teichler, eds., 2007). Various detailed accounts of the academic
professions of the five countries which are addressed here are available:• Australia (Meek, 2006; Harman & Meek, 2007);• Germany (Teichler & Bracht, 2006; Teichler, 2007a);• Japan (Huang, 2006; Arimoto, 2007);• the United Kingdom (Naidoo & Brennan, 2006; Brennan, Locke &Naidoo, 2007);• the United States of America (Finkelstein & Frances, 2006;
Finkelstein, 2007; see also the elaborate analysis in Schuster &Finkelstein, 2006).
The subsequent analysis will not be in a position to explain the differencesby country through frequent reference to this background material. Rather, it
will highlight the extent of similarity and difference by country and status groupas well as the visible change over time.
1.6 Some methodological observations
Both, the Carnegie study in 1992 and the CAP study in 2007 aimed tosurvey a representative sample of employed academic staff in the countries
surveyed. As addresses, as a rule, could be obtained from the individual higher
education institutions, the sample was stratified by higher education institutions.
The details as regards individual countries are described in Altbach (1996) and
RIHE (ed., 2008).
The subsequent analyses address almost all the questions posed as regards
biography and career, employment and work that were identical or sufficiently
similar in 1992 and 2007 in order to measure the change over time.

2. Biography and career
2.1 On the way towards gender parity?
The most striking change within the 15 years is the increase of women

64 Biographies, Careers and Work of Academics

within the academic profession. On average over the five countries analysed,
the proportion of women among senior academics tripled from 1992 to 2007.
Even though the proportion of women tended to decline from one career step tothe next, the substantial increase of women among junior academics suggests thatthe trend towards increasing the share of women among the professoriate willcontinue in the future.
Table 1. Proportoion of women among academics in research-oriented
universities(%)

Professors
Junior Staff

AU

DE

JP

UK

US

1992

10

6

1

6

17

2007

33

19

8

26

36

1992

39

22

7

29

42

2007

56

36

13

53

52

As Table 1 shows, however, we do not note a trend of catching up on thepart of the countries with traditionally low shares of women. On the contrary,
the percentage of increase of women among the total number of academic staff
was lowest for junior and senior staff in Japan where the share had been lowest in
the past. And the increase was second lowest in Germany, the country with thesecond lowest share of women among academics in the past.
A doctoral degree has been the normal entry qualification for a career at a
research university for a long time in two of the five countries. In Germany(95%) and the US (94%), almost all professors at research-oriented universities
were doctoral degree holders in 1992, and we note only small changes by 2007
(98% in Germany and 91% in the US). Actually, in Germany academics were
expected to have passed the Habilitation, a kind of second-level doctoral degree,
in order to become eligible for appointment as a professor.
During the period analysed, the doctoral degree became increasingly a‘must’ in Australia (from 85% to 92%) and the United Kingdom (from 74% to90%). In Japan, in contrast, the percentage of doctoral degree holders amongprofessors at research universities decreased during the period from 85% to 78%.
Japan, thus, seems to be the exception in the trend towards a doctoral degree as
an entry qualification.
2.2 Trend towards increased institutional mobility of academics?
Employment over the whole academic career within a single university –often called negatively ‘inbreeding’ – though some professors are proud that they
have been employed all the time in a prestigious university such as Oxford

Ulrich Teichler 65

University or Tokyo University – has been most frequent among the 1992 senioracademic respondents in Japan (56%), somewhat frequent in the US (41%) andthe United Kingdom (33%). In all these three countries, the extent ofinbreeding declined during the period observed, as Table 2 shows.
Substantially fewer of the 1992 professorial respondents had remained at
the same university over their whole careers in Germany (20%) and Australia(21%). However, these proportions did not change substantially by 2007.
Thus, we note a converging trend.
Table 2. Employed only at a single higher education institution during theircareer – senior staff at research-oriented universities
(%)
AU

DE

JP

UK

US

1992

21

22

56

33

41

2007

25

20

43

13

26

Sources: Carnegie Q5; CAP A5.

In all five countries, the professors at research-oriented universities
surveyed in 1992 and 2007 had been employed at their current institution ofhigher education for more than half of their overall period of employment.
However, working for some period of one’s professional life in other institutions– other higher education institutions, research institutions or other organisations –increased somewhat from the 1992 cohorts of respondents to the 2007
respondents in three countries, as Table 3 shows: in Australia, Japan and theUnited Kingdom. In Germany, the data are incomplete and, thus, do not allow
the identification of any possible change over time. In the US, in contrast to thefirst three countries, previous employment in another institution did not change
substantially during the period observed.
Table 3. Average years of employment since graduation*– senior staff at research-oriented universities
AU
DE
JP
UK
1992 2007 1992 2007 1992 2007 1992
At this
17
14
16
(20)+
19
15
16
university+
At other HEIs
6
6
7
4
5
6
Outside HE
7
7
4
3
2
3
4
Total
30
27
27
23
25
23
27
*The data presented in the CAP survey are inconsistent in some cases.
+
Total years at all higher education institutions.

US

2007

1992

2007

14

17

17

11
2
27

4
5
27

6
4
27

66 Biographies, Careers and Work of Academics

3. The employment and work situation
3.1 Trend towards decreasing regular/stable employment?
In many economically advanced countries, substantial proportions ofacademics are employed part-time for some period of their junior careers, andemployment on short-term contracts is far more frequent. Some observers
claim that these features of ‘precarious’ and ‘uncertain’ employment for juniorstaff tend to be on the increase on the way towards a market-driven and‘managerial university’. Table 4, however, suggests that there were enormous
differences in 1992 by country, that there have been increases in some countries
and decreases in other countries by 2007, and that there is no convergent trend
across countries.
• Part-time employment of junior staff remained highest in Germany, but
hardly changed over time (from 25% to 27%); among others, thisreflects the fact that the majority of doctoral candidates in Germany are
employed during that period, however mostly on part-time basis. It
more than tripled in Australia (from 5% to 17%) and doubled in the UK(from 6% to 12%), while it decreased in the US (from 23% to 10%). In
Japan, it remained marginal (from 2% to 3%).
• Short-term employment of junior academic staff decreased in Germany
somewhat (from 79% to 69%), but remained at a high level; again, one
has to bear in mind that many young scholars are already employed
while working on their doctoral theses (see Teichler & Bracht, 2006).
It had been second highest in the US, but by 2007 had increased to thehighest level (from 63% to 71%). It increased most strikingly in Japan(from 4% to 23%) and substantially as well in Australia (from 36% to48%). In the UK, it decreased to the lowest level (from 28% to 12%).
Table 4. Part-time and short-term employment – junior and senior staff at
research-oriented universities
(%)
AU
DE
JP
UK
US
Jun

Jun

Sen

Jun

Sen

Jun

Sen

Jun

Sen

1992
5
2
25
2007
17
9
27
1992
36
6
79
Short-term
2007
48
25
69
Sources: Carnegie Q11; CAP A7 and A11.

2
1
2
4

2
3
4
23

0
0
1
8

6
12
28
12

6
2
9
0

23
10
63
71

3
3
5
7

Part-timeSenUlrich Teichler 67

One could ask, however, whether the results of the surveys provide a valid
picture. In Germany, for example, most of the academics, paid only for small
tasks and short periods, get a regular contract and, thus contribute to the overall
image of a high proportion of part-time and short-term employment. In someother countries, many of the young academics in a similar situation are paid
informally, through honoraria, or as ancillary workers and thus do not appear to
be in precarious and uncertain employment.
Part-time employment of senior academics was rare both in 1992 and 2007.
Short-term employment of senior academics was slightly more frequent in 1992
and increased as an average of the five countries somewhat until 2007. This,
notwithstanding the clear distinction in those respects between junior and seniorstaff, did not soften substantially.
• Part-time employment of senior academic staff at research universities
remained marginal except in Australia (increase from 2% to 9%).
• Short-term employment of academic senior staff at research universities
quadrupled in Australia (from 6% to 25%) and also increased
substantially in Japan (from 1% to 8%). It increased marginally inGermany and the US, while it disappeared in the UK (from 9% to 0%).
Altogether, we note some increase of short-term and part-time employment,
but there is not any consistent trend across status groups and countries.
3.2 Increase of other sources of income
Data on the proportion of sources of income other than the salary or any
supplements paid by their employers are only available both for 1992 and 2007
for four countries, as is shown in Table 5.
Table 5. Other sources of income – junior and senior staff at
research-oriented universities
(%)
AU
DE
JP
UK
US
Jun

Sen

Jun

1992
.
.
5
2007
7
8
10
Sources: Carnegie Q19; CAP A12.

Sen

Jun

Sen

Jun

Sen

Jun

Sen

9
12

14
18

9
7

6
10

10
12

19
32

12
24

Seniors have higher additional income than juniors in Germany and the UK.
The reverse holds true in Japan and the US. From 1992 to 2007, we note anincrease of additional income except for senior academic staff in Japan.
The highest additional income reported by US senior and junior staff
reflects the fact that many academics in the US do not receive a salary all the68 Biographies, Careers and Work of Academics

year around, but only for 9 of the usual 12 months paid to employees. Other
factors must be in play, though, to account for the substantial increase ofadditional income for US academics from 1992 to 2007.
3.3 Stable working conditions?
In both surveys, academics were asked to assess the quality of facilities andresources for teaching and research. They were asked to do so with respect toclassrooms,
technology
forteaching,
laboratories,
researchequipment/instruments, computer facilities, library holdings, and secretarial
support. The stability or change over time cannot be measured minutely,
because a 4-point scale was provided in 1992 and a 5-point scale in 1997.
Altogether, however, we note a somewhat above average rating between“excellent” and “poor” whereby the ratings do not differ strikingly between thevarious areas. Moreover, we observe:• no major differences between the assessments of junior and senior staff
in all 5 countries across all items;• a substantial decline from 1992 to 2007 only in secretarial support inthree countries: Australia, the UK and the US; and finally• a more positive assessment of all items in Japan in 2007 than in 1992
(from 3.2 on a 4-point scale to 3.0 on a 5-point scale), though theratings in Japan remain less positive than those of almost all other itemsof all other countries.
The ratings by junior staff, almost as positive as those by senior staff, comeas a surprise, because it is widely believed that senior staff have the stronger
power of ensuring ‘bigger pieces of the cake’. What does the contrastingfinding mean: do junior staff have lower expectations, or more or less equal
access to these facilities and resources?
As regards resources for academic work, the respondents in 2007 were also
asked whether conditions have improved or deteriorated during the course of
their careers. This retrospective view conveys a different picture. The
majority of professors at research-oriented universities in four of the fivecountries surveyed in 2007 believe that the working conditions at higher
education institutions have deteriorated since they started their academic careers:
UK (76%), DE (70%), AU (69%) and JP (66%). Only in the US, have fewer
professors perceived a deterioration (27%) rather than an improvement (40%)(see question B7).
Whereas the retrospective approach suggests a deterioration of the situation,
the time series approach conveys stability over time. Asked about the quality ofUlrich Teichler 69

facilities and resources according to seven items, the professors at
research-oriented universities responding in 1992 rated them 2.7 on average on afour-point scale from 1, “excellent” to 4, “poor”. The corresponding average in2007 rated them 2.8 on a five-point scale from 1, “excellent” to 5, “very poor”.
Obviously, the assessment of both generations is similar.
It seems appropriate to conclude that findings based on time-series analysis
are more valid than those on retrospective analysis. The latter seems to beaffected by a general mood that things have gone worse for the academic
profession.

4. Time budget and priorities
4.1 Weekly working hours: increasing variety across countries
In both surveys, respondents were asked to estimate the overall number ofweekly working hours as well as the hours spent on various functions both for atypical week when classes are in session and for a typical week when classes are
not in session. In the subsequent analysis, the weekly working hours and the
proportion of time spent on various functions are estimated for the whole year.
Table 6. Average weekly working hours* – junior and senior staff
at research-oriented universities
AU
DE
JP
UK
US
Jun Sen Jun Sen Jun Sen Jun Sen Jun Sen
1992
47
51
46
51
48
51
46
51
45
50
2007
44
50
41
54
51
50
45
51
44
48
Sources: Carnegie Q18; CAP B1.
* Calculated as 60% for the weeks when classes are in session and 40% for the weeks
when classes are not in session.

Both, in 1992 and 2007, professors at research-oriented universities worked,
according to their own observation, about 51 hours per week over the fivecountries considered. This is about 130% of the usual full-time working time inthose countries, but it is by no means unusual for a profession with highmotivation, flexible schedules, room for disposition and a high sense of
responsibility. It is interesting to note that the time devoted to work did notincrease in the wake of increasing managerial power and increasing efforts toraise the quality and efficiency of higher education through incentives andsanctions.
The weekly working hours of junior academic staff at research-oriented
universities seem to be five hours less on average than that of seniors, and again
no significant change can be observed from 1992 to 2007 as an average of the

70 Biographies, Careers and Work of Academics

five countries. Less than half of this difference can be explained by the fact thatjunior staff are more often employed part-time. Junior academic staff areslightly less inclined to work beyond the usual full-time working time – it may be
due to a less independent and prestigious position or due to other interests anddue to the typical age of junior staff.
There have been changes, though, in different directions by countries.
German senior staff at research-oriented universities report more working hours
in 2007 than in 1992 – actually in 2007 the highest of all the five countries.
Among juniors, the working hours of Japanese junior staff seem to haveincreased, while fewer working hours are reported by German and Australianjunior staff. Altogether, the country differences increased from 1992 to 2007
both for senior staff (range from 50-51 hours to 48-54 hours) and for junior staff(from 45-48 hours to 41-51 hours).
4.2 Work time spent on teaching and research – divergent trends
The relative time spent on teaching increased for junior staff at
research-oriented universities of the five countries from an average about 27% in
1992 to about 30% in 2007. It only decreased for junior staff in Australia where
it had been highest in 1992. The relative time spent on teaching remained
constant for senior staff at research universities as an average of the fivecountries. However, changes occurred in different directions. In Germany,
where senior staff had devoted the highest proportion of their time to teaching,and in Australia, the relative time spent on teaching declined. In contrast, thetime spent on teaching by senior staff of research-oriented universities in Japan
had been the lowest in 1992, as Table 7 indicates; it increased so much within 15
years that Japanese university professors at research universities spent relatively
more time on teaching in 2007 than their colleagues in the other four countries.
Table 7. Average proportion of work time spent on teaching and research* –junior and senior staff at research-oriented universities
(%)
AU
DE
JP
UK
US
Jun

Sen

Jun

Sen

Jun

Sen

Jun

Sen

Jun

Sen

1992
36
25
20
33
20
22
28
24
32
27
2007
31
21
23
28
29
33
33
22
36
28
1992
38
32
54
39
53
51
45
37
41
43
Research
2007
40
41
49
39
39
42
37
43
36
37
Sources: Carnegie Q18; CAP B1.
* Calculated as 60% for the weeks when classes are in session and 40% for the weeks whenclasses are not in session.
Teaching

Ulrich Teichler 71

The relative time spent on research increased for senior staff at
research-oriented universities from about 38% in 1992 to about 40% as anaverage of the five countries. Actually, it decreased strongly in Japan, where it
had been highest in 1992, and it increased in Australia and in the United
Kingdom – in the two countries, where it had been lowest in 1992. It remained
constant in Germany where it had been and remains about average. Most
surprising is the finding that in 2007 professors at research-universities in the US
spent a clearly lower proportion of their time on research than in 1992, and thatthe proportion in 2007 is the lowest among the five countries.
In 1992, junior staff at research-oriented universities spent a higher
proportion of their time on research than senior staff as an average of the fivecountries. This proportion of 46% of the work time on average in 1992,
however, declined to 40% in 2007, i.e. exactly the same proportion as that among
senior staff.
Actually, both German junior staff, in clear contrast to their seniors, andJapanese junior staff, similarly to their seniors, spent in 1992 more than half of
their working time on research, and more than two and a half times that spent onteaching. Junior staff in the other three countries spent less than half of theirtime on research in 1992, but also more than on teaching; and the relative timespent on research has been higher than that spent by senior academics inAustralia and the United Kingdom. Only in the US in 1992 have junioracademic staff not spent a higher proportion of their time on research than seniorstaff.
In 2007, the relative time spent by junior staff on research is clearly lower
than in 1992 in all countries except Australia. Altogether, the differences in thetime spent by junior staff on research decreased between the countries; also, as
might be inferred from the information presented above, the relative time spent
on research by junior staff became, in the majority of countries, closer to that ofsenior staff. However, German junior staff continue to be somewhat morestrongly active in research than senior academics at research-oriented universities.
In the United Kingdom, in contrast, junior academic staff moved from relatively
more involvement in research in 1992 to spending less time on research thansenior academic staff in 2007.
4.3 Trends towards more articles and papers
From 1992 to 2007, the number of articles published in journals and books
and the number of papers presented at conferences increased, as Table 8 shows,and increased substantially in three of the four countries for which information is72 Biographies, Careers and Work of Academics

available. The most visible increases are those of German junior and seniorstaff at research-oriented universities. Comparison of the two surveys also
shows an increase in the average numbers of books and other publications.
Only in the US is the growth trend less consistent. It remains more or lessunchanged that senior academics write on average twice as many articles andconference papers as junior academics.
Table 8.

Number of articles published in journals and books and papers
presented at conferences within three years – junior and senior staff
at research-oriented universities
AU
DE
JP
UK
US
Sen

Jun

Sen

Jun

Sen

Jun

Sen

Jun

Sen

1992
4
10
Articles
2007
6
14
1992
4
7
Papers2007
59
Sources: Carnegie Q18; CAP B1.

Jun

4
6
3
6

9
16
5
10

10
*
10
*

14
*
12
*

5
6
3
5

8
12
6
11

3
3
3
5

7
6
5
7

5. Assessment of the professional situation
5.1 Growing professional strain?
In 2007, half of both the senior and junior academic staff at
research-oriented universities as an average of the five countries responded
affirmatively to the statement “my job is a source of considerable personalstrain”. These statements had been made 4% less frequently by junior staff and
5% less frequently by senior staff 15 years earlier. As Table 9 shows, however,differences by country are substantial.
Table 9. Proportions of junior and senior staff at research-oriented universities
stating “My job is a source of considerable personal strain”
(%)
AU
DE
JP
UK
US
Jun

Sen

Jun

Sen

Jun

Sen

Jun

Sen

Jun

Sen

1992
45
37
37
2007
51
50
39
Sources: Carnegie Q28; CAP B5.

41
49

62
60

65
57

45
59

46
58

42
38

35
36

Japanese scholars, both senior and junior, reported most often in 1992 thatthey considered their job as a source of personal strain; in Japan there was some
reduction by 2007. In contrast, statements of strain have been made close to theaverage of the five countries by scholars from the United Kingdom; in 2007, theyoften perceived a more substantial strain than 1992 – actually, in 2007 as often as

Ulrich Teichler 73

their colleagues from Japan. In Australia the proportion of those juniors andseniors perceiving their job as a strain increased from clearly below the averagein 1992 to about the average in 2007. The same holds true for senior academicsof German universities. Only in the US have both senior and junior academics,
as well as junior academics in Germany, reported least frequently a professionalstrain in 1992 and do so again in 2007 with little change over time.
5.2 Decreasing commitment to the discipline, department and university?
The 1992 survey showed that academics in all the countries felt a strong
commitment to their academic discipline. As regards their department and their
university, their sense of commitment was clearly lower, though remaining
positive on average in four countries. Germany was the exception in 1992 where
the question on commitment to the department and to the university did notreceive a positive response on average.
It is difficult to compare the responses to the 1992 and to the 2007
questionnaires because a four-point rating scale was employed in 1992 incontrast to a five-point scale in 2007. We argue though that the commitment to
the department and university increased on the part of German academics
whereas it remained more or less the same in the other countries or even declined– the latter certainly in the United Kingdom. As a consequence, the differencesby country are smaller in 2007 than they had been in 1992, as Table 10 shows.
In 2007, though, the commitment to the department, as well as to the university,
continues to be somewhat lower in Germany and has become somewhat lower in
the United Kingdom than in the other three countries addressed here.
Table 10. Commitment to their discipline, department and university of juniorand senior staff at research-oriented universities (arithmetic mean*)
AU
DE
JP
UK
US
Jun

Sen

Jun

Sen

Jun

Sen

Jun

Sen

Jun

Sen

1.5
1.6
1.8
2.3

1.3
1.5
1.5
2.1

1.6
1.6
2.5
2.6

1.3
1.4
2.6
2.6

1.4
1.6
.
2.3

1.2
1.6
.
2.2

1.4
1.8
1.9
2.5

1.4
1.7
1.6
2.5

1.3
1.3
1.7
1.9

1.3
1.4
1.6
2.0

Higher1992 2.2 1.7
3.0 2.6
2.0 1.9
2.3 2.1
education2007 2.5
2.4
2.8
2.6
2.5
2.3
2.9
2.7
institution
Sources: Carnegie Q17; CAP B4.
* 1992 survey: Scale from 1 = “Very important” to 4 = “Not at all important”;
2007 survey: Scale from 1 = “Very important” to 5 = “Not at all important”.

2.1

1.9

2.4

2.4

Academicdiscipline
Department

1992
2007
1992
2007

74 Biographies, Careers and Work of Academics

5.3 Increasing job satisfaction
In 1992, senior academics rated their overall professional satisfaction on
average as 2.4 on a scale from 1, “very satisfied” to 5 “very dissatisfied”. The
majority continues to be satisfied, but on average the ratings have been by nomeans enthusiastic. In 2007, the average score was 2.3, i.e. so marginallyhigher that no clear significant improvement can be observed. Among senioracademics, the differences by country are small both in 1992 and 2007, as Table
11 shows.

1992
2007

Table 11. Overall job satisfaction – junior and senior staff at
research-oriented universities (arithmetic mean*)
AU
DE
JP
UK
US
Jun Sen Jun Sen Jun Sen Jun Sen Jun Sen
2.8 2.3 3.1
2.4
2.5 2.4 2.8 2.5 2.7 2.3
2.6 2.2 2.5
2.2
2.6 2.3 2.7 2.4 2.3 2.3

Sources: Carnegie Q27; CAP B6.
* On a scale from 1 “Very satisfied”, to 5 “Very dissatisfied”.

Junior staff were less satisfied than senior staff in 1992. The average score
was 2.8, i.e. close to the middle of the scale and meaning neither satisfied nor
dissatisfied. There were substantial variations by country, though, in the overallsatisfaction of junior academic staff in 1992 in contrast to the ratings of seniorstaff. German junior academics were clearly less satisfied on average, andJapanese junior staff clearly more satisfied than the average of senior academics.
From 1992 to 2007, however, German junior staff moved towards a clearly morepositive rating and US junior staff towards a somewhat more positive rating,whereas in other countries changes were at most small. As a consequence, theprofessional satisfaction of junior academics is, on average, only moderately
lower than that of seniors. German junior staff are no longer less satisfied thanjunior staff in most other countries observed; only the US junior staff rate theirsatisfaction in 2007 slightly more positive than junior academics in the othercountries addressed and at a level, on average, equal to that of senior academics
in their country.

6. Concluding observations
The findings reported suggest that the substantial changes from 1992 to2007 of the biographies and careers as well as of the employment and work
situation of academics that has been taking place consistently across all the fiveUlrich Teichler 75

economically advanced countries addressed are exceptions. We only note a
substantial and consistent increase in the proportion of women. But even there,
the magnitude of increase varies so much that no convergent trend can beobserved.
There are, however, certain trends visible in the majority of cases.
Doctoral degrees have become more frequently the prerequisite to senioracademic appointment. In the majority of countries addressed there is more
institutional mobility, more part-time and short-term employment, an increase ofother sources of income, as well as an increase in the number of papers andpublications. We also observe in the majority of countries more professionalstrain as well as less commitment to one’s department and one’s university. But,
as already pointed out, these are no consistent trends across all five countries
addressed.
On average, the rating of the quality of facilities did not change over time.
Also, the weekly time spent for professional assignments has remained more orless stable on average. Thereby, differences by country have remained more orless stable with regard to the former, but increased with regard to the latter.
We might assume that the trend towards a ‘managerial university’ and,related to that, towards a more elaborate system of incentives could lead,according to the advocates of that change, both to a higher level of professional
activity and productivity and to more conducive values: a stronger commitment
to the university and a higher job satisfaction. We note, however, that theincrease of papers and publications is the only finding affirmative to that set ofassumptions. In contrast, the time spent on work beyond normal assignments of
employees has not grown further. Commitment to the department and to theuniversity has somewhat decreased. The job is more often seen as a strain.
Overall satisfaction of senior academic staff did not grow.
It is interesting to note that the situation and the views of senior academic
staff and junior academics tend to converge in various respects. The
proportions of time spent on teaching and research became more similar invarious countries. The overall ratings of professional strain and of job
satisfaction became more similar as well. This trend varies by country: it ismost pronounced in Germany. Yet, substantial differences remain in somerespects, e.g. the likelihood of being employed part-time and short-term.
The findings suggest that differences by country remain substantial. We
note some common changes in Australia and the UK: more mobility, more timespent on research, more professional strain, and less commitment to thedepartment and the university. The most striking finding for Germany is the

76 Biographies, Careers and Work of Academics

growing convergence of the activities and views between junior und senior staff;
moreover, German academics moved from hardly any commitment to theirdepartment and university towards the average of the five countries in thisrespect. In Japan, we note a move away from the relatively extreme settings in
1992: from an exceptionally clear dominance of research in the time budget
towards a substantially increased weight of teaching, from an extremely negative
rating of facilities towards the average, from a high stability of employment
towards some degree of part-time and short-term employment, and from an
exceptionally frequent notion of the job as a strain towards an only somewhat
more frequent notion than the average. Finally, we note least change from 1992
to 2007 in the responses by the US academics.
One might have expected a picture of settings and trends which looks more
coherent and regular than the actual findings. The complex findings, however,underscore that one cannot trust the conventional wisdom, publicly claimed
situations and trends, but rather one needs in-depth empirical analysis.

References
Altbach, P.G. (1996). The International Academic Profession: Portraits of Fourteen Countries.
Princeton, NJ: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.
Arimoto, A. (2007). Japan: Origins, History and Transition to a Universal Higher Education
System. In W. Locke & U. Teichler (eds.), The Changing Conditions for Academic Workand Careers in Selected Countries (pp.113-126). Kassel: International Centre for Higher
Education Research Kassel, University of Kassel (INCHER-Kassel).
Arimoto, A. (ed.) (2008). Henbô suru nihon no daigaku kyôjushoku [The Changing Academic
Profession in Japan]. Tokyo: Tamagawa University Press.
Boyer, E.L., Altbach, P.G., & Whitelaw, M.J. (1994). The Academic Profession: An
International Perspective. Princeton, NJ: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of
Teaching.
Brennan, J. (2006). The Changing Academic Profession: The Driving Forces. In ResearchInstitute for Higher Education (RIHE), Hiroshima University (ed.), Reports of Changing
Academic Profession Project Workshop on Quality, Relevance, and Governance in the
Changing Academia: International Perspectives (pp.37-44). Hiroshima: RIHE,
Hiroshima University.
Brennan, J., Locke, W., & Naidoo, R. (2007). United Kingdom: An increasingly DifferentiatedProfession. In W. Locke & U. Teichler (eds.), The Changing Conditions for Academic
Work and Careers in Selected Countries (pp.163-176). Kassel: INCHER-Kassel.

Ulrich Teichler 77
Enders, J. (ed.) (2001). Academic Staff in Europe: Changing Contexts and Conditions.
London: Greenwood.
Enders, J., & de Weert, E. (eds.) (2004). The International Attractiveness of the Academic
Workplace in Europe. Frankfurt/Main: Gewerkschaft Erziehung und Wissenschaft.
Enders, J., & Teichler, U. (1995). Der Hochschullehrerberuf im internationalen Vergleich [TheAcademic Profession in International Comparison]. Bonn: Bundesministerium für
Bildung, Wissenschaft, Forschung und Technologie.
Finkelstein, M. (2007). The “New Look” of Academic Careers in the United States. In M.
Kogan & U. Teichler (eds.), Key Challenges to the Academic Profession (pp.145-158).
Paris/Kassel: UNESCO Forum on Higher Education, Research and Knowledge and
INCHER-Kassel.
Finkelstein, M., & Frances, C. (2006). The American Academic Profession: Context andCharacteristics. In RIHE (ed.), Reports of Changing Academic Profession ProjectWorkshop on Quality, Relevance, and Governance in the Changing Academia:International Perspectives (pp.231-254). Hiroshima: RIHE, Hiroshima University.
Harman, G. & Meek, L. (2007). Australia: Adjustment to the New Management andEntrepreneurial Environment. In W. Locke & U. Teichler (eds.), The Changing
Conditions for Academic Work and Careers in Selected Countries (pp.127-146). Kassel:
INCHER-Kassel.
Huang, F. (2006). The Academic Profession in Japan: Major Characteristics and New Changes.
In RIHE (ed.), Reports of Changing Academic Profession Project Workshop on Quality,
Relevance, and Governance in the Changing Academia: International Perspectives(pp.195-208). Hiroshima: RIHE, Hiroshima University.
Kogan, M., & Teichler, U. (eds.) (2007). Key Challenges to the Academic Profession. Paris andKassel: UNESCO Forum on Higher Education, Research and Knowledge and
INCHER-Kassel.
Locke, W., & Teichler, U. (eds.) (2007). The Changing Conditions for Academic Work andCareers in Selected Countries. Kassel: INCHER-Kassel.
Meek, L. (2006). History and Development of Australian Higher Education: An Overview. In
RIHE (ed.), Reports of Changing Academic Profession Project Workshop on Quality,
Relevance, and Governance in the Changing Academia: International Perspectives(pp.63-77). Hiroshima: RIHE, Hiroshima University.
Naidoo, R., & Brennan, J. (2006). The Higher Education System in the United Kingdom. In
RIHE (ed.), Reports of Changing Academic Profession Project Workshop on Quality,
Relevance, and Governance in the Changing Academia: International Perspectives(pp.45-61). Hiroshima: RIHE, Hiroshima University.

78 Biographies, Careers and Work of Academics
RIHE (ed.) (2006). Reports of Changing Academic Profession Project Workshop on Quality,
Relevance, and Governance in the Changing Academia: International Perspectives(COE Publication Series 20). Hiroshima: RIHE, Hiroshima University.
RIHE (ed.) (2008). The Changing Academic Profession in International Comparative andQuantitative Perspectives (RIHE International Seminar Reports, No. 12). Hiroshima:
RIHE, Hiroshima University.
Schuster, J., & Finkelstein, M. (2006). The Restructuring of Academic Work and Careers: The
American Faculty. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.
Teichler, U. (1996). The Conditions of the Academic Profession. An International Comparative
Analysis of the Academic Profession in Western Europe, Japan and the USA. In P.A.M.
Maassen & F.A. Van Vught (eds.), Inside Academia: New Challenges for the Academic
Profession (pp.15-65). Utrecht: Uitgeverij De Tijdstrom.
Teichler, U. (ed.) (2006). The Formative Years of Scholars. London: Portland Press.
Teichler, U. (2007a). 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 (pp.15-38). Kassel: INCHER-Kassel.
Teichler, U. (2007b). Higher Education Systems: Conceptual Frameworks, Comparative
Perspectives, Empirical Findings. Rotterdam and Taipei: Sense Publishers.
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 Reports, No. 12) (pp.131-152). 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).
Hiroshima: RIHE, Hiroshima University.
Vessuri, H., & Teichler, U. (eds.) (2008). Universities as Centres of Research and Knowledge
Creation: an Endangered Species? Rotterdam/Taipei: Sense Publishers.

Country Reports on
Internationalization

RIHE International Seminar Reports, No.13, 2009 79

International Dimensions of the Australian Academic
Profession
Leo Goedegebuure∗, Hamish Coates∗∗, Jeannet van der Lee∗∗∗ andLynn Meek∗∗∗∗Introduction
This paper provides insight into the international dimensions of theAustralian academic profession. Australia has one of the most internationalised
higher education student populations in the world, which leads us naturally toinquire into the international characteristics of its academic staff. It is important
to consider, for instance, whether the academic workforce has internationalised in
the same way as the student body, and how academic staff are responding
educationally to various opportunities and challenges arising frominternationalisation.
Yet to date relatively little is known about this aspect of higher education inAustralia. In future analyses, historians are likely to see ‘internationalisation’,broadly conceived, as one of the greatest change forces in contemporary
Australian higher education. It is vital, therefore, that further analysis isundertaken, both to descriptively document current practice and to provide anevidence base for guiding change in policy and practice.
Our main source of evidence for the current analysis is the Australian
Changing Academic Profession (CAP) 2007 data (Coates, Goedegebuure, van∗Associate Professor and Academic Programs Director, LH Martin Institute, University of
Melbourne, Australia, e-mail: leo.g@unimelb.edu.au∗∗
Principal Research Fellow, Australian Council for Educational Research, Australia, e-mail:coatesh@acer.edu.au∗∗∗
Research Project Officer, Centre for Higher Education Management and Policy, Universityof New England, Australia, e-mail: jvander@une.edu.au∗∗∗∗
Director and Professor, LH Martin Institute, University of Melbourne, Australia, e-mail:vmeek@unimelb.edu.au

80 International Dimensions of the Australian Academic Profession

der Lee & Meek, 2008). Relevant additional information is used to better
contextualise this data. It should be emphasised that the current analysis isnecessarily preliminary as the national and international data-set is still being
verified. Accordingly, no overall international comparisons are made as we
await the availability of the full international CAP data-set.
The discussion is straightforward. We start by providing an overview of
the international composition of the Australian academic workforce. Following
this, we focus on research and research-related activities. We finish our
discussion by elaborating on the nature of internationalisation in the Australianclassroom, i.e. how teaching has been influenced by the increased
internationalisation over the last 15 years.
In presenting our analysis, we offer more in depth analyses by breaking
results down by institutional grouping, discipline, rank and age. Where possible,
we attempt a longitudinal analysis through incorporating the outcomes of theearlier Carnegie study (Sheehan, Welch & Lacy, 1996). However, given therelative lack of attention to the international dimension in this prior work, atelling insight in itself, this attempt has proved to be fairly unsuccessful.

Australian academic staff: an international mix
The first matter to address when examining the international dimensions of
the Australian academic profession is to consider how international theworkforce really is. The 1993 Carnegie study (Sheehan et al., 1996) showedthat at that time Australia was one of the more internationalised higher education
systems. It used the place of origin of the respondents highest earned degree asa proxy measure of internationalisation, which showed that some 20% ofAustralian academics had earned their highest degree in another country, with theUnited States (44%) and the United Kingdom (26%) being the main providers.
This finding corresponds to earlier results which indicated that in 1986, 25% ofAustralian academic staff had been recruited from overseas.
The 2007 survey included a number of variables that can be used as proxies
for the international composition of the academic profession: country of birth,country of first degree, country of second degree and country of doctoral degree,
and current citizenship. None of these are exact indicators, of course. In an
immigrant country like Australia, being born overseas can mean that the
respondents parents came to Australia and that the respondent grew up in the
country and is as much Australian as someone who was born in Australia. It
can also mean the respondent came to Australia to take up an academic position.

Leo Goedegebuure et al. 81

Similar arguments apply to the country of degree. However, triangulation of thedata allows for a fairly reliable picture of the international composition of theacademic profession.
When we look at citizenship at birth, 38% of CAP 2007 respondents wereborn outside Australia, with a large proportion of these being born either in the
United Kingdom (13.5%), the United States (3.5%), New Zealand (3.5%), China(2%) and South Africa (1.5%) (see Figure 1).

Figure 1. Citizenship at birth

At the time of their first degree, 69% of the respondents were Australians,
while currently 88% of the respondents indicate Australian citizenship. As to
their first degree, 73% of academics obtained this in Australia. For their second
degree, 70% indicated that this was from Australia, while 73% hold an Australian
doctorate. By far the most common foreign countries for overseas degrees are
the United Kingdom (9% first degree, 9% second degree and 10% doctorate) andthe United States (4% first degree, 7% second degree and 6% doctorate).
These results indicate that the Australian academic profession has remained
quite international in its composition over the last 15 years. Contrary to the1993 data, the dominance of the United States as a contributing foreign country
has diminished, but the expected replacement of the US and the UK as the‘delivering countries’ for academic staff by Asian countries (Sheehan et al.,1996) has not come about.
The 1993 study argues that “[T]he extent of internationalisation inAustralian academe has been sustained, in part, by the relative attractiveness ofAustralian academic salaries and conditions” (Sheehan et al., 1996, p.106). The
report questions the sustainability of this: “The relative decline of Australian82 International Dimensions of the Australian Academic Profession

academic salaries over the last 15 years or so, however, together with perceived
deterioration in working conditions, suggests Australia may now be a rather lessattractive venue for academic staff” (Sheehan et al., 1996, p.106). Results fromthe 2007 study do not support this suggestion. As reported earlier (Coates et al.,2008), while Australian academics continue to believe that their working
conditions have deteriorated, this appears not to have affected its international
attractiveness if we look at the international composition of the profession.
Although we have yet to analyse the international CAP data-set in terms ofsalary levels, other research would suggest that Australian academics still doquite well in terms of remuneration. A study undertaken by the Association ofCommonwealth Universities shows Australian academics leading comparator
countries Canada, the UK and New Zealand and indicates a strong increase insalary levels when comparing 2006-2007 to 2004-2005 (Kubler & Lennon, 2007)(see Table 1).
Table 1. Academic salaries 2006-07 compared to 2004-05
Australia$
Lecturer
SeniorLecturer
Associate
professor
Professor

Canada%$59,037

UK%$

66,19617

19

79,696

17

93,564

16

74,4103

71,147

114,555

17

74,513977,756NZ%$%

46,921-6

43,98314

59,118-4

57,632

14

69,92915

74,99614

16

A recent study commissioned by the New Zealand Vice-Chancellors
Committee (2008) paints a similar picture. Table 2 shows adjusted (purchasing
power parity weighted) results for five countries. Note that the Australiansample is for Group of Eight (Go8) institutions1 only, and that the US estimates
are a conservative perspective – they are for 9-10 month contracts and the top
private universities are not included. In this study the increase in UK salaries ismuch more pronounced. With the exception of professorial salaries, Australia
appears on a par with the US.

1

The Group of Eight comprises the eight leading research universities in Australia. Other
groupings of Australian universities are identified as Innovative Research Universities(IRU) and the Australian Technology Network of universities (ATN) (see e.g. Table 4).

Leo Goedegebuure et al. 83
Table 2. Academic salaries 2008 (PPP) compared to 2005
Australia

Canada

UK

USA

NZ

$

%

$

%

$

%

$

%

$

%

Lecturer

59,0001465,500950,5002570,70016

44,90017

Seniorlecturer

71,20013

60,40023

58,60014

Associate
professor

83,7001480,500874,20029

83,0001771,60018

Professor

102,300

14

100,100

8

82,20026

113,900

18

77,70018

However, as is indicated in Table 3, care needs to be taken with therepresentation of US salaries in the New Zealand study. Data provided by theAmerican Association of University Professors (AAUP, 2008) show that
substantive differences exist between pubic and private universities and also
indicate that overall US academic salaries are higher than those in Australia.
This of course is particularly true if one takes into account that on average the
US salaries are based on a 9-10 month contract period.
Table 3. US salary and compensation levels for
doctoral granting institutions
SalaryPublicProfessor
Associate
professor
Assistantprofessor
Lecturer($)

Compensation
PrivatePublicPrivate109,569

144,256

137,104

180,458

77,03392,14898,965

118,61065,41678,84084,204

100,81049,07959,15363,867

78,105

Despite the favourable salary comparison, the Australian academic
profession faces some serious challenges over the next decade. Over the next
five years, 24% of senior academics (associate professors and professors) will
retire and another 23% will follow in the next five year period. Theoretically,
this means that close to 5,000 people could leave the system and would require
replacement under ceteris paribus conditions. As this phenomenon is not
specific to Australia but applies to all developed countries with a strong
baby-boom generation in higher education, it can be expected that theinternational ‘war for talent’ will increase in intensity. Salaries will play a rolein this, but other academic climate factors, such as research facilities and84 International Dimensions of the Australian Academic Profession

stimulating colleagues will be as important. In this respect it is interesting tonote that, as we have reported earlier (Coates et al., 2008), Australian academics
express a clear preference for research over teaching, although they report to bequite busy with teaching. There certainly appears to be a mismatch between
aspirations and realities. It therefore should not come as a very great surprisethat approximately 23% of the survey respondents had considered a major jobchange to an academic position in another country in the past five years.
Interestingly, only about 11% took action.
Departure intentions vary by discipline, with those in teacher training andeducation science (31%) being about twice as inclined to think about leaving theAustralian higher education system as their colleagues in business andadministration, economics and law (17%), humanities and arts (17%) andengineering, manufacturing and construction, and architecture (18%) (see Figure
2).

12Medical sciences, health related sciences, social services

22
13

Engineering, manufacturing and construction, architecture

Took action
18
Consideredchange9

Physical sciences, mathematics, computer sciences

21
13Life sciences and Agriculture25
9Business and administration, economics and Law

17

Social and behavioural sciences, personal services, transport
services, security services

11
23
11

Humanities and arts

17
10

Teacher training and education science

31
0

10

20

30

40

Academic staff (per cent)Figure 2. Change to work in another country in last five years by discipline

Furthermore, those from the disciplines engineering, manufacturing andconstruction, architecture (13%) and life sciences and agriculture (13%) appear
to be somewhat more decisive than their colleagues in business andadministration, economics and law in taking action on this front.
There is little variation by type of institution, with about 26% of Go8
academics considering an academic position in another country, compared toLeo Goedegebuure et al. 85

20% of ATN academics. Further, little variation is apparent if we break the data
down by academic rank. The largest proportion of respondents that has
considered taking a position in another country is almost 31% for professors andthe lowest is about 25% for lecturers. As one would expect those academics
aged under 35 years are more likely (20%) to consider taking a job overseas thantheir older colleagues, while they are also more likely to follow through withconcrete action. Given our earlier comments about the international war for
talent and the exodus of senior Australian academics expected over the next
decade, these findings point to a potential problem that national and institutional
policy-makers need to address.

International dimensions of Australian academic research
The original 1993 Carnegie study is remarkably vague when it comes to thequestion of the international orientation of Australia academics. Quotations
such as: “Australian academics ought to be more internationally focused. Somedisciplines are very provincial in their outlooks” (Sheehan et al., 1996, p.105)
and “Australia seems small and remote from the international academic scene.
For people who travel, their academic careers and their students (therefore thecountry) benefit. For others, they remain narrow and self-interested. It is amatter not simply of money, but of vision, planning, confidence and lots ofsupport from the university administration” (Sheehan et al., 1996, p.109) arefound in the chapter on internationalisation, but there is no hard data to support(or refute) these respondents comments.
The 2007 CAP results allow for a more substantive picture as to theinternational orientation of Australian academics. It would appear from theresponses that contrary to the suggestive quotations from the 1993 survey,
Australian academics do have a pretty strong international outlook.
The CAP results suggest that much of the primary research undertaken in2006 or 2007 was international in scope or orientation, with approximately 70%
of respondents either agreeing or strongly agreeing with this description. The
response categories on the survey form for this question were scored 1, for“strongly agree”, to 5, for “strongly disagree”. Table 4 shows that the mean
response does not change significantly with disciplinary grouping. There is aslight decreasing trend with institutional grouping from Go8, Other, IRU and
ATN. A more pronounced trend is evident as one moves through the academic
ranks. A similar trend does not appear to exist in relationship to age.

86 International Dimensions of the Australian Academic Profession
Table 4. International orientation of research
Mean
Total

SD

2.23

1.26

Teacher training and education science

2.21

1.16

Humanities and arts
Social and behavioural sciences, personal, transportand security services
Business and administration, economics and law

2.26

1.34

2.06

1.18

2.33

1.22

Life sciences and Agriculture

2.22

1.24

2.09

1.16

2.33

1.49

University

Physical sciences, mathematics, computer sciences
Engineering, manufacturing and construction,architecture
Go8

2.05

1.17

group

ATN

2.29

1.31

IRU

2.37

1.25

Discipline

Other

2.43

1.34

Academic

Assistant lecturer

2.54

1.35

rank

Lecturer

2.35

1.33

Senior lecturer

2.26

1.27

Associate professor

1.96

1.02

Professor

1.69

0.94

Age

<=35

2.39

1.29

group

36-45

2.17

1.25

46-55

2.21

1.28

56-65

2.28

1.31

65+

1.86

1.17

The international orientation of Australian academics’ research alsotranslates to some extent into concrete activities. About 65% of respondents
indicated some level of co-authoring with colleagues in other countries, with themean being about 20% of their work. Some 82% of respondents indicatedhaving published in a foreign country over the past 3 years, with the average
being around 45% of their work. This is no surprise as most of the major
publishing houses are located in either the US or Europe. Not surprisingly
either, only around 10% of respondents indicated that they had published some of
their work in a foreign language. This finding supports the reality that, at leastas far as research is concerned, English is the lingua franca. Despite a fairly
strong international orientation in research, only a limited amount of researchLeo Goedegebuure et al. 87

funding is being obtained from international organizations (between 10-15%).
Approximately 45% of survey respondents during the 2007 academic year
had attended an overseas conference. There is little variation across the defined
disciplinary groupings, with academics in the life sciences and agriculture
attending overseas conferences a little more regularly than their colleagues inbusiness and administration, economics and law. More academics employed at
a Go8 institution attended international conferences that their counterparts at
ATN, IRU or Other universities (50%, 41%, 36% and 39% respectively).
Perhaps most striking, yet not surprisingly, as one moves up through theacademic ranks, attendance at international conferences becomes more common(see Figure 3). While 28% of assistant lecturers indicate attending international
conferences, this figure increases to 52% for senior lecturers and culminates atalmost 80% for professors.
90
78

80
68

Academic staff (per cent)

70
60

52

50
39

40
30

28

20
10
0
Assistant lecturer

Lecturer

Senior lecturer

Associate
professor

Professor

Figure 3. Attendance at an international conference in the past year

Approximately 60% of all respondents indicated that they do collaborate
with international colleagues. There is little substantial difference between
disciplines, except for engineering, manufacturing and construction, architecturewith about 70% of respondents collaborating with international colleagues andfor business and administration, economics and law with about 50%.
Respondents from Go8 institutions topped the list in terms of collaboration
with international colleagues (71%), followed by those from IRU with 60%,‘other’ universities with 53%, and ATN with 51%. As one moves through theacademic ranks, it appears that international collaboration becomes morecommon. Around half of the associate lecturers (46%) and lecturers (52%)

88 International Dimensions of the Australian Academic Profession

indicate that they collaborate with international colleagues. This increases to
61% at the senior lecturer level and 74% at the associate professor level. The
vast majority of Australian professors indicates international collaboration (88%).
Although there is some relationship with age, this is less pronounced.

Internationalisation of teaching and learning
Over the last 25 years, international education has become big business inAustralia. In fact, education currently is the country’s largest service export,
having overtaken leisure travel services in 2008. It also is the third largest
export after coal and iron ore, totalling $A12.5 billion (AEI, 2008). Although
growth in the export of vocational training services is growing, higher educationis responsible for the lion’s share of this. International students have been a
considerable source of revenue for Australian universities. Since 1997 there has
been an increase in the proportion of international students from 9.6% to 25.5%(Bradley, Noonan, Nugent & Scales, 2008a, p.25). This has transformed
Australian campuses and classrooms, and the situation in 2007 is vastly different
from that at the time of the Carnegie study in 1992.
It is obvious that teaching activities have a strong international focus,
whether it be in the course content or in the composition of classes. For
example, in response to the statement “In your courses you emphasizeinternational perspectives or content” only 11% of respondents either disagreed
or strongly disagreed, with the mean response being 2.14. Furthermore,
approximately 70% of respondents either agree or strongly agree that the numberof international students has increased since they started teaching (mean = 2.00),
which given our previous discussion indeed is the answer one would expect.
However, respondents disagreed with the statement that “Currently, most of yourgraduate students are international”, with more than 55% of respondents either
disagreeing or strongly disagreeing with this statement (mean = 3.51).
It is instructive to break down the responses to these three statements bydifferent groupings to discern more detailed variations. We have done thisusing our standard breakdown by disciplinary grouping, institutional type,academic rank and age. The results are presented in the following four tables.
Table 5 shows little apparent variation by disciplinary grouping on any ofthese three statements. Staff teaching business administration and law do
appear to place slightly lower emphasis on international perspectives, while
engineering staff report having more international graduate students.

Leo Goedegebuure et al. 89
Table 5. Internationalisation of teaching by disciplinary grouping
In your courses
you emphasiseinternational
perspectives orcontent
Mean

SD

Since you started
teaching, thenumber ofinternational
students has
increased
Mean
SD

Currently, most of
your graduate
students areinternational
Mean

SD

Teacher training and
2.15
1.05
2.11
1.32
3.43
1.32
education science
Humanities and arts
2.20
1.07
1.89
1.43
3.44
1.43
Social and behaviouralsciences, personal services,
2.06
0.96
1.92
1.39
3.62
1.39
transport services, security
services
Business andadministration, economics
2.30
1.12
1.90
1.46
3.48
1.46
and law
Life sciences and
1.93
1.08
2.13
1.40
3.55
1.40
Agriculture
Physical sciences,mathematics, computer
2.15
0.91
2.00
1.50
3.76
1.50
sciences
Engineering, manufacturing
and construction,
1.91
1.12
2.09
1.40
3.20
1.45
architecture
Total
2.14
1.05
2.00
1.17
3.51
1.42
Note: Responses to the three statements were on a 5-point scale from 1, for “strongly agree” to
5, to “strongly disagree”.

Some variation does exist by institutional type, as illustrated in Table 6.
Respondents located within the Other category of institutions agreed morestrongly with the statement that “Since you started teaching, the number ofinternational students has increased”. Furthermore, respondents from IRU
institutions more strongly disagreed with the statement that “Currently, most of
your graduate students are international” (mean = 3.90), while the results showthat those academics at Go8 institutions appear to have somewhat higher
numbers of international graduate students (mean = 3.41), although they still tend
to disagree with the statement.
As academic rank increases so does the emphasis on international
perspectives or content in courses, as does agreement with the statement “Since
you started teaching, the number of international students has increased”.
However, there is little variation between academic ranks on the statement“Currently, most of your graduate students are international”, with the mean
response being in disagreement with this statement (mean = 3.51) (see Table 7).

90 International Dimensions of the Australian Academic Profession
Table 6. Internationalisation of teaching by university group
In your courses youemphasise international
perspectives or content
Mean

SD

Since you started
teaching, the number ofinternational students
has increased
Mean
SD

Currently, most of yourgraduate students areinternational
Mean

SD

Go8

2.22

1.13

1.83

1.015

3.41

1.39

ATN

2.08

0.90

1.98

1.22

3.43

1.48

IRU

2.15

1.25

1.69

0.95

3.90

1.41

Other

2.10

1.01

2.23

1.28

3.63

1.41

Total

2.14

1.05

2.00

1.17

3.51

1.42

Table 7. Internationalisation of teaching by academic rank
In your courses youemphasise international
perspectives or content
Mean
Assistantlecturer
Lecturer
Seniorlecturer
Associate
professor
Professor
Total

SD

Since you started
teaching, the number ofinternational students
has increased
Mean
SD

Currently, most of yourgraduate students areinternational
Mean

SD

2.40

1.70

2.32

1.13

3.23

1.44

2.22

1.03

2.11

1.24

3.49

1.46

2.17

1.06

1.96

1.11

3.62

1.34

1.92

0.98

1.94

1.19

3.59

1.41

1.92
2.14

1.08
1.05

1.92
2.00

1.08
1.17

3.53
3.51

1.49
1.42

As with academic rank, age also provides some diversity in response to thequestions. A review of key results suggests that when asked their level ofagreement with the statement “In your courses you emphasise international
perspectives or content”, we see that those aged between 46 and 65 tended toagree with this statement most strongly.
Further, if we look at the percentage of responses in each answer category
we find that as age increases the agreement with the statement “Since you started
teaching, the number of international students has increased” also increases.
There appears to be little discernable variation by age to the statement“Currently, most of our graduate students are international”, as shown in Table 8,though, when it comes to increases in number of international students, the 65+
age group appears to be an exception: an explanation for this is not obvious.

Leo Goedegebuure et al. 91
Table 8. Internationalisation of teaching by age group
In your courses youemphasise international
perspectives or content
Mean

SD

Since you started
teaching, the numberof international
students has increased
Mean
SD

Currently, most of yourgraduate students areinternational
Mean

SD

35 or younger

2.49

1.08

2.55

1.22

3.44

1.43

36 to 45

2.17

1.04

2.14

1.10

3.52

1.39

46 to 55

2.06

0.96

1.95

1.18

3.50

1.43

56 to 65

2.05

1.06

1.77

1.11

3.58

1.41

More than 65

2.27

1.42

2.27

1.42

3.60

1.71

Total

2.14

1.05

2.00

1.17

3.51

1.42

As one would expect within the Australian context, only about 3% ofcourses are taught in a language other than English. Although we have no
substantive data to support our interpretation, logic would suggest that this 3% islanguage courses.
Although most international students enrolled in Australian study
programmes are doing so in universities in the country, there also is a sizeableindustry in teaching students offshore. This takes the form either of Australian
universities setting up campuses in other countries or of providing Australianprogrammes in partnership with local institutions in overseas countries. In thelatter case, students enrol in an Australian degree program and normally would
be taught in a combination of intensive residential and distance education modes,
with academic support provided through the local partner institution.
According to the CAP survey results, during 2006 or 2007 approximately
20% of academics were involved in teaching off-shore. When this is broken
down by disciplinary grouping it can be seen that teacher training and education
science tends to be most involved in teaching offshore, with about 27% of
respondents. Other disciplinary groupings that rate highly are life sciences andagriculture and the medical sciences, health related sciences, and social services.
It is important to emphasise that the CAP 2007 population does not include
off-shore staff. Hence the provision by staff in the offshore campuses ofAustralian universities, with its great emphasis on business studies, is notreflected in these figures.
If we break down the results by institutional grouping then we find that
academics located at Other and ATN institutions appear to teach more courses
abroad than their colleagues at either IRU or Go8 institutions. This result is
confirmed by comparison with the actual percentage of international students

92 International Dimensions of the Australian Academic Profession(see Table 9) taught offshore by the various institutional groupings (DEEWR,
2007). These show that ATN universities teach about 40% and the Other
universities teach about 33%, which once again reconfirms the representativenessof our sample.
When we break down the results to the academic ranks that are teachingcourses abroad, we find that almost twice as many professors are teachingcourses abroad than assistant lecturers. In line with this, we also find that those
aged 46 and above are undertaking a greater proportion of this type of teachingactivity.
Table 9. Onshore and offshore students taught in 2007
Onshoren

Offshore
%

n

%

Go8

59,313

33

9,086

13

ATN

32,681

18

28,92742

IRU

21,755

12

8,437

12

Other

68,45538

22,29532

Conclusion
As noted, these current results are intermediary, with more thorough anddetailed analysis awaiting release of the validated international and hence
national data.
Nonetheless, the results do provide insight into theinternationalisation of the Australian academic workforce.
It is too early to isolate and emphasise selected conclusions, but the results
show in relation to the composition of the workforce that:• the Australian academic profession has remained quite international in
its composition over the last 15 years;• the dominance of the United States as a contributing foreign country has
diminished, but the expected replacement of the U.S. and the UK as the‘delivering countries’ for academic staff by Asian countries has not comeabout;• given increasing retirements in the next decade, importing academics islikely to play an important role in sustaining the Australian academic
workforce; and• Australia exports a small number of academic staff to other countries,
with somewhere between a fifth and a quarter considering taking up an
overseas academic post.

Leo Goedegebuure et al. 93

As an advanced knowledge economy, the size of Australia’s academic
industry means that internationalisation plays an important role in research. In
particular, the results outlined in this initial analysis suggest that:• much of the primary research undertaken in 2006 or 2007 wasinternational in scope or orientation, especially in the social and physicalsciences, at research-intensive institutions, and with higher ranked andolder staff;• around 60% of Australian academics collaborate with international
colleagues on the production and publication of their academic
contributions, with notable variations in this figure across disciplinarygroups; and• around half of all responding academics had attended an international
conference in the last year, a figure which varied across institutionalgroups and rose to around 80% for professors.
Australia has a highly internationalised student population, and the results
reported suggest that this is partly reflected in the international orientation of theteaching staff. The paper records that:• teaching activities have a strong international focus, whether it be in thecourse content or in the composition of classes;• academics reported more emphasis on internationalisation inundergraduate rather than graduate education, particularly at the often
larger research intensive institutions;• as with research, there appears to be an increasing emphasis on theinternationalisation of teaching with increases in academic rank; and• Australian academic staff, particularly at the less research intensive
institutions, appear to be responsible for a relatively large amount ofoffshore teaching.
We emphasis again that caution should be applied to drawing conclusions
from these early indicative results. Final data is not available and detailed
analysis has yet to be undertaken in terms of any policy or research consequences.
Even so, it is instructive to chart the potentiality in the 2007 CAP data and toproject a few ideas on how such analysis may unfold.
Clearly, the information provided by academic staff in 2007 has thepotential to provide evidence-based insight into the international composition ofAustralia’s academic workforce. As sketched in this paper, this helps tounderstand how the workforce is aligned with other aspects of the system, suchas the student population, and more broadly how the academic workforce isaligned with other professional industries.
Understanding the trade in94 International Dimensions of the Australian Academic Profession‘academic talent’ has important implications for the nature and growth ofAustralia’s knowledge economy.
Of course, much of the trade in academic knowledge takes place via theexchange of ideas rather than people. This paper has demonstrated the potentialof the 2007 CAP data in helping understand this complex industry in whichinternationalisation plays an increasingly important role. What are the main
ways in which Australian academic staff engage with research colleagues in othercountries? What institution- and system-level policies and practices could be
developed or reinforced to support researchers in enhancing their productivity
and impact? As the international CAP data becomes available, it will play avital role in helping researchers and policy analysts shed insight on such matters.
It was suggested at the outset that in the last decade internationalisation has
been one of the major change forces in Australian university education. A wide
range of business and support systems have been put in place to underpin andsustain growth in this area. The 2007 CAP data balance information oncommercial and student affairs with the perspectives of teaching academics.
Understanding how academic staff are responding to an increasinglyinternational diverse student body, and how they are infusing international
perspectives in ways that benefit domestic students, will help to further enrichand add value to educational provision.
These brief ideas are offered by way of suggestive conclusions. Analysisof the international data and discussion with international colleagues will help
understanding of and shape their relevance on a truly international scale.

References
American Association of University Professors (AAUP) (2008). AAUP Faculty Salary Survey.
Retrieved 1 July from: http://chronicle.com/stats/aaup.
Australian Education International (AEI) (2008). Research Snapshot: Export income toAustralia from education services in 2007-08. Canberra: Department of Education,
Employment and Workplace Relations (DEEWR).
Bradley, D., Noonan, P., Nugent, H., & Scales, B. (2008a). Review of Australian Higher
Education: Discussion paper. Canberra: DEEWR.
Bradley, D., Noonan, P., Nugent, H., & Scales, B. (2008b). Review of Australian Higher
Education: Final report. Canberra: DEEWR.
Coates, H., Goedegebuure, L., van der Lee, J., & Meek, L. (2008). The Australian academic
profession: A first overview. In Research Institute for Higher Education (RIHE),

Leo Goedegebuure et al. 95
Hiroshima University (ed.), The Changing Academic Profession in International
Comparative and Quantitative Perspectives (RIHE International Seminar Report 12).
Hiroshima: RIHE, Hiroshima University.
Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations (DEEWR) (2007). Students
2007:

Selectedhighereducation

statistics.

Retrieved

1

July

2008

from:

http://www.dest.gov.au/sectors/higher_education/publications_resources/profiles/Student
s_2007_full_year_.htm
Krause, K-L., Coates, H., & James, R. (2005). Monitoring the internationalisation of higher
education: Are there useful quantitative performance indicators? In M. Tight (ed.),International Perspectives in Higher Education Research. London: Elsevier.
Kubler, J., & Lennon, M.C. (2007). 2006-07 Academic Staff Salary Survey. London:
Association of Commonwealth Universities.
New Zealand Vice-Chancellors Committee (NZVCC) (2008). University Staff Academic
Salaries and Remuneration: A comparison of New Zealand and selected international(Australia, Canada, England, USA) data. Wellington: NZVCC.
Sheehan, B., Welch, A, & Lacy, F. (1996). The Academic Profession in Australia. Canberra:
DEEWR.

RIHE International Seminar Reports, No.13, 2009 97

The Internationalization of Japan’s Academic
Profession 1992-2007: facts and views

Futao Huang∗

Introduction
There is no denying that internationalization of the academic profession isan integral part of internationalization of higher education at both national andinstitutional levels.
With such activities as mobility of students andcross-border institutions and educational programs, it can largely reflect how
significantly individual higher education systems or institutions of higher
education are internationalized by identifying the various international activities
undertaken by academics and their perceptions of such activities. Japan
provides no exception. For example, as early as the Meiji period, thegovernment invited Western academics to work in Japan’s university institutions
and regarded this as one of the most effective means to introduce Western
academic norms and conventions concerning the academic profession. Since
the 1990s, with various impacts from globalization, massification, andmarketization, tremendous changes have taken place in Japan’s higher education,
including Japan’s academic profession. Though many studies have been madeof the changing academic profession in Japan over the last decades (Arimoto &Ehara, eds., 1996; Ebuchi, 1997; Kurimoto, 1997; Yamanoi, 2005; Huang, 2006a,
2006b, 2006c, 2007a, 2007b, 2008, 2009), little research has focused on recentchanges in the internationalization of Japan’s academic profession over theperiod 1992-2007 from international, comparative and quantitative perspectives.
Based on major findings from two international surveys and one national survey,
which were implemented in 1992 and 2007, this article will concentrate on∗

Professor, RIHE, Hiroshima University, e-mail: futao@hiroshima-u.ac.jp

98 The Internationalization of Japan’s Academic Profession 1992-2007

identifying changes in the internationalization of the Japanese academic
profession over the period 1992 to 2007.
The first international survey was the International Survey on the Academic
Profession by the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Education in1991. The second international survey is the international survey on the
Changing Academic Profession (CAP) which was conducted in 2006-2007.
Though many common questions were shared by these two surveys, very few
similar items concerning internationalization can be found in the twoquestionnaires. In order to find out what exact and actual changes had occurredin Japan’s academic profession over the period 1992 to 2007, prior to the 2007
CAP survey, the Japan research team implemented a second national survey in2007, adopting almost the same questionnaire as that of the 1992 international
survey. In terms of population, sample and data analysis in the 1992 national
survey, according to institutional types and scale, 4,853 faculty members ofJapan’s four-year universities were chosen. The Japanese version of thequestionnaire received answers from 1,872 respondents (38.6% feedback rate).
In the 2007 survey with the same questionnaire, the number of universities was
reduced to 18 institutions. Among these, faculty members of only 4 of the same
research universities as those used in the first survey were included and 14
newly-selected non-research universities, with almost the same characteristics as
those included previously were included in the survey. The questionnaire wasmailed to 6,200 faculty members working in these 18 four-year universities andvalid responses were received from 1,408 of them (22.7% feedback rate) in duetime. However, it should be noted that only data showing significant
differences are touched on in this article.
This article is mainly concerned with changes in internationalization of theacademic profession in Japan from 1992 to 2007. The article focuses on an
analysis of major findings from the 1992 Carnegie survey and the 2007 Japanese
team survey based on the earlier survey. The article begins by discussing thecontext and rationales related to internationalization of the academic profession
in Japan. It then addresses changes in the internationalization of Japan’s
academic profession with a focus on changes over time from 1992 to 2007 andamong four types of institutions for which meaningful data are available. The
article concludes by identifying the characteristics and issues ofinternationalization for Japan’s academic profession and by suggesting some
implications for higher education policies and institutional reform.

Futao Huang 99

Background and context
Japanese higher education consists of three types of institution: universities,
junior colleges (Tanki Daigaku in Japanese) and colleges of technology; and isprovided through three sectors: private, local public and national institutions.1
There are two distinguishing characteristics of the Japanese higher education
system. First, the private sector constitutes a large proportion of institutions,students and faculty members. As of 2007, the proportion of students in private
universities and junior colleges amounted respectively to 73.2% and 94.1 % of
the totals; and the numbers of private institutions at university and junior college
levels comprise 76.7 % and 91.7% of the totals respectively (MEXT, 2008,
pp.85-87). With regard to the numbers of faculty members, as of 2007, those in
private universities and junior colleges constituted 56% and 91% respectively of
the totals (MEXT, 2008, pp.96-97). Second, higher education institutions
conform to a hierarchical structure. This is evident not only in the wide gap invarious aspects between the national and private sectors, but is also reflected inuniversities and junior colleges at different levels even in the same sector. In
contrast to the private sector, the vast majority of national universities remains
more prestigious and is the centre of most graduate work at the doctoral level.
The national universities usually receive more funding from government andgenerate more research grants, as well as producing far more PhDs than most of
the private institutions. Except for a very few older private universities, such as
Waseda and Keio Universities, which are considered among the top universities
in Japan, most private institutions are teaching-centered and market-oriented,
providing less favorable environments and conditions for educational andresearch activities than those in the national sector. But even among thenational institutions there is, in practical terms, a split into two big types:
research-intensive universities and non-research universities. The former
typically include those old “Imperial Universities” that were established before
the Second World War and some new universities that were established or
integrated into university-level institutions based on old small colleges shortly
after the War; the latter usually include small and education-based universities,
mostly located in non-metropolitan areas.
Since the early 1990s, together with other factors, two big changes inJapanese higher education have significantly affected Japan’s academic
profession. One is curriculum reform and the other is the incorporation of the1

Local public universities were not included in the Carnegie, CAP or Japanese 2007 surveys.

100 The Internationalization of Japan’s Academic Profession 1992-2007

national universities (Huang, 2006c).
Curriculum reform, which was initiated in 1991, has resulted in therequirement that all faculty members contribute to general educational programs;
and all institutions are asked to conduct self-monitoring and self-evaluation to
make their teaching and research activities more accountable and to assure theireducational quality. In a major sense, all faculty members are asked to be more
involved in teaching activities. Incorporation of the national universities is theother driving force that has directly influenced changes in the academic
profession in Japan. One of the biggest changes is that faculty in all national
universities are no longer public servants. Regarding changes in the pattern ofinternal governance in the national university corporations, more powers havebeen placed on governing bodies at the institutional level with a reduction in theautonomous rights residing in faculty meetings. With reduced autonomy of thefaculty, the power of the bureaucracy within each university has expanded far
more than that of the academic staff.
Admittedly, since the 1990s, many achievements have been accomplished in
the internationalization of the academic profession in Japan, including an
expansion in the number of full-time foreign faculty members, a growth in thenumber of Japanese faculty members with overseas doctorates, an increase in thenumber of articles by Japanese faculty in international journals, and greater
mobility of Japanese faculty and incoming foreign faculty. However, theinternationalization of Japan’s academic profession is also facing many issues.
For example, in comparison with the private sector, neither the national nor the
public sector has achieved any remarkable expansion of employment of foreign
faculty nor have these sectors exported cross-border programs and institutions.
Moreover, there has been no striking rise in the number of non-Japanesepresidents or vice-presidents in either national or public universities.

Results from changes over the period 1992 to 2007
Personal inventory
Table 1 shows changes in the proportions of Japanese faculty members who
obtained their highest degrees in different countries over the period 1992 to 2007.
The data indicate that there has been a slight decrease in the percentage ofJapanese faculty members with their highest degrees obtained from Japanese
universities, with a corresponding increase in the proportion of overseas highest
degree holders among Japanese faculty members. This evidence confirms aslight increase in the number of internationalized highest degree holders among

Futao Huang 101

the academic profession in Japan. The data reveal that compared with 1992, by
2007 the proportion of faculty who had received their highest degrees from
Germany, France and other countries has increased. However, although thepercentage of faculty with their highest degree from the US has dropped from
4.7% in 1992 to 3.8% in 2007, the proportion of Japanese faculty members with
their highest degrees awarded by US universities still constitutes the biggest
share of the number awarded overseas in 2007.
Table 1. Percentage of Japanese faculty members withhighest degrees by country of award
Year
Country
Japan

1992

2007

94.5%

93.9%

4.7%

3.8%

0.2%

0.6%

0.3%

0.2%

0.2%

0.7%

0.2%

0.7%

**

US
Germany
UK
FranceOthersCount (n)

1821
1097
100.0%
100.0%
Note: In this and subsequent tables, the following
symbolism is used: *** p<0.001; ** p<0.01:* p<0.05.

Table 2. Faculty membership and participation in
professional organizations
Year
Items
1992
2007

To how many
international/scientificsocieties do you belong?
Mean
0.87
1.05

SD
1.23
1.132

During the past three years, how many
disciplinary/scientific conferences did
you attend outside?
Mean

SD***
1.47
2.53

3.4
3.315

Data analyses indicate that by 2007 faculty in Japan belonged to moreinternational/scientific societies and attended more disciplinary/scientificconferences abroad (Table 2). Significant differences are found in the data
concerning changes in the national sector (Table 3). From 1992 to 2007 theaverage number of attendances by members of faculty in both national research

102 The Internationalization of Japan’s Academic Profession 1992-2007

and national non-research universities at international conferences had increased
respectively from 2.48 to 4.69 and 1.11 to 2.17, however, the figures for theprivate sector show no significant change. It can be assumed that faculty
members in the national sector, especially in the national research institutions,have been more involved in participation in international conferences. This isprobably due to the facts that faculty members from the national institutions are
more research-oriented and that they can also generate more research grants.
Table 3. During the past three years, how many disciplinary/scientificconferences did you, as a member of faculty, attend overseas?
Year
Sector1992

2007

National Research Univ.

2.48

4.69

***

Private Research Univ.

3.41

3.16

n.s.

National Non-Research Univ.

1.11

2.17

**

Private Non-Research Univ.

1.11

1.63

n.s.

All Universities

1.47

2.53

Research
Even with the exception of the national research universities, significant
differences are found among the other three types of institutions in theimportance attached to international connections. As Table 4 shows, effective
differences exist between the national sector and the private sector. In contrast
to a slight drop in the proportion of faculty members in the private sector who
agree that “A scholar’s international connections are important in facultyevaluation at this institution”, more faculty members in the national non-research
universities agree with the statement, its proportion having grown from 58.9% in
1992 to 66.6% in 2007. It indicates that even faculty members who worked in
the non-research national universities tended to place an increased emphasis onbuilding up international connections from 1992 to 2007. However, it should
be noted that though there has been a decline in the percentage of faculty
members in both private research and private non-research universities agreeing
with the statement, a conclusion cannot be simply reached that a scholar’sinternational connections are not important in faculty evaluation in the private
sector, because data analyses show that more than half of the faculty members in
the private sector chose to agree with the statement: in the private research
universities especially, more than 70% of faculty members agree with thestatement. Interestingly, no correlation is found for the effects of field of study

Futao Huang 103

or academic rank on these responses for the period 1992 to 2007.
Table 4.

Year

1992

2007

“A scholar’s international connections are important in facultyevaluation at my institution”, by sector

Response

Agree
NeutralDisagree
Agree
NeutralDisagreeNational
Research
Univ.
79.2%
13.8%
4.6%
90.0%
5.4%
4.6%
n.s.

SectorPrivateNational
Research
Non-Research
Univ.
Univ.
73.2%
58.9%
21.1%
27.3%
5.6%
13.9%
72.3%
66.6%
21.5%
24.7%
6.2%
8.8%
**
*

PrivateNon-Research
Univ.
61.5%
29.3%
9.3%
55.5%
31.4%
13.1%
**

International dimensions of academic life
Effective responses are found from faculty when asked “How many times in
the past three years have you published articles or books in another country?”and have “…written an article or book in a language other than your mothertongue?” Table 5 indicates that faculty who participated in the 2007 survey not
only had published more articles or books abroad than their colleagues in 1992,
rising from an average of 1.68 times to 2.28 times, but also had written more
articles or books in a foreign language, with the average rising from 3.89 times to
5.93 times.
Table 5. “How many times in the past three years have you publishedoverseas or in a foreign language?”
QuestionsPublished articles or books
in another country?

Year
1992
2007

Mean
1.68
2.28

Written an article or book ina language other than yourmother tongue?

1992
2007

SD
4.50
6.45

**

3.89

6.97

***

5.93

9.61

Table 6 shows that the national sector is found to be significantly andpositively related in its responses to the question “How many times in the past
three years have you written an article or book in a language other than yourmother tongue?” but no significant differences are found among faculty in theprivate sector. Data analyses indicate that in 2007 faculty from the national
sector had written more articles or books in a foreign language than those in 1992,

104 The Internationalization of Japan’s Academic Profession 1992-2007

though faculty from the national research universities had written much morethan those from the national non-research universities. It seems that facultyfrom the former had contributed substantially to the increase in average numbersof writing articles or books in a foreign language by faculty in Japan over the last
15 years.
Table 6. “How many times have you written an article or book in alanguage other than your mother tongue (past three years)?”
University Sector
National Research
Private Research
National Non-Research
Private Non-Research
All Universities

1992
8.97
5.33
3.31
1.69
3.88

2007
12.09
6.56
5.48
2.6
5.93

***
n.s.
**
n.s.

Table 7 indicates that faculty participating in the 2007 survey had worked
collaboratively with an academic abroad for 2.7 months on average, whereas
faculty responding to the 1992 survey had done so for 1.49 months on average.
Further analyses by sector reveal that faculty from the national research
universities had considerably increased their time in working collaboratively
with academics abroad from 2.92 months in 1992 to 6.50 months in 2007 on
average. No significant correlation is found for faculty from the other types ofuniversities in this regard.
Table 7.

“For how many months have you worked collaboratively with anacademic from another country on a research project in past three
years?”
SectorYear

National Research Univ.
Private Research Univ.
National Non-Research Univ.
Private Non-Research Univ.
All Universities

1992
2.92
2.16
1.46
0.78
1.49

2007
6.5
1.3
1.84
1.81
2.7

**
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
***

In the three items of international activities considered in Table 8 significant
differences are found over the period 1992 to 2007 for all of them. As Table 8
indicates, there has been a rise in the proportion of faculty who agree that in their
institutions “International conferences and seminars have been held” (from23.1% to 31.0%), “Foreign students have been enrolled” (from 58.4% to 62.8%),
and “Our students have studied abroad” frequently (from 53.2% to 55.1%) from1992 to 2007. Apparently, more efforts have been made in individualFutao Huang 105

universities to facilitate international academic activities, especially in organizing
international meetings and enhancing mobility of students over the last 15 years.
However, while it is worth noting that more than half of universities have beenfrequently involved in activities in enrolling foreign students or sending theirstudents abroad from 1992 to 2007, and that there has been an increase in the
proportion of faculty who chose “Frequently” for these two items, yet nearly
40% of faculty chose “Occasionally” in respect of international conferences, andparticularly that there has been also a growth in the proportion of faculty whochose “Never” in regard to student activities.
Table 8. “During the past three years at your institution, how frequently havethe following occurred?”Foreignacademics havetaught courses
International
conferences andseminars havebeen held
Foreign students
have beenenrolled
Our students
have studied
abroadTotal
Responses

Year

Frequently

Occasionally

Rarely

Never

1992

43.2%

34.0%

11.4%

11.3%

1600

100.0%

2007

43.2%

32.9%

13.8%

10.1%

955

100.0%

1992

23.1%

39.5%

21.3%

16.1%

1560

100.0%

2007

31.0%

40.9%

17.6%

10.5%

939

100.0%

1992

58.4%

28.1%

10.5%

3.1%

1729

100.0%

2007

62.8%

26.8%

6.8%

3.6%

1024

100.0%

1992

53.2%

28.2%

13.9%

4.7%

1665

100.0%

2007

55.1%

29.0%

9.9%

6.0%

1000

100.0%

n.s.

***

**

*

Table 9 shows that significant changes have occurred in both private
research universities and national non-research universities in the enrollment offoreign students. Data analyses indicate that there has been a sharp drop in the
proportion of faculty from private research universities who chose “Frequently”
as an answer to the question “During the past three years at this institution, howfrequently have foreign students have been enrolled?” (from 73.9% to 39.6%),
and there has been a corresponding slight rise in the proportion of faculty fromthese institutions who chose “Never” as their answer (from 4.3% to 5.7%). This
indicates that although the revenue of the vast majority of private sector
universities in Japan is basically dependent on tuition and fees, including tuition
and fees charged to foreign students, it seems that in some private research
universities no increased efforts have been made to enroll foreign students overthe period 1992 to 2007. It might be assumed first that by 1992 these
universities had already enrolled a large number of, or enough foreign students,

106 The Internationalization of Japan’s Academic Profession 1992-2007

and therefore that it was not necessary for them to recruit more foreign students;and second that the majority of faculty from the private research universities
consider themselves to be researchers, just as do academics from the national
research universities, and as such they have a higher tendency to be involved
more with research activities rather than in making further endeavors to attract
foreign students to their courses. In contrast, it is a surprise to find that there
has been a remarkable growth in the proportion of faculty from national
non-research universities who chose the response of “Frequently” to the question(from 58.6% in 1992 to 72.2% in 2007). Evidently, those national non-research
universities have made enormous efforts in enrolling foreign students. Thismight be partly because there has been a decrease in the population of 18-year
olds in Japan, which may affect the numbers of new entries to local universities,
including the regional non-research national universities.
The national
non-research universities consequently have to compete for foreign students; andalso they have realized the importance of enrolling foreign students as one of themeans of implementing their internationalization strategies.
Table 9. “During the past three years, how frequently have foreign students
have been enrolled at your institution?”
University Sector

Year

Frequently

Occasionally

RarelyNever

National
Research

1992

77.4%

17.4%

2.8%

2.4%

2007

76.2%

21.6%

1.1%

1.1%

1992

73.9%

21.7%

0.0%

4.3%

2007

39.6%

37.7%

17.0%

5.7%

National
Non-Research

1992

58.6%

32.9%

6.1%

2.4%

2007

72.2%

21.8%

3.2%

2.8%

PrivateNon-Research

1992

49.4%

29.8%

17.1%

3.6%

2007

48.0%

33.7%

12.6%

5.7%

Private Research

n.s.

***

***
n.s.

In indicating their views on international exchange activities, significant
differences are found over the period 1992 to 2007 in each of the four items
detailed in Table 10. The responses indicate that in all four items there has beena decrease in the proportion of faculty who agree that: “Connections withscholars in other countries are very important to my professional work” (from62.7% to 53.3%); “In order to keep up with developments in my discipline, ascholar must read books and journals published abroad” (from 76.2% to70.5%);“Universities and colleges should do more to promote students and faculty
mobility from one country to another” (from 58.5% to 43.3%); and “The

Futao Huang 107
Table 10. Views on international exchange activities by year

Connections withscholars in othercountries are very
important to myprofessional work
In order to keep up
with developments
in my discipline, ascholar must readbooks and journals
published abroad
Universities andcolleges should domore to promotestudents andfaculty mobility
from one country
to another
The curriculum at
this institution
should be moreinternational in
focus

Total
Responses

Year

Agree

2

Neutral4

Disagree

1992

62.7%

25.2%

10.5%

0.9%

0.8%

1808

100.0%

2007

53.3%

28.8%

15.0%

1.9%

1.0%

1067

100.0%

1992

76.2%

17.0%

4.7%

1.2%

0.9%

1804

100.0%

2007

70.5%

21.4%

6.3%

1.1%

0.7%

1068

100.0%

1992

58.5%

29.2%

11.6%

0.5%

0.2%

1806

100.0%

2007

43.3%

34.7%

20.3%

1.2%

0.5%

1063

100.0%

1992

35.6%

30.9%

31.1%

1.6%

0.8%

1765

100.0%

2007

25.3%

26.9%

41.1%

3.9%

2.8%

1060

100.0%

***

**

***

***

Note: Responses were on a 5-point scale from 1 = Agree to 5 = Disagree.

curriculum at this institution should be more international in focus” (from 35.6%
to 25.3%) from 1992 to 2007. Especially, not only has the proportion of facultyagreeing with “The curriculum at this institution should be more international infocus” fallen, but also neither has the proportion of faculty who chose to agreewith the statement surpassed 40% of the total during either of the two surveys.
Various assumptions can be made concerning the data. For example, theresponses may be because faculty thought their institutions had made splendid
achievements in these aspects, therefore no more efforts should be made; or
because the large majority of them did not have a full understanding of themeaning or importance of a further internationalization of the curriculum in their
institutions; or possibly because they doubted the necessity of facilitating it intheir institutions as they felt that they had profited little or not at all from it.
However, it is worth noting that while there has been a slight rise in the
proportion of faculty who disagree with the statements, with the exception of theneed to publish abroad, for all four of the statements those disagreeing constitute108 The Internationalization of Japan’s Academic Profession 1992-2007a very small percentage (less than 3%) of the total. Moreover, more than half of
faculty agree with the first and second statements.
Table 11.

Views on “The curriculum at your institution should be moreinternational in its focus” by Sector

University Sector

Year

Agree

2

National
Research
National
Non-Research

3

4Disagree1992 40.7% 31.1% 25.5% 1.2%
1.6%
2007 33.5% 26.6% 35.1% 2.7%
2.1%
1992 34.9% 31.0% 31.6% 1.9%
0.6%
2007 22.4% 26.7% 42.5% 5.0%
3.4%
1992 42.3% 22.5% 33.8% 0.0%
1.4%
Private Research2007 23.1% 23.1% 40.4% 7.7%
5.8%
Private1992 33.5% 31.5% 32.7% 1.6%
0.6%
Non-Research2007 24.9% 27.9% 42.4% 2.7%
2.1%
Note: Responses were on a 5-point scale from 1 = Agree to 5 = Disagree].

Total
Responses
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%

n.s
***
*
***

Responses in respect of the international character of the curriculum aregiven in Table 11. They indicate that, except for the national research
universities, significant differences are found in the other three types of
institutions. Data analyses illustrate that, even if the proportion of faculty whochoose “2” (agree somewhat) and “Disagree” make up less than 15% of the total
in 2007, there has been an increase in the proportion of faculty who holdnegative views on any further effort being made to stimulate theinternationalization of the curriculum in their institutions. This is especiallyevident in private research universities. The proportion of faculty from this
sector who agree with the statement has decreased from 42.3% in 1992 to 23.1%
in 2007, with a corresponding increase in the proportion of faculty who choose to
disagree with the statement (from 1.4% in 1992 to 5.8% in 2007).

Conclusion and implications
There are several major findings from the analysis of statements andquestions concerning the internationalization of the academic profession in Japan.
First, over the period 1992 to 2007, much progress has been made in theinternational dimension of academic life and work at an individual level and in
the internationalization of teaching and research activities at an institutional level.
An increased number of faculty members has been awarded their highest degree
abroad. Faculty members have been more involved with international academic
activities through participating in international societies, attending international

Futao Huang 109

conferences, and working collaboratively with an academic abroad. By 2007
they had published more articles or books abroad, and had written more articles
or books in a foreign language than their colleagues in 1992. It is worth notingthat more effort had been made in the majority of institutions to carry out
international academic activities, especially in organizing international
meetings, enrolling foreign students, and sending local students abroad.
Second, faculty members from the national institutions - and in particular thosefrom the national research universities - had played a vital role in stimulating theinternationalization of the academic profession in Japan, especially in research
activities. Faculty members from the national research universities had
participated more in international conferences, had published more articles andbooks abroad, written articles and books in a foreign language, and worked
collaboratively with an academic abroad. More importantly, in comparison
with the private sector, faculty members from the national non-research
universities had enrolled international students more frequently.
More
surprisingly, in comparison with those from the private sector, by 2007 there had
been an increase in the number of faculty members from national non-research
universities who recognize that “A scholar’s international connections areimportant in faculty evaluation at this institution”.
Third, while theinternationalization of the academic profession in Japan has advanced greatly,
especially in research activities, compared with 1992, in 2007 fewer faculty
members have maintained a positive or supportive attitude towards further efforts
being made to facilitate internationalization of academic life at an individuallevel and internationalization of Japanese higher education in specific areas at an
institutional level. Especially there has been a clear drop in the number offaculty members, notably from the private research universities, who agreed thatthe curriculum at their institutions should be more international in focus.
The results of this study have some implications for higher education
policies and institutional reforms. One of the most important implications is aneed for further stimulation of mass internationalization. As mentioned earlier,though different sectors and different types of institutions have played different
roles in Japan’s higher education system, due to various reasons such as their
history, institutional missions, financial constraints, and social expectations, it isunnecessary and impossible for all faculty members to achieve the same highlevel of internationalization in their academic life, teaching and research
activities.
However, with increased impact from globalization andinternationalization, it is generally acknowledged that integrating international
dimensions and perspectives into faculty members’ academic life, educational

110 The Internationalization of Japan’s Academic Profession 1992-2007

and research activities has an increasingly decisive and positive impact inassuring and improving the quality of educational and research activities,
producing higher-level graduates and building up centres of learning worldwide.
Therefore, the policy of internationalization should not be constrained only to avery few limited leading research universities or be restricted to a few selected
key national institutions with the intent of training an elite. It is important forgovernment to formulate well-defined policy for mass internationalization of theacademic profession across all types of institution. Colleges and universities
need to encourage and assist faculty to integrate international perspectives anddimensions in their teaching and research.

References
Arimoto, A., & Ehara, T. (eds.) (1996). Daigaku kyojushoku no kokusai hikaku [Academic
profession in the comparative perspectives]. Tokyo: Tamagawa University Press (inJapanese).
Ebuchi, K. (1997). Daigaku kokusaika no kenkyu [Research in internationalization ofuniversity]. Tokyo: Tamagawa University Press (in Japanese).
Huang, F. (2006a). Internationalization of university curriculum in Japan: Major policies andpractice since the 1980s. Journal of Studies in International Education, 10(2), 102-118.
Huang, F. (2006b). Internationalization of curricula in higher education institutions incomparative perspectives: Case studies of China, Japan and the Netherlands. Higher
Education, 51, 521-539.
Huang, F. (2006c). The academic profession in Japan: Major characteristics and new changes.
In Research Institute for Higher Education (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.195-208). RIHE,
Hiroshima University.
Huang, F. (2007a). Internationalization of higher education in the era of globalization: What
have been its implications in China and Japan? Higher Education Management andPolicy, 19(1), 47-61.
Huang, F. (2007b). Challenges of internationalization of higher education and changes in theacademic profession: A perspective from Japan. In M. Kogan & U. Teichler (eds.), Key
challenges to the academic profession, UNESCO forum on higher education research andknowledge (pp.81-98). Paris and Kassel: International Centre for Higher Education
Research Kassel.
Huang, F. (2008). Kokusaika. In A. Arimoto (ed.), Henbo suru nihon no daigaku kyoujyusyoku

Futao Huang 111[The changing academic profession in Japan] (pp.279-311). Tokyo: Tamagawa Press (inJapanese).
Huang, F. (2009). The internationalization of the academic profession in Japan: A quantitative
perspective. Journal of Studies in International Education, 13(2), 143-158.
Kurimoto, K. (1997). Internationalization of the national university sector in Japan. In J.
Knight & de Wit, H. (eds.), Internationalisation of higher education in Asia Pacificcountries (pp.100-101). Amsterdam: EAIE.
MEXT (2008). Japan statistical abstract. Tokyo: National Printing Bureau (in Japanese).
Yamanoi, A. (2005). Ninhon no daigaku kyoujyu shijyo [The academic marketplace in Japan].
Tokyo: Tamagawa University Press (in Japanese).

RIHE International Seminar Reports, No.13, 2009 113

The Internationalization of the American Faculty:
where are we, what drives or deters us?

Martin J. Finkelstein∗, Elaine Walker∗∗, and Rong Chen∗∗∗Introduction
In 1992, the original survey of international faculty by the Carnegie
Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching hit at least one discordant note indescribing a strong – even a comparatively pre-eminent – corps of half a million
scholars that made up the American faculty: whatever their scientific andscholarly accomplishments, as reflected in a disproportionate share ofinternational prizes such as the Nobel, American professors tended to berelatively insular and provincial in their orientation, turning inward in a kind ofself-reflexive, if not narcissistic, gaze rather than outward to the larger world.
Indeed, Altbach and Lewis (1996) reported that only about one in three American
faculty had taken at least one trip abroad for study or research – securing for the
U.S. a position in last place among the fourteen countries studied, just behind
Russia and Brazil, but 30-40% behind half the countries.1 Moreover, the UnitedStates also came in last in the proportion of faculty reporting that “connections
with scholars in other countries are very important to my professional work”(about half compared to more than four-fifths in all other countries except theUK) (Altbach & Lewis, 1996). While this may reflect to some extent the large∗

Professor, College of Education and Human Services, Seton Hall University, USA, e-mail:finkelma@shu.edu∗∗
Associate Professor, Department of Education Leadership, Management & Policy, Seton
Hall University, USA, e-mail: walkerel@shu.edu∗∗∗
Assistant Professor, College of Education and Human Services, Seton Hall University, USA,e-mail: chenrong@shu.edu
1
The thirteen countries included Australia, Brazil, Chile, England (UK), Germany, Hong
Kong, Israel, Japan, Korea, Mexico, Russia and Sweden in addition to the U.S.

113

114 The Internationalization of the American Faculty

segment of the American professorate working outside the research university
sector vis-à-vis other nations, this inward orientation more likely parallels, andindeed reflects, a sense of the U.S. as the ‘center’ of the scientific – andeconomic universe.
Since 1992, of course, the world has changed, with the emergence of free
trade, the internet, and the increasingly globalized, knowledge-based, corporate
economy (Slaughter & Rhoads, 2004). Science and technology are now
globalized to a greater extent than ever and, as William Cummings (2008) has
shown, the center of gravity for scientific research and development isdemonstrably shifting away from the U.S. toward Asia, and to a lesser extent,
Europe and Australia. In the context of these developments what would once
have been considered a mildly disturbing, but relatively harmless,self-indulgence would now be considered a potentially serious disability – onewith potentially far-reaching consequences for the future of America’s role inscientific research and development. To what extent has the American
academic community adapted to the emerging shift in the center of gravity of theworld economy and the global scientific enterprise, the emergence of a‘post-American’ world (Zakaria, 2008)?
To what extent are American
academics more integrated now into the international scientific order in theirresearch and scholarship? In their teaching and, ipso facto, their socialization of
the next generation of American academics and professionals?
Whatdistinguishes the ‘internationalists’ among the American faculty from their moreinsular peers? And to the extent that internationalization in research andteaching is increasingly recognized by American college presidents and thefederal government as a key to the future for American economic
competitiveness and constructive foreign relations, how, from a national andinstitutional policy perspective, can an increasing focus on internationalization be
nurtured and advanced in the U.S.?
The first seeds of answers to questions like these are contained in a newinternational survey, the Changing Academic Profession, undertaken in 2007 as a
fifteen-year follow-up to the original 1992 Carnegie Foundation International
Faculty Survey. Several senior colleagues who participated in the 1992-93
survey, including Ulrich Teichler at Kassel University, Juergen Enders at the
University of Twente, Akira Arimoto originally at Hiroshima University and now
at Hijiyama University, and William Cummings of George Washington
University, organized a group of 19 countries committed to carrying out afollow-up 2007 survey, entitled “The Changing Academic Profession” [CAP].
A ten member executive committee (representing researchers in Japan, China,

Martin J. Finkelstein et al.

115

Mexico, India, Germany, United Kingdom, and the U.S.) met three times
between 2005-07 in order to design a common sampling protocol acrosscountries as well as a common survey instrument – to ensure genuine
comparability of the findings across countries. The sampling protocol iscomplicated by the fact that in some countries, such as Japan, there is an easily
accessible government listing of all full-time faculty in universities from which arandom sample can be readily drawn. In others, such as the U.S., there is nosuch list and we need to engage in a two-stage process of sampling institutions
and then, within institutions, sample faculty so as to ensure that important
subgroups, e.g. minority scientists, are adequately represented. The protocol
does however set standards across countries for minimizing sampling error andassuring over-sampling of critical subgroups.
The CAP survey instrument focused on three overarching themes –relevance, internationalization and managerialism – identified in a jointly
authored Concept Paper that provides the overall intellectual framework for the
research.2 Relevance, broadly conceived, refers to increasing pressures globallyfor higher education to visibly support economic competitiveness as well associal progress. Internationalization refers to the increasing permeability ofnational boundaries in faculty research and teaching and the increasing mobilityof students and faculty across borders. Managerialism refers to changes ingovernance that have increased the role of administrators and government
entities at the expense of faculty. Most generally, the instrument sought to chartchanges in the pressures experienced by faculty and the responses to thosepressures reflected in their work behavior and career trajectories. The
instrument was organized to permit the analysis of trends over time in three
ways: (1) there are several items that replicate those in the 1992-93 survey
allowing for straightforward historical comparisons between the two surveys3;(2) there are a few items that ask respondents to assess current conditions ascompared to those when they began their careers, i.e. indicators of perceived
change; and (3) a comparison of the responses of faculty in different academic
generations, i.e. those whose entries into academic careers occurred at different
points of historical time.

2

The concept paper, entitled “The Shifting Boundaries of the Academic Profession” (July,2005) is available by request from wkcum@gwu.edu.
3
Unfortunately, the three items related to internationalization of teaching and research that are
replicated in the 2007 have serious ‘missing data’ problems in the 1992 U.S. survey.

116 The Internationalization of the American Faculty

Population and sampling
The highly decentralized American system includes some 655,000 facultyon full-time appointment at nearly 4,000 corporately independent institutions,which vary in their size and degree level (from large universities offering
doctoral level education to small colleges focusing on baccalaureate level
education), on the one hand, and in their control (whether governed and fundedby public entities or private entities such as churches), on the other. Having
stratified the institutional universe according to these two characteristics –size/degree level and control – a total of 80 institutions across these four strata4
were selected and their faculty lists secured on-line. Having determined the
proportion of full-time faculty in the population in each of the four institutional
strata so defined, a random sample of faculty was selected within each
institutional stratum so as to approximate in our sample to the proportions in theacademic 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 (the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences) to program and hostthe on-line American English version of the CAP survey. All sections and items
required for the international data-set were included, although the order of the six
sections of the survey was modified to avoid asking uninspiring career resume
and demographic questions at the beginning. In addition, in collaboration with
Canada and Mexico, several ‘North American’ questions were added including
race/ethnicity, geographic region of North America, and details of researchcollaborations specific to the three countries. The on-line survey was‘programmed’ to require that respondents answer questions on a given screen
before proceeding to the next screen. Moreover, the programming also
specified acceptable ranges of values for responses (you could not report yourfirst academic appointment as 1970 and your baccalaureate degree receipt in2007). This approach served to infuriate a few respondents (and depress the
response rate, perhaps), but, more importantly, to reduce missing data and data4

We had originally planned to select 100 institutions to include 20 research institutes.
Insofar as the research institute sample was abandoned, we were then left with a total
institutional sample of 80 colleges and universities.

Martin J. Finkelstein et al.

117

incongruities (problems in the 1992 U.S. survey). The survey link with anindividually coded identifier was e-mailed to all 5,772 faculty on October 3,
2007. A total of five reminders was 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.

Theoretical framework
This paper focuses on
two broad aspects of American facultyinternationalization: (1) the extent to which faculty have internationalized thecontent of their academic work as reflected in (a) the extent to which they
integrate international perspectives into their course content, and (b) the extent towhich their research is international in scope or focus; and (2) the extent to which
faculty have internationalized the scholarly networks within which they work as
reflected in (a) collaboration on research projects with international colleagues,(b) co-authorship of scholarly publication with foreign colleagues, and (c)publication in foreign countries. These aspects were chosen both because they
constitute the basic dimensions of faculty work and because they permitted broad
comparability with the earlier Carnegie international faculty survey.
The design of this study was shaped, most generally, by the available
literature on the determinants of academic work and careers in the United States.5
Burton Clark first postulated the critical roles of institutional type and academic
field as forming the two major axes that differentiate the American academic
profession. Faculty at research universities perform different and more complex
roles than faculty at other four-year institutions or at two-year colleges.
Moreover, the shaping force of institutional type is mediated by the shaping
influence of academic field: faculty in the natural sciences engage infundamentally different kinds of work activities and share different norms forteaching and research activity than faculty in the humanities and social sciences.
This disciplinary socialization typically occurs well before one takes up a first
5

See, for example, Logan Wilson, American Academics: Then and Now (1979); Burton Clark,
Academic Life: Small Worlds, Little Worlds (1986); Martin Finkelstein, The American
Academic Profession (1984); Robert Blackburn and Janet Lawrence, Faculty Work (1995);
James Fairweather, Faculty Work and the Public Trust (1996); Jack Schuster and Martin
Finkelstein, The American Faculty (2006).

118 The Internationalization of the American Faculty

faculty appointment, during the graduate school period – and even during theundergraduate period. Thus, academic field represents the culmination of asocialization process begun much earlier. Within the shaping contexts ofinstitutional type and academic field, the literature on the American academic
profession also suggests that, at the individual level, faculty professional
orientations to tasks like teaching and research, individual political and social
values tend to further differentiate the nature and focus of academic work andcareers.6 More recently, the infusion of women into the American academic
profession as well as modest increases in foreign-born and minority faculty haveunderscored the power of demographic differences as arbiters of the selection offaculty to academic fields and institutional types – adding demographic factors asfilters into individual niches in the academic firmament – as well as conveyors of
their own distinction and shaping socialization onto the individual academic roleand career.7
Based on this reading of the literature, this study conceptualized a four stage
model for understanding the nature and extent of individual facultyinternationalization in their teaching and research. The model proceeded frombasic demographic ‘givens’ (including gender, race, age) through educationalsocialization experiences (place of birth and early education, place of doctoral
education, choice of academic discipline, experience abroad), which we know toshape ultimate disciplinary and institutional affiliation, to institutional pressuresat current employers (institutional type, especially research university vs. otheracademic settings; increased presence of international students; administrative vs.
faculty driven leadership of internationalization initiatives at the institutional
level), and the specific nature of the current work role – relative orientation toteaching vs. research, level of teaching assignment (undergraduate vs. graduate),level of research involvement, primary focus of research (basic vs. applied vs.
commercial) – as determinants of faculty internationalization. The basic model isdepicted in Figure 1.

Independent or predictor variables
Within the bounds of the core CAP survey instrument, we initially selected a
set of independent variables that operationalized each of the four stages ordimensions of the model predicting faculty internationalization in their teaching
6
7

Finkelstein (1984) and Finkelstein (2008).
Schuster & Finkelstein (2006). Gappa, Austin & Trice (2007).

Martin J. Finkelstein et al.

119120 The Internationalization of the American Faculty

and research. The independent variables included were as shown in Table 1.
Table 1. Independent variables

Demographics

Early
Socialization
andEducational
Background

F1

GenderF3

Marital/family status (married or not)

F4

Spouse employed?

F5

Academic partner/spouse?

F6

Children <18 at home?

F8-3

Spouse’s education level

F14

Racial/ethnic background

A1

Year of highest degree (post 2000, 1990-1999,
pre-1990)

A6-2

Year of first faculty appointment

A4

2-5 Years since 1st degree employed outsidehigher education

F9a-1

F9a.1 Non-U.S at birth

Nativity: Citizenship

F9b-1

Non-U.S. at birth

Nativity: Residence

F10

Mother tongue: English vs. otherFirst language
socialization

F9b-1
F9b-2
A1-5b
F13

Institutional
Pressure

Current work
situation

Citizenship at time of 1st degree (U.S. vs.
foreign)
Residence at time of 1st degree (U.S. vs.
foreign)
Earned doctorate or other advanced
professional degree outside U.S.
Years post 1st degree living and working
outside U.S.

F11

Primary teaching language (non-English)

F12

Primary research language

A2-bCurrent teaching unit

A9

Carnegie/NCES institutional type

A9a

E4-7

Region in which institution is located
Who has primary influence on ‘Establishinginternational linkages’? (Individual faculty
vs. admin)
Level of institutional support for teaching

E4-8

Level of institutional support for research

E1

E5

Admin supports academic freedom

A7

Full-time or not

A11

Tenured, tenureable or term?

A8

Concurrent employment (yes or no)

Undergraduate
Socialization

Graduate/Doctoral(Post 1st degree)
Socialization

Martin J. Finkelstein et al.
C1

Level of students taught

B2

Orientation to teaching vs. research

B4-1

Importance of academic field

B2
D2
D1
D3

121

Interest primarily in teaching or research?
Emphasis of primary research (basic vs.
applied? disciplinary or multi? Commercial vs.
social)Collaborate or not on research (a generalfactor)Involvement in research activities

Data analysis
The data analysis proceeded in two basic stages: a descriptive stage inwhich we sought to compare faculty internationalization in work content andprofessional networks in 1992 to that in 2007 as well as to describe the basic
frequencies for the 2007 data; and a multivariate analysis stage in which wesought to identify and test the predictors of American faculty internationalizationin 2007. The independent and dependent variables – with the exception ofyears since the first faculty appointment – were dichotomized through are-coding procedure. The specifications of that recoding are included in an
Appendix.
The descriptive stage began with the running of basic frequencies andcross-tabulations on the independent and dependent variables.
In themultivariate inferential stage, a matrix of point biserial correlations was also
computed producing Spearman Rho’s, which were tested for statisticalsignificance. In doing so, the authors sought to identify the most powerfulpotential predictors of the dependent variables as well as to identify potential
situations of multicollinearilty among the predictors. The investigators selected
the maximum number of predictors based on whether statistical significance withthe dependent variables emerged in the cross-tabulations and correlation matrices.
These predictors were then entered into a four-stage logistic regression model.
Based on an examination of the initial results of these regression analyses,
including the resultant number of cases for each dependent variable (incomparison to the number of predictors) and the multicollinearity statistics, werevised and re-ran the logistic regression models for each dependent variable inan effort to eliminate any multicollinearity problems and achieve optimal
parsimony in the predictors.

122 The Internationalization of the American Faculty

Results
SampleOf the e-mailed invitations to the U.S. faculty sample of 5,772, 707‘bounced’ back largely as a function of being SPAMMED by the internal
university e-mail systems. Of the 5,065 that actually made their way into
faculty ‘inboxes’, completed responses were received from 1,048 respondents fora response rate of 20.7%. Up to an additional 50 respondents answered morethan 80% of the survey and were included where appropriate in this analysis.
The March, 2008 paper follow-up yielded a very small increment of 36
additional respondents, bringing the total number of respondents to 1,084 for an
overall response rate of 21.4%.
While such a response rate would typically be viewed as quite low for apaper survey, the literature suggests that response rates for on-line surveys in the
Unites States tend to be considerably lower than for paper surveys – in the rangeof 10-30%. Moreover, as a result of increased annoyance with SPAM andincreased concerns about privacy and identity theft on the Internet, these on-line
response rates have been declining over time. Our rate falls squarely within theacceptable range for on-line surveys.
Table 2. Faculty sample and respondents by institutional type
Institution TypeN

SampleRespondents

Total

PublicPrivate

N

%

Total

%

Research Universities

29

21

8

2718

47.1%

499

46.0%

Other four-year

51

26

25

3054

52.9%

585

54.0%

Doctor granting

11

6

5

1014

17.6%

349

32.2%

Master offering

28

17

11

1440

24.9%

260

24.0%

Baccalaureate

12

3

9

600

10.4%

38

3.5%

80

47

33

5772

100.0%

1084

100.0%All

Table 2 provides a comparison of our respondents to the entire sample. It
suggests that our respondents mirror the basic distribution of the sample between
research universities and other four-year institutions. Among other four-year
institutions, however, faculty at doctoral granting universities tend to beover-represented among respondents (32.2% vs. 17.6% in the sample) and facultyat baccalaureate colleges tend to be under-represented among respondents (3.5%Martin J. Finkelstein et al.

123

vs. 10.4 % in the faculty sample). Faculty at public institutions are slightly
over-represented among respondents (67.1%) compared to the sample (62.4%)
and faculty in the private sector slightly under-represented among respondents(32.9%) compared to the faculty sample (37.6%). Based on these findings, anda desire for simplicity, the data file was weighted to ensure that respondents
represented the distribution of the faculty sample across institutional types.
Phase I. Descriptive analysis results
To what extent has American faculty increased its internationalization inwork content and professional networks over the past fifteen years? A directcomparison of the 1992 and 2007 survey responses is complicated by two factors.
First, there is the lack of basic comparability of the items. While the 2007
survey inquired about the “teaching of courses abroad” (which might be
exclusively for students from, and sponsored by, one’s home institution), the1992 survey inquired about “organizing a class for students from anothercountry,” or “serving as a faculty member at an institution in another country”.
While the 2007 survey inquired most generally about the “number of years spentabroad after receipt of the baccalaureate degree” (whether working on academic
or non-academic remunerative activities, traveling for pleasure, or studying), the1992 survey inquired about “spending a sabbatical abroad,” and “travelingabroad to study or do research”. Only three items from the two surveys are
directly comparable: the first, focused on “collaborative research efforts withacademics from another country”; the second, focused on whether respondents
had “published books or articles in another country”; and the third, on whether
respondents had “published an article or book in a language other than yourmother tongue”. These are all research – related items and are not applicable tothe one-third of our 2007 respondents who did not report any involvement inresearch. Moreover, a comparison of the 1992 and 2007 surveys on even thesethree items is problematic given the extent of the missing data reported for all theinternational activity items in the 1992 survey. More than half of all
respondents in 1992 did not answer these questions. If, as it seems likely to theauthors, the vast majority of non-respondents would have entered “none” or“zero,” then percentages based on such distorted frequencies are surely
over-estimates – probably gross over-estimates – rendering direct comparisons of
dubious credibility.
The authors pursued an alternative strategy – albeit an imperfect one – todirectly comparing percentages on the three identical items related to in facultyinternationalization in both the 1992 and the 2007 surveys. Table 3 shows a124 The Internationalization of the American Faculty

breakdown of basic faculty internationalization in teaching and research in 2007
by academic generation or career stage. When we speak of academic
generation or career stage, we are simply distinguishing here between the recent
cohort of faculty hired since 20008 (whom we shall refer to as new entrants) andthose more seasoned faculty who entered the profession before 2000 (whom weshall refer to as senior faculty). Most of the latter would likely have received
tenure (or have moved on). Our assumption is that if there are dramaticchanges in the extent of faculty internationalization, they would most likely bereflected among the more recent cohorts of new hires – just as these new cohorts
reflect quite dramatically a greater feminization, a greater search for work-family
life balance, and a keen appreciation of the research pressures under which thesystem increasingly operates. While we concede (and our subsequently
reported findings corroborate) that more experienced faculty may develop new
interests in internationalizational activities later in their careers, suggesting that a
career developmental component may complicate any cross-sectional new/seniorfaculty comparisons in 2007, we would remind the reader that change in theacademic profession has historically been associated with generational change
rather than the reform of (or developmental change over time in) the extant
corpus of the faculty.
When we focus particularly on their international experience (these are,after all the faculty, who will staff American universities in the age ofglobalization), the data in Table 3 paint, on the face of it, a troubling picture.
Table 3. Internationalization by academic generation, 2007

C4/5

8

Work content
In your courses you emphasize
New
international perspectives or
Entrants
content
Strongly agree
76
Agree
85
Neutral78
Disagree48
Strongly disagree
18
305

%

SeniorFaculty

%

25%
28%
26%
16%
6%
100%

205
262
246
107
60
880

23%
30%
28%
12%
7%
100%

Seven years is the typical ‘probationary’ period for a newly-hired full-time faculty memberin the American system at which point a decision ‘to tenure or not’ (i.e. award a permanent
appointment) is made. This is how American universities typically distinguish between‘junior’ (i.e. probationary) and senior faculty.

Martin J. Finkelstein et al.

D2/5

D1
D1/4

D5

Your primary research isinternational in scope ororientation
Very much
Somewhat
Neutral
Negative
Not at all
Total

New
Entrants
42
41
48
42
40
213

%
20%
19%
23%
20%
19%
100%

SeniorFaculty
147
161
131
94
180
713

Professional networks
Collaborate on research with international colleagues?
Yes
61
25%
256
No
179
75%
449
N
240
100%
705

125

%
21%
23%
18%
13%
25%
100%

36%
64%
100%

Among your publications, whatpercentage was
N
Mean
Std
N
Mean
Std
Published in foreign language?
211
2.94
13.795652
2.62 11.858
Co-authored with foreign203
5
14.661642
6.05 16.431
colleagues?
Published in foreign country?
206
8.08
20.633637
7.96 19.327
Note: Designations on the left-hand side of the Table identify questions in the CAP survey.

The new entrants are as likely as their senior colleagues to report publishingin a foreign country (about 8%). More ominously, they are less likely to reportthat their research is international in scope or orientation (39% vs. 44% among
senior faculty), and less likely to report collaboration on research withinternational colleagues (25% vs. 36% among senior faculty).
While it is not clear to what extent the relatively short duration of theircareers to date is artificially truncating their collegial relationships and what may
be fledgling developmental interests in the international arena, nonetheless there
does not appear to be any clear new departure here with respect to international
linkages. It should be noted that new entrants do demonstrate clear departuresfrom their more senior colleagues in other, visible respects, including theirgender distribution, the types of appointments they hold (more likely fixed
contract rather than tenure-eligible); so that with some allowance for theirrelative inexperience, the lack of significant cross-sectional differences ininternationalization of teaching and research between new and senior faculty in
the U.S. can reasonably be interpreted as a finding of a “no significant
differences” trend.

126 The Internationalization of the American Faculty
Table 4. Faculty internationalization by country, 2007
Work Content
Professional Network
Do youPublication
Publication
In yourYour
course you
primary
collaborate with coauthored with published inemphasize
research isinternational
colleagues
a foreigninternational international
colleagues inlocated in othercountry
perspectives
in scope or
research?
(foreign)
or content
orientation
countries
Item & C4-5/T-48/1-5 D2-5/T-52/1-5
D1-4/T-51
D5-3/T-57
D5-4/T-57
scale
scale
scale
percent
percent in allpercent in allarithmeticarithmetic
publications
publications
mean
mean
Argentina
2.3
2.8
47
8.7
29.6
Australia
2.1
2.2
59
12.7
31
Brazil
2.5
3.5
30
5.4
17.4
Canada
2.3
2.6
64
12.7
31.9
China
2.1
2.1
13
1.1
11.6
Finland
2.5
2.5
70
15.5
46.1
Germany
2.2
2.5
58
20.6
43.3
Hong
Kong,
2.1
2.3
60
15.7
69.9
China
Italy
2.3
2
59
14.7
46.3
Japan
2.5
2.8
24
7.6
19.6
Korea
2.1
3.1
29
6.2
25.6
Malaysia
2.3
2.6
32
7.6
21.2
Mexico
1.9
3
35
9.6
31.2
Norway
2.2
2.2
67
19.9
52.2
Portugal
1.8
1.9
32
46.5
20.2
United
2.2
2.3
61
12.2
21.8
Kingdom
United
2.5
3.1
33
5
7
States
Source: Kassel University (2008).

We cannot leave this descriptive portrait without underlining thecomparative position of the American faculty on a variety of indicators ofinternationalization of teaching and research vis-à-vis the sixteen other countries
for which data are currently available from the 2007 CAP survey. Table 4shows U.S. faculty to be last on “the percentage of articles published in a foreigncountry” (7%), among the bottom 3-4 countries in percentage of teaching courses
abroad (17%), percentage of publications co-authored with foreign colleagues(5%), mean agreement that “my research is primarily international in scope”(3.1/5.0 with “1” as strongly agree) and among the bottom half of countries in thepercentage reporting collaboration with international colleagues in research(33%) and mean agreement that international perspectives are emphasized inMartin J. Finkelstein et al.

127

their courses (2.5/5.0 with “1” as “strongly agree” and “3” as neutral;).
Moreover, when we return to the tables developed by Altbach and Lewis (1996)
comparing American faculty with those in 13 other countries in 1992, we find,once again, that the comparative position of the U.S. has not changed much. In
1992, American faculty (along with Russian, Brazilian and Mexican faculty)
were half as likely as European, Asian (Japanese, Hong Kong, Korean,
Australian) and Israeli faculty to report one or more months spent abroad instudy or research and only two-thirds as likely as faculty in all 13 other countries
to report that “connections with scholars in other countries were very importantto their professional work” (only the UK was close). Once again, the case forminimal change seems to be reasonably supported.
Phase II. Logistic regression analysis
While, then, the American academic profession appears to be maintaining
its comparative insularity from the world, the 2007 CAP survey in the U.S. founda significant segment of faculty who reported that they had integrated
international perspectives into the content of their courses (some 53%) and about
one-third of those who are active in research (two-thirds of all respondents are‘active’) reported that they collaborated and/or co-published with foreigncolleagues. Is there something distinctive about these emerging subgroups ofinternationalists among the American faculty? In addressing this question, we
examined two categories of variables: (1) the extent to which international
perspectives shaped the content of faculty teaching or their research; and (2) the
extent to which national boundaries restricted faculty professional networks orwere relatively permeable (i.e. the extent to which they collaborated with foreigncolleagues in research).
Dependent variable: international perspectives are integrated into my courses
Table 5 below reports the results of the logistic regression analysis for the
dependent variable “In your courses, you emphasize international perspectives orcontent”. Although the two predictors in the demographic model (model 1)
attain statistical significance, both lose their significant predictive power whenentered into subsequent regression equations where other independent variables
are controlled. In the base model, the odds ratio suggested that females weremore likely to focus their teaching on international issues; and that individual
faculty who had no children present at home were more likely to incorporate
international issues into their teaching than those with children present.
However, given the fact that the effects of both demographic variables dissipate

128 The Internationalization of the American Facultywhen other predictors are held constant in all subsequent models, not much canbe made of these significant effects in terms of the postulated conceptual model.
The socialization variables of years spent abroad are significant factors that
help explain why some faculty incorporate international issues in their teaching,while others do not. Specifically, those faculty who have spent one to two
years abroad, post-baccalaureate, are almost twice as likely as those with no time
abroad to incorporate international issues into their teaching (exp (B) =1.934).
More strikingly, those with three or more years abroad are 2.6 times more likely
to include international themes in the content of their courses (see the results forthe second model reported in Table 5). These two socialization variables
remain significant in their effects even after we control for institutional pressuresand current work role (refer to the fourth model in Table 5). Faculty who are
engaged in teaching subjects outside the STEM9 fields (i.e. the humanities andsocial sciences) are more apt to address global issues in their classes than those in
the STEM fields (this independent variable is significant in models 2, 3 and 4
respectively). Two of the current work role variables related to faculty researchinterests were found to have significant bearing on this outcome variable.
These are: (i) the primary research focus is on commercial issues; and (ii) the
major thrust of research is directed to the betterment of society. In bothinstances, the odds ratios are in favor of those individuals who cite these areas as
the primary focus of their research. The institutional pressure variable – anincrease in the presence of international students – was not a significant predictor
for this dependent variable; nor was the independent variable of faculty being the
primary driver of internationalization efforts on campus.
Table 5.

Logistic regression results for dependent variable: ‘courses emphasizeinternational perspectives or content’ (N=854)
Logistic Models

Model 1 ( Demographic Variables )MaleHave Children at Home
Constant
Model 2 (Early Socialization and Educational Background
Variables)
Male
Have Children at Home9exp (B)

Standard
Error

.696*
.637*
6.131

.183
.177
.163

.793
.714

.194
.184

STEM is the acronym for ‘science, technology, engineering and mathematics’ employed by
the National Science Foundation in the U.S.

Martin J. Finkelstein et al.

129

U.S. citizen at birth
1.016
.302
Degree obtained in the U.S.
1.445
.519
Years abroad post baccalaureate (1-2 years)
1.934**.280
Years abroad post baccalaureate (3+ years)
2.609**.324
Discipline: STEM
.307**.202
Constant
4.012.558
Model 3 (Demographics, early socialization and institutionalpressure variables)
Male
.787
.195
Have Children at Home
.737
.186
U.S. citizen at birth
.965
.306
Degree obtained in the U.S.
1.517
.521
Years abroad post baccalaureate (1-2 years)
1.956*.281
Years abroad post baccalaureate (3+ years)
2.513**.327
Discipline: STEM
.297*
.204
International student increase
1.323
.205
Faculty drive campus international initiatives
1.373
.200
Constant
2.975.579
Model 4 (Demographics, early socialization, institutionalpressure and current work role variables)
Male
.711
.202
Have Children at Home
.711
.192
U.S. citizen at birth
.996
.318
Degree obtained in the U.S.
1.160
.543
Years abroad post baccalaureate (1-2 years)
2.144**.291
Years abroad post baccalaureate (3+ years)
2.517**.339
Discipline: STEM
.299**.224
International student increase
1.392
.212
Faculty drive campus international initiatives
1.242
.208
Tenure status: tenured or tenure-eligible
.959
.274
Primarily teach undergraduates
1.397
.196
Primary research is “commercial”/ for technology transfer
2.278**.247
Primary research is “socially-oriented” for the betterment of
2.116*.207
societyPrimary Research is multi-disciplinary
1.255
.238
Collaborate with others in research
.733
.256
Constant
1.870.698
Notes: (i) Chi Square Values for models: model 1, 10.621, p<= .005; model 2, 58.691, p< .001;
model 3, 63.238, p< .001; model 4, 98.169, p< .001.
(ii) ** predictor is statistically significant at the .001 probability level; * predictor issignificant at the .05 probability levels. Similar indicators are employed in thesubsequent statistical tables.

Dependent variable: primary research emphasis this year is international in scope
The results of the logistic regression analysis for the dependent variable,“The emphasis of your primary research this year is international in scope” arepresented in Table 6. A cursory review of Table 6 reveals that all four130 The Internationalization of the American Faculty

regression models are statistically significant. However, the only significant
demographic predictor (gender or being male) loses its power in subsequentmodels once controls for the socialization, institutional and work role variables
are introduced. Beginning with model 2, the socialization variables represented
by the number of years spent abroad post-baccalaureate emerge as significantly
predictive of the probability that a faculty member’s primary research focus isinternational in its scope. The odds ratio suggests that those faculty members
who have spent some time abroad are 3- to 5-times more likely to have a
research agenda which is international in orientation than those who have notspent time abroad. The years spent abroad variables are significant in every
model in which their impact is estimated. Not only are they consistently
significant, but they have the strongest influence of all the predictors consideredin the analyses. In terms of the institutional context factors, institutional typeemerges as a mildly significant predictor with non-research university facultyslightly more likely to report an international focus in their primary research.
The extent to which faculty are the main drivers of internationalization efforts on
their campuses is also modestly significant in the third model, but disappears
when the work role variables are introduced in the fourth model. The final
model reveals that in addition to the years spent abroad predictors, years since
first appointment (a proxy for career age or stage), institutional type, primaryresearch is basic, primary research is social and level of involvement in research
all significantly increase the odds of whether or not an individual faculty member
is likely to have a research focus that is international in scope.
With respect to the years since first appointment variable, the size of exp (B)implies that for each year since the first appointment, the odds that an individual
will pursue an international research agenda increase by 1.031. The results inTable 6 also suggest that individuals working in comprehensive non-doctoral
granting universities are more likely to indicate that their research is internationalin scope as opposed to those in research and doctoral granting institutions.
Other interesting findings based on the fourth model are as follows: (i) individual
faculty who are engaged in ‘basic research’ are four times more likely to be
pursuing research that is international in scope; (ii) faculty whose research is
directed at ‘bettering society’ are more apt to have a research agenda thatencompasses international issues; and (iii) being highly involved in research islikely to increase the odds of having an international research focus by 2.609.

Martin J. Finkelstein et al.

131

Table 6. Logistic regression results for dependent variable: ‘primary researchinternational in scope’ (N= 332)
Logistic Models

exp (B)

Standard
Error

Male

1.802*.235

Constant

.965

.189

1.461

.253

U.S. citizen at birth

1.127

.389

Years abroad post baccalaureate (1-2 years)

5.031**.398

Model 1 (Demographic variables )Model 2 (Early socialization and background variables)
Male

Years abroad post baccalaureate (3+ years)

3.166**.379

Discipline: STEM

2.785**.275

Constant
Model 3 (Demographic, early socialization and institutional pressure
variables)

.629

.416

Male

1.476

.255

U.S. citizen at birth

1.090

.391

Years abroad post baccalaureate (1-2 years)

4.1937*.402

Years abroad post baccalaureate (3+ years)

3.108*.385

Discipline: STEM

1.248

.283

Institutional Type: Research University

.952

.271

Faculty drive campus international initiatives

1.798*.251

Administration supports research

.865

.287

Constant
Model 4 (Demographic, early socialization institutional pressure andcurrent work role variables)

.608

.485

Male

1.293

.283

U.S. citizen at birth

1.304

.442

Years abroad post baccalaureate (1-2 years)

4.558**.437

Years abroad post baccalaureate (3+ years)

4.118**.432

Discipline: STEM

1.146

.316

Institutional Type: Research University

.473*

.342

Faculty drive campus International initiatives

1.419

.284

Administration supports of research

.839

.315

Years since first faculty appointment

1.031*.012

Tenure status: tenured or tenure eligible

1.447

.411

Primarily teach undergraduates

.882

.295

Orientation primarily to teaching

1.044

.303

Primary research is “basic”

4.016**.318

132 The Internationalization of the American FacultyPrimary research is “applied/practically-oriented”

1.147

.373

Primary research is “commercially-oriented/ for technology transfer”

1.603

.328

Primary research is “socially-oriented for the betterment of society”

1.989*.329

Primary research is based in one discipline

1.126

.299

Primary Research is multi-disciplinary

1.259

.490

High involvement in research

2.609**.293

Constant.035.897
Note: Chi Square Values for model s: model 1, 6,290 p<= .012; model 2, 34.649, p< .001;
model 3, 40.446, p< .001; model 4, 90.263, p< .001.

In sum, as with the infusion of international content in one’s teaching, theintegration of international perspectives in one’s research is most strongly
predicted by the common socialization variables – years spent abroad
post-baccalaureate degree – and relatively impervious to basic demographic
influences, including gender and nativity. While both are subject to therelatively mild effects of institutional pressures, it appears to be in opposite
directions: research university faculty are more likely to infuse international
perspectives into their teaching, while less likely than non-research university
faculty to report their research as international in scope. In terms of work role,
those highly involved in research and whose research focus is ‘basic’ are more
likely to report their research as international in scope while those whose
research focus is commercially and socially orientated are more likely to report
the infusion of international perspectives into their teaching. Finally, faculty inthe later stages of their careers are slightly more likely to report an international
focus to their research than new faculty.
Dependent variable: collaborate with international colleagues in research
Reported in Table 7 are the logistic regression results for the dependent
variable “collaborate with international colleagues in research.” All the models
with the exception of the first model were found to be statistically significant –suggesting that the models are indeed constructive in helping us to predict thelikelihood of U.S. faculty collaborating with their colleagues abroad in theirresearch. Across all three models (models 2, 3 and 4), the early socializationand educational background variables – in particular, the number of years spentabroad post-baccalaureate – continue to emerge as strong predictors of facultycollaboration with international scholars in the area of research. The odds ratio
reported in Table 7 (exp (B)) suggests that those U.S. faculty who reported
spending between 1-2 years abroad after receipt of their undergraduate degree

Martin J. Finkelstein et al.

133

were four-times more likely than those who had not spent any time abroad tocollaborate with foreign colleagues in research. Among institutional context
factors, the degree to which campus internationalization efforts are driven by
faculty (rather than administrators) was significantly associated with thelikelihood of faculty collaborating with foreign colleagues. This variable issignificant in the two models in which it is tested even after we control for the
early socialization/educational background and current work role variables.
The odds ratio (exp (B)) for this predictor is 3.959 and 3.008 for models 3 and 4
respectively. These results indicate that those faculty working in higher
education institutions in which the primary leadership in establishinginternational linkages resides in the faculty are three-times more likely than thosefaculty in institutions where internationalization initiatives are administratively
driven to collaborate with international colleagues in research. The emergenceof this ‘faculty leadership’ predictor is a key distinguishing feature.
Table 7. Logistic regression results for dependent variable: ‘collaborate withinternational colleagues in research’ (N= 325)
exp (B)

Standard
Error

Male

1.442

.252

Constant

.415

.209

.963
1.169
4.010***
2.702**
2.785**
.223

.277
.389
.340
.364
.275
.435

.992
.939
4.187**
2.412*
2.432**
2.412**
3.959**
1.331
.073

.292
.403
.359
.383
.297
.331
.267
.761
.565

Logistic Models
Model 1 ( Demographic variables )Model 2 (Early socialization and educational background variables)
Male
U.S. citizen at birthYears abroad post baccalaureate (1-2 years)
Years abroad post baccalaureate (3+ years)
Discipline: STEM
Constant
Model 3 (Demographics, early socialization and institutionalpressure variables)
Male
U.S. citizen at birthYears abroad post baccalaureate (1-2 years)
Years abroad post baccalaureate (3+ years)
Discipline: STEM
Institutional Type: Research University
Faculty drive campus international initiatives
Administration supports research
Constant

134 The Internationalization of the American Faculty
Model 4 (Demographics, early socialization, institutional pressure
and current work role variables)
Male
.880
.326
U.S. citizen at birth
1.395
.466
Years abroad post baccalaureate (1-2 years)
3.980**.407
Years abroad post baccalaureate (3+ years)
2.641*.429
Discipline: STEM
2.054*.348
Institutional Type: Research University
1.101
.403
Faculty drive campus international initiatives
3.008**.303
Administration supports research
1.084
.358
Years since first faculty appointment
1.016
.013
Tenure status: tenured or tenure-eligible
2.710
.553
Primarily teach undergraduates
.780
.328
Orientation primarily to teaching
.544
.351
Primary research is “basic”
3.565**.406
Primary research is “applied/practical”
.660
.425
Primary research is “commercial”/ for technology transfer
2.421*.356
Primary research is “socially-oriented” for the betterment of society
.399*
.356
Primary research is based in one discipline
.960
.328
Primary Research is multi-disciplinary
1.911
.475
High involvement in research
3.490*.349
Constant.010
1.110
Note: Chi Square Values for models: model 1, 2.145 p<= .143; model 2, 37.481, p< .001; model
3, 65.523, p< .001; model 4, 118.534, p< .001.

Among the current work role variables that are examined in model 4, four
were found to have a significant influence on collaboration with international
colleagues in research. These were: (i) primary research is ‘basic’ in orientation(exp (B) =3.565); (ii) primary research is commercially oriented (exp (B) =2.421); (iii) primary research is socially oriented (exp (B) =.399) and highinvolvement in research (exp (B) =3.490). In all but “the primary research issocially oriented”, the odds of collaboration with international colleagues in
research increases if faculty indicate that their primary research is basic, appliedor commercially-oriented. For example, those who indicate that their research
focus concentrates on commercial issues are twice as likely to have collaborative
arrangements with international colleagues as those whose research is
non-commercial in thrust. On the other hand, the odds decrease for thosefaculty who state that their primary research seeks to better society: these are lesslikely to report collaborating with international colleagues than their counterparts– suggesting that research oriented to social problems may more likely becircumscribed by national borders than other types of research.

Martin J. Finkelstein et al.

135

Dependent variable: co-author with foreign colleagues
Co-authoring with foreign colleagues was the third outcome measure thatwas used to test the tenability of the conceptual model. The findings for thisdimension of faculty internationalizing behavior are presented in Table 8. With
the exception of the background model, all the models that were examinedthrough the hierarchical logistic regression equations were found to havesignificant predictive power in explaining whether individual U.S. faculty
co-authored publications with foreign colleagues or not. Unlike the previous
findings reported in Tables 5-7, however, the pattern of results here shows some
intriguing differences in formative influence on internationalization.
Co-authorship with foreign colleagues, for example, is the only dependent
variable for which birth citizenship, when all other independent variables areheld constant, is significant. In all three models in which its effects are
examined, being born outside the U.S. favorably predicts the odds ofco-authoring with peers from abroad.
The findings for the socialization variables of years spent abroad are alsointeresting. While they remain significant predictors, only those faculty who
spent one to two years outside the country post-baccalaureate were likely to haveco-authored with a foreign colleague as compared with their U.S. peers who had
spent no time abroad. More extensive stays outside the country, as reflected in
the second independent variable of three years or more, did not significantly
predict the likelihood of co-publishing with a non-U.S. colleague (see models 2
through 4 in Table 8).
The degree to which U.S. universities’ internationalization efforts are led bytheir respective faculties was found to increase the odds of U.S. professors
co-publishing with their counterparts elsewhere in the world (exp (B)=2.255).
This was one of two dimensions of U.S. faculty internationalization in which thispredictor was found to make a difference; the second dimension ofinternationalization was “collaborate with international colleagues”. This
relationship holds even after controlling for the work role variables. Faculty
whose primary research interest focuses on social issues are less inclined to haveco-authored with foreign colleagues than those without such an interest (exp (B)=.423). Faculty who report high research involvement overall are decidedly
more likely to have co-authored publications with a foreign colleague than thoseless involved in research (exp (B) =5.346).

136 The Internationalization of the American Faculty
Table 8. Logistic regression results for dependent variable: ‘co-author withforeign colleagues’ (N=319)
Logistic Models

exp (B)

Standard
Error

Model 1 (Demographic variables )
Male

1.503

.281

Constant

.273

.238

1.095

.307

Model 2 (Demographic, early socialization variables)
Male
U.S. citizen at birth

.387*

.390

Years abroad post baccalaureate (1-2 years)

3.095**.348

Years abroad post baccalaureate (3+ years)

1.822

.383

Discipline: STEM

2.039*.292

Constant

.420

.438

Model 3 (Demographic, early socialization and institutional pressure
variables)
Male

1.199

.319

U.S. citizen at birth.321**.402

Years abroad post baccalaureate (1-2 years)

3.031**.358

Years abroad post baccalaureate (3+ years)

1.545

.392

Discipline: STEM

1.679

.309

Institutional Type: Research University

2.145*.368

Faculty drive campus international initiatives

2.238**.280

Administration supports research

1.066

.333

Constant

.191

.564

1 190

.348

Model 4 (Demographic, early socialization institutional pressure andcurrent work role variables)
Male
U.S .citizen at birth

.346*

.450

Years abroad post baccalaureate (1-2 years)

3.179**.411

Years abroad post baccalaureate (3+ years)

1.389

.426

Discipline: STEM

1.443

.358

Institutional Type: Research University

.972

.446

Faculty drives campus international initiatives

2.255**.310

Administration supports of research

.850

.361

Years since first faculty appointment

1.001

.014

Tenure status: tenured or tenure eligible

2.108

.577

Primarily teach undergraduates

.846

.340

Orientation primarily to teaching

.542

.377

Martin J. Finkelstein et al.
Primary research is “basic”

137

1.403

.409

Primary research is “applied/practically-oriented”

.492

.439

Primary research is “commercially-oriented/ for technology transfer”

1.583

.376

Primary research is “socially-oriented for the betterment of society”

.423*

.378

Primary research is based in one discipline

.633

.356

Primary Research is multi-disciplinary

.978

.490

High involvement in research

5.346**.402

Constant.241
1.100
Note: Chi Square Values for models: model 1, 2 .165, p<= .141; model 2, 32.508, p< .001;
model 3, 45.333, p< .001; model 4, 87.748, p<=000.

Table 9.

Logistic regression results for dependent variable: ‘published inforeign countries’ (N=321)
exp (B)

Standard
Error

Male

.846

.248

Constant

.564

.200

Logistic Models
Model 1 ( Demographic variables )Model 2 (Demographic and early socialization variables)
Male

.652

.277

U.S. citizen at birth

.959

.383

Years abroad post baccalaureate (1-2 years)

3.435**.330

Years abroad post baccalaureate (3+ years)

4.657**.361

Discipline: STEM

1.015

.289

Constant
Model 3 (Demographic, early socialization and institutional pressure
variables)
Male

.402

.420

.684

.281

U.S. citizen at birth

.859

.390

Years abroad post baccalaureate (1-2 years)

3.424**.335

Years abroad post baccalaureate (3+ years)

4.355**.365

Discipline: STEM

.862

.302

Institutional Type: Research University

1.707

.308

Faculty drive campus international initiatives

1.383

.260

Administration supports research

1.284

.305

Constant
Model 4 (Demographic, early socialization institutional pressure andcurrent work role variables)

.223

.510

Male

.597

.313

U.S. citizen at birth

.769

.441

138 The Internationalization of the American Faculty
Years abroad post baccalaureate (1-2 years)

3.440**.380

Years abroad post baccalaureate (3+ years)

4.056**.404

Discipline: STEM

.740

.384

Institutional Type: Research University

1.086

.383

Faculty drive campus international initiatives

1.426

.293

Administration supports of research

1.210

.332

Years since first faculty appointment

1.018

.012

Tenure status: tenured or tenure eligible

2.292

.552

Primarily teach undergraduates

1.079

.317

Orientation primarily to teaching

.928

.329

Primary research is “basic”

1.674

.358

Primary research is “applied/practically-oriented”

.390*

.401

Primary research is “commercially-oriented/ for technology transfer”

.849

.352

Primary research is “socially-oriented for the betterment of society”

.436*

.347

Primary research is based in one discipline

.662

.323

Primary Research is multi-disciplinary

2.691*.429

High involvement in research

3.743**.342

Constant.079
1.031
Note: Chi Square Values for models: model 1, 450, p<= .502; model 2, 32.220, p< .001; model
3, 45.333, p< .001; model 4, 38.014, p< .001.

Dependent variable: publish in foreign countries
Table 9 reports the results of the logistic regression analysis for the
dependent variable “Did you publish anything in a foreign country”. An
examination of the findings in the Table reveals that while the second, third andfourth regression models are all significant; it is the socialization predictors andspecifically the number of years spent abroad post-baccalaureate that are
significant in explaining international publication in the second and third models;and along with research focus and the intensity of involvement in research in the
fourth model. The inference that can be drawn with respect to the years abroad
variable is the same that has been made in our earlier analyses, namely, that thoseindividuals who have spent time abroad are more likely to have published in aforeign country than those who have not. One predictor that was not found inprevious analyses to have been significant, but was significant for this dimensionof faculty internationalization is ‘primary research is multi-disciplinary’. The
likelihood of having published in a foreign country increases by a factor of 2.691
for individuals with a research focus that encompasses more than one
disciplinary area.

Martin J. Finkelstein et al.

139

Discussion and conclusion
The above analyses suggest that while the American faculty remains among
the most insular in the world, there is a significant – and modestly growing –segment of the academic profession in the U.S. that is integrating international
perspectives into its teaching and research work and reaching out to international
networks of colleagues worldwide in their research and publication. The bulkof this paper has sought to identify and illuminate the determinants of suchincipient internationalization. Table 10 below summarizes the predictors thatattained statistical significance in our analyses of five dimensions of U.S. facultyinternationalization. A few overarching generalizations seem to be warranted.
Table 10.

Summary: significant predictors (in final regression model) ofdimensions of U.S. faculty internationalization, 2007

Predictors

Dimensions of U.S. Faculty Internationalization
Coursesemphasizeinternational
content

Research isinternationalin scope(i) U.S. citizen at birth(ii) Years abroad post
X
X
baccalaureate (1-2 years)(iii) Years abroad post
X
X
baccalaureate (3+ years)(iv) Discipline: STEM
X(v) Institutional Type:
Not
X
Research University
estimated(vi) Faculty drive campus
international initiatives(vii) Years since firstNot
X
faculty appointment
estimated(viii) Primary research isNotX“basic”
estimated(ix) Primary research is
Not“applied/practicallyestimatedoriented”(x) Primary research isX“commercially-oriented”(xi) Primary research is
X
X“socially oriented” tobetterment of society(xii) Primary research ismulti-disciplinary(xiii) High involvement in
NotX
research
estimated
Note: “X” indicates statistical significance at .05 level.

Collaborate
withinternational
colleagues

Co-Authorwithinternational
colleagues
X

Publishinforeigncountries

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X
X
X
X

X

X
X

X

X

X

140 The Internationalization of the American FacultyFirst, socialization factors, especially adult years spent abroad, emerged as
the most pervasive and powerful predictors of U.S. faculty internationalization
across all five dimensions. A second key socialization factor, academic
discipline, emerged as both a less pervasive and less powerful predictor.
Faculty in the STEM fields were more likely to bring international
content/perspectives to bear in their research and to collaborate/co-publish withinternational colleagues, while those in the humanities and social sciences weremore likely to integrate international perspectives into their course content andteaching.
Institutional pressures were only modestly predictive. The effects ofinstitutional type were neither pervasive nor powerful when current work roleand faculty research involvement and interests were controlled. Indeed, current
faculty work roles emerged as second only to socialization variables in theirpower and pervasiveness as significant predictors of the five dimensions offaculty internationalization.
Interestingly, the most telling institutional
influence on faculty internationalization that emerged from our analyses was theleadership role played by faculty in campus internationalization initiatives.
Faculty, as opposed to administratively driven initiatives, appear to achieve
greater concrete effects on faculty behavior.
The significance of demographic factors, including gender and nativity,
disappeared (with one exception) when controlling for socialization, institutionalpressures and current work roles (although career age was significantly
associated with a broadening of faculty perspectives as reflected in the content
dimensions of faculty internationalization. Among current work role factors,
both high involvement in research and a focus on basic research were the mostpowerful predictors of U.S. faculty internationalization – although a focus onsocially oriented research was the most pervasive predictor.
As with most research results, these answer a few questions, but raise or beg
many more. In terms of those answered are some strategies related toincreasing the international involvements of the American faculty. It is clearthat the surest road to internationalizing U.S. faculty is to make sure that theyreceive some international experience. That suggests that merely hiring
foreign-born faculty is not likely to suffice. While the precise nature of thatinternational experience is not clear, what is clear is that it needs to be sustained(i.e., more than a few weeks in duration), that it is quite distinctive in its effects
from those of birth or early residence in a foreign country, and that institutions
need to build upon that experience to engage their faculty in charting the
trajectory of internationalization. Our findings suggest, moreover, that that

Martin J. Finkelstein et al.

141

trajectory may be shaped by individual faculty interests and orientations, notably
their level of research interest/involvement and the focus of those interests (e.g.
basic, commercial, social, multidisciplinary). One size will not likely fit all.
Our findings, of course, provide no indication of whether, or the extent towhich, the factors that shape the American faculty’s internationalization of theirteaching and research resemble, or differ from, those that shape theinternalization of faculties in other developed or developing nations. To what
extent, and in what ways, do faculty in other developed and emerging economies
resemble the American faculty in the determinants of internationalization ofteaching and research – notwithstanding clear differences in magnitude of suchactivity? Addressing questions such as these will no doubt contribute further toilluminating the insular condition of the American faculty.

References
Altbach, P.G. (1996). The International Academic Profession: Portraits of Fourteen Countries.
Princeton, NJ: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.
Altbach, P.G. & Lewis, L. (1996). The Academic Profession in International Perspective. In P.G.
Altbach (ed.), The International Academic Profession: Portraits of Fourteen Countries.
Princeton, NJ: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.
Blackburn, R.T., & Lawrence, L. (1995). Faculty at Work: Motivation, Expectation, andSatisfaction. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Clark, B.L. (1987). Academic Life: Small Worlds, Different Worlds. Princeton, NJ: Carnegie
Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.
Cummings, W.K. (2008). The Context for the Changing Academic Profession: a survey ofinternational indicators. In Research Institute for Higher Education (RIHE) (ed.), The
Changing Academic Profession in International Comparative and Quantitative
Perspectives. Hiroshima: RIHE, Hiroshima University.
Fairweather, J. (1996). Faculty Work and the Public Trust. Lexngton, MA: D C Heath.
Finkelstein, M.J. (1984). The American Academic Profession: A Synthesis of Social Scientific
Inquiry Since World War II. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University Press.
Finkelstein, M.J. (2008). Recruiting and Retaining the Next Generation of American Faculty.
In D.E. Heller & M.B. d’Ambrosio (eds.), Generational Shockwaves and the Implicationsfor Higher Education. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.
Finkelstein, M.J., Seal, R., & Schuster, J. (1998). The New Academic Generation: A Professionin Transformation. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Gappa, J., Austin, A., & Trice, A. (2007). Re-thinking Faculty Work: Higher Education’s142 The Internationalization of the American Faculty
Strategic imperative. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Slaughter, S., & Rhoades, G. (2004). Academic Capitlism and the New Economy: Markets,
State and Higher Education. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Schuster, J.H., & Finkelstein, M.J. (2006). The American faculty: The restructuring ofacademic work and careers. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Wilson, L. (1979). American Academics: Then and Now. New York: Oxford University Press.
Zakaria, F. (2008). The Post-American World. New York, Basic Books.

Martin J. Finkelstein et al.

143

Appendix. Coding summary of variables in the study
Variable Name
Original name(s) in CAP
Description
In your courses, youemphasizeinternational
perspectives
Collaborate withinternational
colleagues
Your primaryresearch isinternational in scope
Coauthor withforeign colleagues
Publish in foreigncountries
Male
Have children at
home
U.S. birth citizenship
Highest degree
obtained in the U.S.

C4_05_QC4

1=“yes (1,2); 0=“no”(3,4,5)

D1_1_02_QD1_1

1=“yes”; 0=“no”

D2_05_QD2

1=“yes”(1,2) ; 0=“no”(3,4,5)

D5_03_QD5

1=“yes”(>0) ; 0=“no”

D5_04_QD5

1=“yes”(>0); 0=“no”

F1
F6

1= “male”; 0= “female”
1=“yes”; 0=“no”

GRQF9_1_01_QF9_1
A1_01_A1_2;
A1_02_A1_2;
A1_03_A1_2;
A1_04_A1_2;
A1_05_A1_2; A1_06_A1_2 (1)F13_02_QF13

1=“yes”; 0=“no”
1=“yes, highest degree is from
U.S.”; 0=“no”

F13_02_QF13

1=“yes”; 0=“no”

A2_02_QA2_1

1=“yes”; 0=“no”

International
student increase
Institutional type:research or
doctoral-granting

C4_09_QC4

1=“yes”(1,2); 0=“no”(3,4,5)

A9Faculty drive campus
international
initiatives
Administration
supports of researchYears since first
faculty appointment
Tenure status: tenured
or tenure eligible

E1_11_QE1

1=“yes, research or
doctoral-granting”
0=“no, comprehensive or
baccalaureate”
1=“yes”; 0=“no”

E4_08_QE4

1=“yes”; 0=“no”

A6_01_QA6

From “1” to “50s”

A11

1=“yes, either tenured or
tenure-eligible”
0=“no, other”

Years abroad post
baccalaureate (1-2
years)
Years abroad post
baccalaureate(3+years)
Discipline: STEM

1=“yes”; 0=“no”

144 The Internationalization of the American FacultyPrimarily teachundergraduates

C1_01_QC1_1

Orientation primarily
to teaching

B2

Primary research is“basic”
Primary research is“applied/practical”
Primary research is“commerce or
technology”
Primary research is“socially-oriented”
for the betterment ofsocietyPrimary research isbased in one
discipline
Primary research ismulti-disciplinaryHigh involvement inresearch

D2_01_QD2

1=“yes, 2/3 or more of my
instruction time is spent onundergraduate students”
0=“no, less than 2/3 of my
instruction time”
1=“yes, either tenured or
tenure-eligible”
0=“no, other”
1=“yes”; 0=“no”

D2_02_QD2

1=“yes”; 0=“no”

D2_03_QD2

1=“yes”; 0=“no”

D2_04_QD2

1=“yes”; 0=“no”

D2_06_QD2

1=“yes”; 0=“no”

D2_07_QD2

1=“yes”; 0=“no”

Collaborate withothers in research

D4_01_QD4;
D4_03_QD4;
D4_05_QD4;
D4_07_QD4;
D4_09_QD4;
D4_11_QD4
D1_02_QD1

D4_02_QD4;
D4_04_QD4;
D4_06_QD4;
D4_08_QD4;
D4_10_QD4;

1=“yes”; 0=“no”

1=“yes”; 0=“no”

Country Reports on
Education and Research Activities

RIHE International Seminar Reports, No.13, 2009 145

The Academic Profession in a Diverse Institutional
Environment: converging or diverging values andbeliefs?

Simon Schwartzman ∗ and Elizabeth Balbachevsky∗∗Introduction: the expansion of higher education
This article is based on the data from two surveys of the academic
profession in Brazil, one carried out in 1992, as part of the Carnegie Foundationcomparative survey, and the other in 2007, within the CAP project.
Between 1992 and 2007, Brazilian higher education expanded very rapidly.
The number of students tripled, the number of academics more than doubled, andthe number of those with masters’ or doctoral degrees increased fourfold.
During these years, the population increased by 22.4%, reaching about 185
million in 2006, while GNP per capita increased by 77%. The high pace ofgrowth in higher education, particularly at the graduate level, was an attempt tocompensate for the very low enrolment rates, which went from 7.7% to 22.6% in
the period, still very low by international or even regional standards.1 One mainbarrier to the growth of higher education in Brazil is still the small number ofqualified students coming out of secondary schools.
Most of the growth in higher education took place through the expansion of
the private sector. In 1990, 62% of the students were enrolled in private∗

Researcher, Institute for Studies on Labor and Society, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, e-mailsimon@schwartzman.org∗∗
Associate Professor, Department of Political Science, University of São Paulo (USP); Fellow,
Research Center on Public Policies – NUPPs-USP, Brazil, e-mail: balbasky@usp.br
1
The gross rate compares the total number of students in higher education with the total
number in the 18-24 age cohort. The net rate, that is the proportion of 18-24 year old
students in the 18-24 age cohort, was 4.5% in 1992 and 12.5% in 2006. It is noteworthy
that although student numbers have tripled since 1992, the proportion over 24 years old has
remained well over 40%.

146

The Academic Profession in a Diverse Institutional Environment

institutions; in 2006, this percentage had increased to about 77%. The standard
description of the differences between the public and private institutions used to
be as follows: public higher education in Brazil was free from tuition charges,
most courses were provided during the day, and faculty members were civil
servants with full-time contracts; to be admitted, students had to pass very
competitive entrance examinations. Private institutions, on the other hand,charged for tuition, most of the instruction was given in the evenings, andadmission was easy; most of the faculty worked part-time, and had no careerplans or job security. Because of these differences, young students from higher
economic and education backgrounds tended to enter public institutions, whileolder people, who need to work and whose education background limited theirability to compete, would enter the private sector. Tuition fees in the private
sector could not be very high, as the students were relatively poor; the academic
requirements could not be very demanding, as the best students preferred the
public institutions; and, consequently, the quality of the education in private
institutions was low.
Table 1. Higher education in Brazil, 1991-2006
1991
2006
Number of institutions (1990-2006) (1)
918
2,270
Number of private institutions (1)
696
2,022
Total undergraduate enrollment (1)1,565,056
4,676,646
Total of graduate enrollment (1992-2006) (1)55,338132,882
Number of faculty staff (1)133,135
316,582
Number of full-time faculty (1)57.728113.848
Faculty with a master’s degree (1)115,113
Faculty with a doctoral degree (1)70,716
Faculty with a master’s or doctoral degree (1)46,758
185,829
Population (millions) (2)
149.9
183.5
Gross enrollment rate in higher education
7.7%
22.6%
GNP (US $) per capita PPP (3)5,482.1
9,695.2
Sources: (1) Brazil, Ministry of Education;(2) Brazilian Institute for Geography and Statistics (IBGE);(3) GNP: International Monetary Fund, 2008 World Economic Outlook.

growth147.3%
190.5%
198.8%
140.1%
137.8%
97.2%

297.4%
22.4%
76.9%

Both the public and the private sectors, however, are far from homogeneous,and these descriptions, which were never fully accurate, have been changing
dramatically in recent years. Admission to public universities can indeed bevery competitive in fields like medicine, engineering or law, but it is much easierin fields like education, history, geography or social service. Most teaching infederal universities is provided during the day, but most public state universities

Simon Schwartzman & Elizabeth Balbachevsky

147

also teach in the evening, and there has been a growing pressure from the federal
government on its institutions to increase enrolment and open evening courses.
One consequence of these changes has been some degree of social
democratization of access in the public sector, and the emergence of a new, elitesegment of private higher education. Compared with a few years ago, public
institutions today have more students from lower social backgrounds, while somestudents from the richest and best educated families may prefer to enter aprestigious private institution rather than a public one. Data for 2006 show that,in public institutions, 2% of the students come from the lowest fifth of thecountry’s income distribution, and 52.2% from the highest fifth; the figures forthe private sector are 1.2% and 63.9%, respectively. Thus, a new segment ofprestigious, elite private institutions has emerged, particularly in the fields of
economics and management.

40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
1

2

3

4
5
6
7
Income deciles

public sector

8

9

10

private sector

Source: National Household Sample Survey, Brazilian Institute for Geography
and Statistics (PNAD-IBGE), 2006.

Figure 1. Students in higher education by income and sector (%)

The creation of an academic profession
How to get qualified academic staff to keep up with this expansion? In thelate sixties and early seventies, the Brazilian economy was growing very rapidly,
the government’s tax basis was also expanding, and the federal government took
two initiatives that would change the landscape of higher education and allow
Brazil to follow a path that was very different from that of other countries in theregion. The first was to create a civil service career for higher education

148

The Academic Profession in a Diverse Institutional Environment

academics working in federal universities; the second was to adopt the Americanmodel of graduate education.
To better understand the impact of these policies, it is important toremember that higher education in Brazil, public and private, has always been
geared to teaching for the professions, with the academic staff recruited fromamong practicing lawyers, medical doctors, engineers and other professionals
who taught part-time and earned most of their income from their professional
work. Research existed only in some government institutes and a few schoolsof medicine and agriculture, and, until the 1940s, no institution in the country
granted doctoral degrees. Until World War II, only two universities existed in
the country, the University of São Paulo, established in 1934 by the state
government, and the University of Brazil (now the Federal University of Rio deJaneiro), created in 1940. In the 1950s, the national government created a
network of federal universities, bringing together professional schools – somefederal, some state, some local or private – that extended throughout the country.
The adoption of the American model of graduate education, superimposedon the professional schools, was the product of initiatives from two different
sectors, each with their own values and goals. One was the emerging scienceand technology sector, gathered originally around the National Research Council
and later receiving support from authorities in the Ministry of Economic
Planning. For this sector, the goal was to provide Brazil with a critical mass ofscientists and engineers who could bring to the country the promises of modern
technology, from nuclear energy to advanced weapons, computers and highyielding crops. To do this, it was necessary to provide fellowships for students
to go abroad, to create graduate education programs that could recruit the best
students and prepare them for advanced work, and to establish competitive
research support programs. As much as possible, the new graduate and research
programs had to remain free from interference and the bureaucracy of the
traditional teaching institutions; for these reasons, support was directed mostly toindividuals or newly created autonomous programs within the more traditional
institutions.
The other sector was the Ministry of Education, in which an agency forhigh-level manpower training, CAPES2, took responsibility for improving thequality of the higher education teaching staff in the country, a very different andmuch larger task than training a small elite of high quality researchers. While
the Ministry of Education created elaborate legislation regulating the2

An acronym for the Coordination Agency for High Level Personnel Qualification.

Simon Schwartzman & Elizabeth Balbachevsky

149

establishment and functioning of degree programs in universities, CAPES took
the task of establishing a peer-review system to assess the quality of the existingand newly created graduate programs, based on their academic publications andnumber of degrees granted. Together, CAPES and the National ResearchCouncil (and, in the state of São Paulo, the State Foundation for Science
Development, FAPESP) provided fellowships for all students who were admitted
to the best-rated graduate programs, and also provided several hundred
fellowships every year for doctoral studies abroad, and fuelled research money totheir departments.
Still, the pace at which this new generation of graduates could be created
was much smaller than what was needed by the rapidly expanded higher
education sector. To fill the places in the federal universities, the government
decided, in the 1970s, to hire a large number of “temporary staff” who were able
later to become permanent and secure in civil-service jobs. To be promoted,
they needed to have at least a masters’ degree, and a generous program wascreated to allow them to leave their posts for a few years, keeping their salaries
plus a fellowship while completing their degree in some university in the country
or abroad. This also stimulated the creation of many graduate programs, mostly
at the masters’ level, not always of the best quality, to meet this demand. Many
years later, the number of faculty members with graduate degrees has grownconsiderably in public institutions, but still, in the federal system in 2006, only
50% of the faculty had a doctoral degree. The proportion is much higher in thestate universities in São Paulo but lower in other state systems.
The requirement that university staff should have graduate degrees was also
extended to the private sector. Private, teaching institutions that do not have
university status are supervised by the federal government, with the authority toallow them to function and to decide how many students they can enroll, among
other attributions. To gain independence from the government, private
institutions need to become universities, and for that one requirement is that theyneed have at least some graduate education programs and a proportion of theirfaculty with full-time contracts and advanced degrees. This requirement runs
against their bare-bones economic rationale, based on low tuition and part-timeteaching staff. They responded by trying to fulfill these requirements at thelowest possible cost, opening masters’ programs in soft fields, and hiring thesmallest possible body of full-time, academically trained staff. This was thesituation in 1992, and had not changed much in 2007.

150

The Academic Profession in a Diverse Institutional Environment
Table 2. Employment status and academic qualifications, 2006
Total

Full-timePart-timeNo
contract
Federal58,078
83.6%
12.9%
3.5%
State
41,007
73.2%
19.7%
7.1%
Municipal
7,914
19.0%
17.6%
63.5%
Private118,739
13.7%
20.1%
66.2%
Philanthropic
91,144
19.2%
26.4%
54.4%
Source: Ministry of Education, Higher education Census, 2006.

Doctoraldegree
47.3%
40.7%
15.3%
9.4%
16.4%

Masters’degree
26.9%
27.9%
39.5%
38.9%
4’.4%

In this paper, we argue that the two agendas for the creation of an academic
profession in Brazil – that of the R&D establishment, and that of the education
authorities, in spite of their similarities of purpose, in fact diverged, and created asituation in which one hindered the other.
For most academics, therequirements that they should have a doctoral degree and be scientifically
productive is perceived as an external constraint, which they try to accommodate,
but which is actually unrelated to their daily activities and teaching requirements.
In addition, for the private sector, it means a financial burden that only large
institutions can afford, an expense perceived as unrelated to their objectives andto those of their students. For the R&D establishment, it has created a large
constituency of research departments and groups of very different standards ofquality and relevance, which forces the R&D agencies to spread their resources
thinly, and tends to lower the assessment criteria for research support.
In the ideal, “Humboldtian” university, the academics are researchers, work
full-time in their institutions, and consider teaching as something which follows
from research, rather than as their main priority. In practice, this close
association between teaching and research is more likely to occur in graduate
education than at undergraduate level, where the distance between the teaching
programs and the research agendas of academics is usually wide. This tension
exists in all countries, as research tends to be concentrated in a small number ofhighly qualified institutions, while higher education expands to include an everlarger proportion of the population.
In Brazil, the distance between the research ideal and the reality is so
obvious that, both in 1992 and 2007, we decided to stratify the sample ofacademics in our surveys according to the characteristics of their institutions, interms of their proximity to the Humboldtian model. In the 2007 survey, thesample was stratified according to whether the institution was public or private,
and on whether it was closer to a research institution in the public sector (definedby the number of academics with doctoral degrees) or an elite institution in theSimon Schwartzman & Elizabeth Balbachevsky

151

private sector (also based on the number of doctors and full-time contracts). We
also included a number of research institutes outside the universities thatprovided graduate education. The 1992 survey also took these distinctions into
account, and, for comparative purposes, it is possible to stratify the 1992 sample
by the same criteria, except for the research institutes, which were not includedin that survey. In both surveys, the more academic and elite institutions wereover-represented.

Professional identities: teaching or research?
Both in 1992 and 2007, we asked academics whether their priority wasteaching, research, or both. In the Humboldtian model, they should givepriority to research, and place teaching in second place. In fact, there was asignificant increase in the priority given to research between those years, butthere are many that still give priority to teaching over research, or to the
exclusion of research, as the table and figures below indicate.
The decrease of academics declaring priority to teaching only is evidence
that the notion that academics should do research has become dominant. In part,
this is related to the sheer growth of the proportion of academics with doctoral
degrees; but the priority given to research by persons without a doctoral degree
also increased in all kinds of institutions, suggesting that the Humboldtian model
became accepted as the way things should be, while teaching as a priority lost its
legitimacy. However, in 2007 there were still a significant number ofacademics in private and public institutions who gave no priority to research.
Table 3. Priority to teaching or research, 1992-2007
Year
Research
universities
Other public
universities
Private elite
universities
Other private
institutions
Research institutes

1992
2007
1992
2007
1992
2007
1992
2007
2007

Given toteaching
10.6%
2.6%
21.4%
6.1%
15.7%
9.9%
24.4%
12.3%
0.0%

Emphasison teaching
36.6%
35.6%
39.8%
42.2%
38.2%
40.4%
45.7%
49.3%
10.2%

Emphasison research
47.2%
55.2%
37.1%
45.2%
40.4%
44.4%
28.7%
34.5%
46.9%

Given toresearch
5.6%
6.7%
1.7%
6.5%
5.6%
5.3%
1.2%
3.9%
42.9%

152

The Academic Profession in a Diverse Institutional Environment

30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
research other publlic private elite other private
universities
1992
2007

Figure 2.

Priority given by respondents to teaching only, 1992-2007

35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
publicresearchotherpublicprivateelite

Doctoral degree

Figure 3.

otherprivateresearch
institutes

Lower degree

Priority given by respondents to teaching only,
by academic degree, 2007

To declare that one’s priority is research does not say much about how thisresearch is being done, or how intense is one’s research work. A basic
condition for an academic to do research is to be able to work full-time in his
field, and not to have a too heavy teaching load. In Brazil, full-time
employment was introduced in public universities to respond to the demands ofacademics for higher payment, and justified in terms of the need to allow them todo research, which sometimes they do, but sometimes do very little or none.
We can see that, in 2007, full-time contracts, which was the rule in public
institutions in our sample, reached 50% for academics in private elite institutions,and went down from 34% to 22% in the private, non-elite sector. In the private
sector, part-time employment is the rule, except for a small group of academics

Simon Schwartzman & Elizabeth Balbachevsky

153

who get full-time jobs to meet the formal requirement from the education
authorities. Another important difference between the public and private sector
is that, while in the public sector all academics have job security, in the private
sector they can be dismissed at will.

100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
publicresearch

Figure 4.

other public private elite other private
1992

2007

Proportion of academics with full-time contracts

30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
other
private elite
privateinstitutions
institutions

Figure 5.

research
institutes

other public research
universties universities

Proportion of academics with another main academic affiliation

A full-time contract, moreover, does not mean that the academics could nothave another activity, sometimes legally, sometimes just tolerated by theemploying institution. In the 2007 survey, 45.7% of the sample had a secondary
job or activity, and sometimes more than one. For academics in the private,
non-elite universities, one-quarter of them declared that this was not their main
academic institution. The proportion in other sectors was smaller, but still
significant.

154

The Academic Profession in a Diverse Institutional Environment
Table 4. Outside jobs or activities

Has another work or job
Kind of job:
Other academic institution
CompanyNGO
Self-employed

Research
univ.

Other
publicuniv.

Private
elite
univ.

Other
privateinst.

Research
institutes

18.3%

30.7%

50.6%

66.5%

24.5%

6.6%
2.5%
4.6%
6.6%

14.5%
6.4%
5.1%
11.8%

24.0%
7.0%
6.4%
21.6%

39.2%
18.9%
7.8%
19.8%

16.3%
2.0%
2.0%
2.0%

30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
research
Institutes

research private elite other public
universities

otherprivateFigure 6. Proportion of academics with doctoral degrees
obtained abroad (2007)

Moreover, a “doctoral degree” can mean different things. One importantdifference is whether it was obtained in Brazil or abroad. Brazil has asignificant number of high quality doctoral programs, but it is possible to assume
that a degree obtained in a good university abroad would provide a better
qualification, on average, than a degree obtained in Brazil. In 1992, 35% of theacademics with doctoral degrees had obtained them abroad; in 2007, only 15%
did. There were important differences among institutions in terms of where
their doctors got their degrees, with more persons with foreign degrees in
research-intensive institutions than elsewhere.
Finally, different institutions specialize in different fields of knowledge. In
the public universities, the health sciences have the largest number of academics;
in the private sector, most of the academics are in the social sciences andprofessions; in the research institutes, the hard sciences prevail.

Simon Schwartzman & Elizabeth Balbachevsky

155

Table 5. Field of highest degree by type of institution
Research
univ.

Other
publicuniv.

Privateelite univ.

Other
privateinst.

Research
institutes

Education

4.9%

12.6%

3.8%

13.5%

Arts, humanities

6.0%

9.0%

5.6%

6.5%

2.1%

Social science

8.2%

8.3%

18.8%

13.3%

10.4%
2.1%

Business and economics

3.3%

7.9%

25.0%

13.1%

Law

2.2%

1.4%

7.5%

8.6%

Life science

6.0%

9.0%

3.1%

2.9%

10.4%

Physics, mathematics

15.2%

7.6%

11.9%

3.8%

43.8%

Engineering

14.7%

10.8%

11.3%

6.3%

14.6%

Agriculture

3.3%

4.3%

Health sciences

27.2%

18.0%

4.4%

17.3%

2.1%

Other

9.2%

11.2%

8.8%

13.3%

14.6%

1.4%

In short, while the number of academics with doctoral degrees increased,
and in spite of the fact that the notion that research should be the priority became
widespread, Brazilian higher education is still far from reaching the Humboldtian
ideal of research-intensive universities and research-based academic careers.
The differences between different types of institutions do not seem to be
narrowing. In all institutions, academics with doctoral degrees are distinctly
older than their non-doctoral colleagues, and, given the relatively high age of thelatter, is not likely that they will eventually reach the academic levels of theirelders. The youngest group of academics is those without doctoral degrees in
the rapidly expanding private sector, which is clearly not giving priority to theacademic credentials of their teaching staff.
Table 6. Mean age, by academic degree and institution
Research universities
Other public universities
Private elite universities
Other private institutions
Research institutes
Total

Doctoral degree
48.0
47.0
47.5
43.9

No doctoral degree
45.3
41.4
46.8
41.2

46.4
46.6

54.5
41.9

Total
47.9
44.9
47.3
42.0
46.7
44.6

156

The Academic Profession in a Diverse Institutional Environment

The real life of academics, 2007

scale 1 (high) to 5 (low)Academic life in Brazil is not perceived as a particularly demanding
occupation. Of the respondents in 2007, 65% declared that they were verysatisfied or satisfied with their work: from 60% in the public, non-research
universities up to 81.2% in the research institutes. When asked about changes
in the working conditions for teaching and research, there is a lower consensus:
about a third believes that the conditions have improved, another third that they
have not changed, and another third that they are worse now. There areimportant differences according to the type of institution. On a scale from 1 to5, academics in research institutes tend to believe that the conditions for research
have remained stable in recent years (2.5 on average), while all others believethat the conditions have deteriorated (3 points and above). All believe that theconditions for teaching have deteriorated still further, with a slightly better
assessment for the private elite institutions and the research institutes, which only
teach selected graduate students.
1.5
1.7
1.9
2.1
2.3
2.5
2.7
2.9
3.1
3.3
3.5
research other publlic private elite
universities

Satisfaction

otherprivateresearch
institutes

Change in teaching conditions

Change in research conditions

Figure 7. Assessment of working conditions

What do the academics do, in practice? In the 2007 survey, we asked how
many hours the academics spent every week in different activities – teaching,research, extension work, administration and other activities. For many, these
activities could not be easily separated, and the sum of the time allocated to thesedifferent activities very often went beyond the 40 hours which would be theSimon Schwartzman & Elizabeth Balbachevsky

157

standard 8 hours, five days work load. Most of the time was spent on teaching,and only in the research institutes did a majority of the staff work more than 20hours a week on research. The academic degree was much less important, in
explaining the dedication to research, than institutional location. In the private,
non-elite institutions, 21.6% of those with a doctoral research degree did noresearch at all, while another 51.4% spent less than 10 hours a week on it.
Table 7. Proportions of respondents spending more than 20 hours per week oneach academic activity

Teaching
Research
Extension
Administration
Other activities

Research
univ.
28.5%
13.5%
6.4%
7.0%
4.3%

Other public
univ.
43.9%
18.5%
9.3%
12.3%
9.6%

Private elite
univ.
43.8%
15.4%
9.1%
11.3%
5.4%

Other
private inst.
49.6%
7.1%
7.6%
8.0%
6.5%

Research
institutes
52.3%
81.0%
41.7%
44.4%
41.7%

80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
research other public private elite
universities universities universities

No research

Figure 8.

otherprivateinstitutions

research
institutes

less than 10% of the time

Proportion of respondents with doctoral degrees
doing little research, by type of institution

Scientific productivity
The efforts to increase the number of holders of doctoral degrees in
research-oriented graduate programs led to a steady increase in the number of

158

The Academic Profession in a Diverse Institutional Environment

papers published by Brazilians in the international literature.3 The internationalpresence of Brazilian science is still very small – about 1.8% of the world total –but is by far the largest in the region, amounting to 51% of the Latin American
total in 2007.
However, this production is concentrated in a few institutions. In our
sample, half of the published articles in the last 3 years came from just 11
institutions. Besides, there is very little in terms of patents. On average, theacademic productivity of holders of doctoral degrees in research institutes ishigher in all items, and they also show more published articles than theconference papers, which prevail in other institutions.

2.0
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
1996

1998

2000

2002

2004

2006

Figure 9. Brazil, production of academic papers as a proportionof the world total, 1996-2007 (%)

Academics in the research institutes not only publish more, but most of their
published articles are peer-reviewed and international in character - publishedabroad, in a language other than Portuguese, and in partnership with researchers
from other countries. In this, as in other dimensions, the academics in the
research institutes come much closer to the ideal type of an academic
professional than those in other institutions.

3

Data from The SCImago Journal & Country Rank, http://www.scimagojr.com/index.php,
based on the Scopus data base (Elsevier).

Simon Schwartzman & Elizabeth Balbachevsky

159

9.0
8.0
7.0
6.0
5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
Resarchuniversities

Other
Private elite
Otherpublicinstitutionsprivateuniversities
institutions

Research
institutes

Dissemination articles

Research reports

Conference papers

Published articles

Figure 10. Numbers of academic publications in the last three years(doctoral degree holders)Table 8. Characteristics of published articles
Research
univ.
Published in a language
other than Portuguese
In co-authorship with a
Brazilian colleague
In co-authorship with acolleague abroad
Published abroad
On-lineIn a peer-reviewed
journalOther
publicuniv.

Privateelite univ.

Other
privateinst.

Research
institutes

42.9%

57.4%

38.4%

27.3%

72.4%

65.4%

35.1%

57.8%

54.2%

60.2%

16.6%

7.5%

11.3%

6.1%

35.3%

36.2%
33.4%

26.3%
30.9%

31.0%
33.3%

18.5%
27.9%

66.4%
46.6%

71.7%

35.7%

53.6%

13.5%

90.9%

Institutional and external constraints on research
Most of the research in the country is supported by national research
agencies. Academics without a doctoral degree, mostly in private institutions,have to rely more on resources provided by their own institutions, which are

160

The Academic Profession in a Diverse Institutional Environment

fewer, and with lower requirements in terms of academic quality. Brazilianscience is mostly supported by national resources, but academics with higher
credentials are more able to get resources from abroad.

science support agencies
your own institution
private foundationsprivate companies
government bodies
other
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Figure 11. Sources of support for researchinternational
national
020

Figure 12.

40

60

80

100

Sources of support for researchinternational
nationalscience support agencies
your own institution
private foundationsprivate companies
government bodies
otherpercent

020

doctoral degree

40

60

80

100

no doctoral degree

Figure 13. Research support by academic degree

Simon Schwartzman & Elizabeth Balbachevsky

161

The institutional context affects also the different priorities of theresearchers. Compared with the other institutions, research in the institutes ismore theoretical and more international in scope and orientation; in private
institutions, it tends to be more applied and practical, and also more sociallyoriented, reflecting the fact that most researchers in these institutions are in thesocial sciences.
Table 9. Emphasis of main research project
Research
univ.

Other
publicuniv.

Private
elite
univ.

Social, to improve
2.82
2.46
society
International inscope and
3.26
3.61
orientation
Applied, practical
2.19
2.07
Basic, theoretical
2.49
2.41
Disciplinary
3.69
3.85
Multi2.04
1.95
disciplinary
Commercial,technological
4.15
3.98
transfer
Note: 1=“strong emphasis”; 5= “no emphasis”.

Other
privateinst.

Research
institutes

Significance(Anova)

2.76

2.26

3.44

0.000

3.04

3.99

2.66

0.000

2.11
2.57
3.65

1.95
2.47
4.02

2.72
1.74
3.64

0.001
0.002
0.093

1.82

1.81

2.09

0.147

4.01

3.92

4.42

0.188

The main external constraints the academics perceive on their research workis the increased pressure to get external funding for their work, and they feel thatthese pressures, both for high scientific productivity and practical results, are athreat to the academic quality of their work. Clearly, those in research institutes
feel these pressures more than those in universities. Otherwise, the only maindifference among institutions is the priority private institutions place on appliedand commercial research, and the restrictions they place on the publication of
results from privately supported research.
Another perspective on the external constraints can be obtained by looking
at who assesses the work done by the academics. Most of the assessment refers
to teaching, and is done both by institutional authorities and students. At theother extreme, services are not assessed systematically by anybody. Regarding
research, in most cases, and particularly in public research universities,
assessment is collegial. In private institutions, as well as in the research
institutes, institutional authorities – heads of departments, officers – have a muchstronger say. In private, non-elite institutions, there is little assessment by

162

The Academic Profession in a Diverse Institutional Environment

external reviewers, and almost half of the respondents say that assessments, ifany, are done by themselves.
Table 10. External constraints on research

Increased pressures toget external funding

Research
univ.

Other
publicuniv.

Private
elite
univ.

Other
privateinst.

Research
institutes

Total

Sig.

2.3

2.3

2.2

3.0

2.2

2.5

0.00

2.5

2.7

2.4

2.6

0.12

2.5

2.7

2.4

2.7

0.01

2.8

2.8

2.4

2.8

0.23

2.8

3.0

2.9

3.0

0.05

3.0

3.2

2.9

3.1

0.41

3.1

3.3

3.6

3.4

0.04

4.0

3.7

4.2

3.9

0.01

4.8

3.7

4.2

4.1

0.34

High expectation ofscientific productivity is
2.3
2.7
a threat to research
quality
Emphasis on
interdisciplinary
2.8
2.7
research
High expectations of
2.7
2.8
productivity
Research supportshould focus on the
3.2
3.1
more productive
researchers
Clients do not influence
3.0
3.2
Emphasis on applied
3.4
3.5
research
Increased restrictions on
publishing commercial
4.0
3.9
research
Increased restriction
on publishing public
3.9
4.2
research
Note: 1= “fully agree”; 5= “fully disagree”.

Table 11. Who assesses your work, by academic activity
Peers in the institution
Head of department
Members of otherdepartments
Officer of institution
Students
External reviewers
Yourself (formally)
NobodyTotal (100%)

Research
43.5%
36.8%

Teaching
46.5%
64.7%

Services
34.1%
42.8%

30.0%

18.3%

20.5%

27.3%
11.3%
43.7%
37.6%
9.2%
924

26.9%
81.6%
11.7%
47.8%
5.2%
1,158

37.5%
23.2%
13.8%
36.5%
16.2%
790

Simon Schwartzman & Elizabeth Balbachevsky

163

Table 12. Who assesses your research, by type of institution

Peers in theinstitution
Head of department
Members of otherdepartments
Officer of
institution
Students
External reviewers
Yourself (formally)
NobodyTotal (100%)

Research
univ.

Other public
univ.

Private elite
univ.

Other
private inst.

Research
institutes

63.5%

52.6%

42.3%

24.6%

43.8%

27.0%

31.1%

45.5%

40.9%

56.3%

36.5%

35.9%

31.7%

20.4%

31.3%

19.0%

21.5%

31.7%

34.8%

29.2%

7.4%
55.6%
32.3%
7.9%
189

10.8%
53.0%
36.7%
6.0%
251

9.8%
51.2%
51.2%
4.1%
123

16.0%
25.6%
25.6%
15.3%
313

2.1%
47.9%
47.9%
4.2%
48

Conclusions: converging beliefs, diverging practices
This overview of the way the Brazilian academics relate to research showthat the efforts, started in the 1970s, to turn the academics in Brazil into
academic researchers, has succeeded in part in terms of beliefs, but does notseem to be converging in practice. Today, more than in the past, academics
believe that they should have a doctoral degree and get involved in research, andthe incentives created by the national authorities tend towards that direction.
However, in practice, only a minority of researchers in research institutes and inresearch-intensive public universities can meet these values and incentives. For
the others, the alternative is either to give up, and place more emphasis onteaching, or to make some gestures signaling their adherence to the researchideals – attending conferences, writing research reports, and trying to publish an
article every year or so. The need to comply with the research ideal, and theinability to do so, is a fertile ground for accommodation and cynicism, which canaffect the quality of the missions that higher education institutions are supposedto perform – teaching, research, and services.
This is clearly not a good situation, and the solution to the problem does notseem to consist in pouring more resources and effort in order to turn each of theacademics working in Brazilian higher education into a researcher. The bestpolicy would be to concentrate the research effort in places and institutions
where good quality and relevant research can really take place, and to provide

164

The Academic Profession in a Diverse Institutional Environment

renewed status, prestige and support for the functions of general education andteaching for the professions, which were, and remain, the main objectives ofhigher education.

Acknowledgement
The authors would like to acknowledge the financial support given by
FAPESP, Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo(2006/03329-0).

RIHE International Seminar Reports, No.13, 2009 165

Education and Research Activities of the Academic
Profession in Japan

Hideto Fukudome∗ and Tsukasa Daizen∗∗

Introduction
After the 1990s, much legislation has been enacted in Japan in terms ofhigher education reform. The main issues have dealt with the social andeconomic problems that are common throughout the world, such as theconstruction of a knowledge-based society and globalization of the economy, butthey also dealt with domestic problems such as the collapse of the bubble
economy, decrease of the population of eighteen-year olds, and construction of asociety of gender equality (Central Council for Education, 2005).
Since the 1990s Japanese higher education has changed drastically underthese conditions.
The emphasis of change has fallen particularly on
enhancement of the quality of undergraduate education. Since the early 1990s
Japanese higher education has expanded (Table 1). The population ofeighteen-year olds has been decreasing sharply, but a higher proportion ofeighteen-year olds has entered universities, an increase from 26.4% to 47.2%.
Corresponding to this expansion of students, teaching at undergraduate level has
been the most critical issue since the 1990s.
National advisory councils to the Minister of Education have publishedsome key reports for higher education policy. The University Council’s College
Education in 1991 proposed deregulation of the university curriculum as one ofits key proposals. This provided, in effect, the beginning of the reform ofundergraduate education. In 1998, the University Council published another∗

Associate Professor, RIHE, Hiroshima University, e-mail: fukudome@hiroshima-u.ac.jp
Professor, RIHE, Hiroshima University, e-mail: tdaizen@hiroshima-u.ac.jp

∗∗

166

Education and Research Activities of the Academic Profession in Japan

key report: A Vision of Universities in the 21st Century and Reform Measures: to
be Distinctive Universities in a Competitive Environment.
This reportemphasized the need for change in various aspects of university education. In
2005, the Central Council for Education published The Future of Higher
Education in Japan: the issue here was more focused on enhancement of thequality of university education.
Table 1. Expansion of Japanese higher education between 1992 and 2007
(thousands)Year

Population of
18-year olds

1992

2,050

Number of Newly
Enrolled Students inColleges
541

Collegeentrances18-year olds
26.40%

Number ofUndergraduate
Students
2,184

2007
1,299
613
47.20%
2,566
Note: Numbers of students in Junior Colleges and Colleges of Technology are not included.

However, even if teaching is thought to be the key for Japanese higher
education reform, enhancement of many other aspects of university activities isalso a critical issue. In this regard, the quality of the academic work of faculty
members was seen as the key to effecting major changes in universities’ activities.
The Japanese academic profession is expected to play various roles in providing
the core functions in universities. Particularly in recent years, throughuniversity evaluation, faculty evaluation, and faculty development (FD) activities,
faculty members have been required to advance their various capacities.
However, at the same time, faculty members have become increasingly occupied
with non-academic work, such as administration and services. It becomes more
and more difficult for them to focus their minds on academic duties, teaching andresearch, and this appears to present a serious dilemma for the academic
profession.
The first half of this paper is devoted to a comparison of the results of theCarnegie survey in 1992 and the Changing Academic Profession (CAP) survey in2007. We will consider what kinds of changes have occurred in the work andthe minds of the academic profession in this situation. Our main focus is on therelationship between teaching and research as constituting the major work ofacademic profession.
In academic circles, research has, for the most part, been identified as theprime academic pursuit for faculty. It is then useful to know the extent to which
faculty is involved in research and to what extent faculty makes scholarly
contribution through research. These are the main issues addressed in thesecond half of this paper.

Hideto Fukudome & Tsukasa Daizen 167

1. Teaching and research nexus
Context
Ideally, teaching and research in universities should be integrated, and thisis the core ideology for the academism of university faculty. Ernest Boyer(1990) conceptualized an integration of teaching and research, and advocatedfour categories of scholarship as key factors for the academic profession: thescholarships of discovery, integration, application, and teaching. In our rapidlychanging environment, ideas of core values for academic professions such as
Boyer’s are really essential and stimulating. However, when we direct ourattention to the daily work of faculty, teaching and research demonstrate great
conflicts. It is necessary for faculty to devote much time and energy to every
activity if each of them is to be effective. Teaching and research both requirecapacities and resources. Joseph Ben-David, discussing research and training
for research, writes:
Teaching may thus interfere with research, and vice versa, not only
because they compete for time, but also because − in spite of their close
relationship − they have different aims and require different approaches,different talents, and different facilities. Far from being a natural match,research and teaching can be organized within a single framework only
under specific conditions (Ben-David, 1977, p. 94).
Burton Clark (1995) investigated the conditions for integration of research,teaching and study, and found, as part of these conditions, a differentiation of theresearch university sector and the tier for graduate education in each institution.
What these discussions indicate is that though the integration of research andteaching is essential for universities, it is a complicated issue and we needspecific conditions to attain that integration.
To consider this complicated relationship between teaching and research, inthis paper we will analyze preferences, activities, and the processes of training of
the Japanese academic professions.
Carnegie survey, 1992
In the Carnegie survey in 1992, the result that had the greatest impact inJapan was that the Japanese academic profession had a very strong orientation
towards research compared to teaching. The responses showed that 72.5%
preferred research. The orientation toward teaching, 27.5%, was the second

168

Education and Research Activities of the Academic Profession in Japan

lowest in the 14 countries and areas which participated in the survey (Table 2).
This result has seemed to become one of the background characteristics that haveprompted Japanese higher education policy to emphasize teaching since the1990s.
Table 2. Proportions of teaching-oriented faculty(Carnegie survey 1992)(%)

Source: Ehara, 1996, p.153.

After the deregulation of the curriculum by the university enactment act in
1991, higher education policy has shifted drastically to push universities toundertake ‘educational reforms’, which emphasize teaching at undergraduatelevel. With this trend, the CAP data on the Japanese academic profession’s
preferences and activities in 2007 is informative.
Activities of the Japanese academic profession
The CAP questionnaire asked each respondent the time in typical week
spent on professional activities: teaching, research, service, administration, andother academic activities.1 In total, the average weekly time spent on eachactivity had become longer in 2007 than in 1992 except for research (Table 3).
The average time spent on research had decreased sharply from 21.6 hours to
17.6 hours. On other activities times have extended, and particularly so for
1

The questionnaire asked the time spent both during the period of classes in session andvacations. In our analysis, we only use the data on the period when classes are in session.

Hideto Fukudome & Tsukasa Daizen 169

teaching and administration, each by about 2 hours. Evidently the academic
profession in Japan has been experiencing a dilemma, not only between the time
available for teaching and research, but also between that for academic work andnon-academic work.
Table 3. Average times spent per week on professional activities(periods when classes are in session)(hours)Teaching

Research

Service

Administration

Other

TOTAL

1992

19.7

21.6

3.4

5.9

2.8

53.5

2007

21.8

17.6

4.6

7.8

3.3

55.1

Figure 1. Proportion of time spent per week on professional activities(periods when classes are in session)

This changing climate has yielded somewhat different results for research
universities and non-research universities. In both types, the average time spent
on research shows a similar reduction of about 4 hours; in both, teaching time
has been extended, but more in the research than the non-research universities;
conversely, time spent on administration and services has increased more in the
non-research than the research universities.
Table 4. Average times spent per week on professional activities(periods when classes are in session), by university type (hours)
Teaching

Research

Service

Administration

Other

TOTAL

Research

1992

14.6

24.5

3.6

7.3

3.8

53.7

Universities

2007

17.7

20.9

4.0

7.7

4.1

54.5

Non-research

1992

21.3

20.7

3.3

5.5

2.5

53.4

Universities

2007

23.0

16.6

4.7

7.9

3.1

55.4

170

Education and Research Activities of the Academic Profession in Japan

Figure 2. Proportions of time spent per week on professional activities(periods when classes are in session) by university type

Preferences of the academic profession
In the changed climate, what has happened to faculty’s expressed
preferences for research and teaching? In the CAP survey in 2007, 28.3%
responded that they preferred teaching to research (Figure 3). There is no
significant change in their preferences between 1992 and 2007.

Figure 3. Preferences of the academic profession (1992 & 2007)

When we compare faculty’s preferences by types of universities (research
universities and non-research universities), we find a clear gap between them
(Figure 4). In the 2007 CAP survey, for the research universities, while there isa slight shift of their preferences to teaching, the proportion of respondents with astrong research orientation has decreased by more than 10 percentage points.
On the other hand, in the non-research universities, there are no significant

Hideto Fukudome & Tsukasa Daizen 171

changes in their preferences. Based upon these data, it appears that higher
education policy, which has emphasized the enhancement of educational activity,
has had major influence on those who previously had expressed a relatively highresearch orientation.

Figure 4. Preferences of the academic professions (1992 & 2007)
by university typeThe high research orientation of the Japanese academic profession does notinherently deserve criticism. The academic profession is a ‘profession’ because
it has a particular set of knowledge, skills and attitudes. Its various professional
activities are based upon these highly specialized capacities. And thesecapacities and academic features are acquired through research activities.
Within the Japanese higher education system, after faculty have been appointed
to academic positions in universities, and even after much of their time is spentteaching, they are expected to take at least some part in research activities.
However, when we consider the relationship between research and teachingfrom the conflict point of view, individual faculty members may well face greater
conflict in recent years than in the early 1990s. The appropriate solution is not
simply to invert their orientation but rather to devise means to make teaching
more significant for faculty members.
Process of training the academic profession
Investigating the reasons why the Japanese academic profession has a highresearch orientation is no easier than discovering why some of them are teachingoriented. The reasons may lie in some combination of individual predisposition,
cultural environment, sense of professional responsibility, alternatives to research

172

Education and Research Activities of the Academic Profession in Japan(or teaching), institutional practice, career prospects, or evaluation systems,
amongst others.
One of the reasons may be related to the training processes of the academic
profession. How does the Japanese academic profession evaluate the graduate
education that it experienced as graduate students? The main role of graduate
education in Japan is, of course, to give research training to future members of
the academic profession. However, in recent years, higher education policy has
identified training for teaching at graduate schools as of increased importance.
The Central Council for Education’s report, Graduate Education for a New Era(2005) recommended that graduate education should provide four types oftraining: for researchers with creative research skills; for professionals withadvanced skills and abilities; for university faculty with definite teaching andresearch skills; and for talented people with advanced and academic skills toactively participate in knowledge-based society. How to integrate the first andthird functions is a critical issue for graduate education for the future of theacademic professions.
Table 5. Faculty evaluations of graduate education when they were students

Note: Proportion answering “very good” or “good”.

The questionnaire asked two questions on graduate education: provision of
education as a researcher in your own discipline, and education for university
teaching.2 Comparison of the results for 1992 and 2007 showed that bothquestions got more positive responses in 2007 (Table 5). Graduate education
for university teaching got about ten percentage points more positive responses(55.1% to 65.4%), and education as researchers got much higher approval(62.9% to 77.5%) in 2007. These data offer very good signs for the quality ofgraduate education in Japan.
It is of interest to analyze the relationship of these two responses. How
many people who indicate a positive response to the training for researchers
respond positively also to the training for university teachers? Comparison of
2

These questions were not part of the CAP survey but of the Japan project domestic survey
with which we can compare results directly with those of the Carnegie 1992 survey. The
questions asked respondents to evaluate the education of their ‘final degrees’, and so
excluded the data from those with only bachelors’ degrees.

Hideto Fukudome & Tsukasa Daizen 173

the results between 1992 and 2007 shows no significant change (Table 6). (Noris there any significant change is in those who responded negatively to bothquestions.)
Table 6. Cross reference of research training and training
for college teaching

These results can be interpreted in two ways. When looking at the results
positively, we can say that both functions are attained well in an integrated way.
But if the general consensus is accepted that graduate education is almost entirely
a process for research training, then the situation is that provision for teacher
training overlaps and constitutes only a small part of the provision for researchtraining. In other words, training for university teachers is not seen an
independent function. On this basis, a preferable interpretation of the provisionof training for teachers can be understood as an ‘adjunct’ to research training.
At present, training for university teachers in each institution’s graduate programis at an initial stage, and is not yet a complementary activity. Fujimura (2006)
compared the results of the 1992 Carnegie survey for Japan and with those for
the U.S., and found that in the U.S. the responses were less consistent than inJapan. He concluded that this is because in the U.S., graduate training foruniversity teachers is considered to be largely independent of research training.
If teaching is to become a more definite and more important role for theJapanese academic profession some kind of training for university teachers
should be brought into the training processes of the academic profession. As isshown above, in recent years research training at graduate schools is highly
evaluated by faculty; now in addition, we need to think how training asuniversity teachers can be introduced effectively and compatibly with researchtraining.

2. The change of research activities
The principal purpose of this part is to show the changes in the quantity of174

Education and Research Activities of the Academic Profession in Japan

research activities of the Japanese academic profession from 1992 to 2007,3
and, by using the results from both studies, to clarify the determinants of thequantities of research outputs (especially, the numbers of articles published in an
academic book or journal). In this process, we seek to clarify whether there aredifferences in the quantity and the determinants of the research activities
according to academic discipline.4
The change of the quantity of research results
How much do Japanese faculty members contribute through their research?
On average, in 2007, a Japanese faculty member writes 1.9 academic books,
edits 0.7 books, publishes 9.7 papers in academic journals, publishes 1.6
monographs, and presents papers 6.7 times at academic conferences (Table 7).
The average numbers of academic books, edited books, papers published inacademic journals and research reports or monographs are greater in 2007 than in
1992. But, the average numbers of papers presented have decreased from 1992
to 2007.
Table 7. Change in the numbers of average research outputs
according to the research performance form

3

In the following discussion, the results are from the CAP survey 2007 and the Carnegie
survey 1992. For details of these surveys see Daizen & Yamanoi (2008).
4
Daizen & Yamanoi (2008) showed features of the Japanese academic profession’s research
activities from 1992 to 2007 according to the type of university.

Hideto Fukudome & Tsukasa Daizen 175

Research performance by discipline
There is a meaningful difference in the average number of research outputs
identified in the research performance form classified according to academic
discipline (Table 8).
Table 8. Change of the average number of research outputs according to theresearch performance form classified according to academic
discipline, 1992 & 2007

176

Education and Research Activities of the Academic Profession in JapanFor example, faculty in the health & medical sciences published more books
and papers in academic journals than those in other specialized fields; similarly
faculty in engineering presented more papers at meetings and obtained more
patents than those in other fields.
Distribution of the number of papers
According to the distribution of the numbers of papers in academic books orjournals (Table 9), 42.2 % of health & medical sciences faculty published lessthan half of the average number and, conversely, 15.2 % published more than
twice the average (above 29.4).
Table 9. Distribution of the number of articles (health & medical sciences),
2007

In this way, a large or small number of papers in academic books or journals
could be confirmed for each academic discipline. How can these differences inpublication be related to differences between the disciplines?

3. Data and conceptual model of the determinants of research
activities
It is members of faculty and their associates, such as colleagues andHideto Fukudome & Tsukasa Daizen 177

graduate students who perform research projects. Therefore, the results of a
research project are dependent on the personal ability and effort of these people(Daizen, 2008). However, the success of their work is influenced by their
attributes and the environment of their research activity. This is documented byextensive studies of research productivity (Bellas & Toutkoushian, 1999; Bland,Center, Finstad, Risbey & Staples, 2006; Bonzi & Day, 1991; Daizen, 1996a,
1996b, 2008; Kotrlik, Bartlett, Higgins & Williams, 2002; Stack, 2004).
A model to examine the factors influencing research productivity ispresented schematically in Figure 2.1 and is discussed below.
In developing and application of the model, the initial step is to clarify how
the research environment, constituted as indicated in Figure 5, changed from1992 to 2007.5①Gender⑦Research funding in
the previous three years⑨Preferenceforteaching or research②Academic credentials③Academic Rank
⑪ Articles published inan academic book orjournal in the past threeyears④Type of university⑤ Faculty reporting that
their research is regularly
assessed⑥Importance of a strong
record of successful research
activity in faculty evaluation⑧Assessmentofresearchequipment
and instruments⑩ Time spent per
week on research
activity

Figure 5. Conceptual model of determinants for research productivity

Gender
The extent to which higher education in Japan was still a male-dominatedprofession in the last decade of the twentieth century can be seen in Table 10.
As of 2007, 84.2% of all faculty was male: of the respondents in the recent CAP
survey, 9.0% were female.6 There are fewer female faculty in the upper ranks
5
6

The variables used in this paper are as shown in the Appendix, Table A.
It seems that the big difference in the CAP sample arose because junior researchers were notincluded in the CAP survey. That is, on average, the grades of women academic staff arelower than those of men.

178

Education and Research Activities of the Academic Profession in Japanand in research universities across all institutions (Table 11). In Japan,
representation of women has changed very slowly since 1955 when they
constituted only 5.0%.
Table 10. Gender distribution of university faculty (%)

Table 11. Gender distribution of university facultyby academic rank (%)

Table 12. Gender distribution of university faculty
by type of university (%)

The proportion of women faculty in all types of university has increased in
the past 15 years, except for private non-research universities (Table 12).
When we compare the proportions of women faculty according to academic
discipline, it is lowest in agriculture (3.9%), and highest in humanities (21.9%)(Table 13). The largest increases in the proportion of woman faculty over the
past 15 years have taken place in humanities and social sciences.

Hideto Fukudome & Tsukasa Daizen 179
Table 13. Gender distribution of university faculty by discipline

In Japan, the proportion of faculty with doctorates increased substantiallyover the years: from 10% in 1967, to 40% in 1983, and to 78% in 2007.
A doctoral degree is now a prerequisite for employment of faculty in mostfour-year universities and colleges. Correspondingly, the proportion of thosewith a bachelor's degree as their highest earned degree has tended to zero. By
the time of the CAP survey, most faculty (96%) had received their highest
degrees from a Japanese institution – 2% received degrees in the U.S., and therest in other countries.
Table 14. Academic credentials of university faculty

Table 15. Academic credentials of university faculty
according to academic discipline

Furthermore, while 78.5% of faculty now hold a PhD, there is wide
variation among disciplines (Tables 14, 15). A strikingly substantial number of
respondents with PhD degrees is found in the natural sciences, in comparison

180

Education and Research Activities of the Academic Profession in Japan

with the humanities and social sciences. One reason is that there are more
doctoral programs available in the natural sciences than in the humanities andsocial sciences. Thus, the supply of faculty with PhD degrees is higher in those
fields where doctoral programs are more common.
Academic rank
Full-time faculty in Japanese institutions of higher education hold one offour academic ranks: jokyo (assistant), kousi (assistant professor or lecturer),jyunkyouju (associate professor), and kyouju (full professor).
From 1970 the proportion of full professors increased from 31.4% to40.7% in 2007. Excluding assistants, who were not included in the CAP survey,
the proportion of full professors in Japan increased from 46.1% in 1970 to 53.2%.
The composition of the samples in both the CAP and Carnegie surveys haveremained effectively unchanged in terms of the ratios of full professors over theperiod 1992 to 2007 (Table 16).
Table 16. Distribution of academic rank
among university faculty

Table 17. Distribution of academic rank among university faculty
according to academic discipline

Type of university
Recipients of the questionnaire were chosen by a two-stage sampling
procedure. Initially, universities were sampled, and then faculty within thoseinstitutions were sampled. Prior to sampling, higher education institutions weredivided into research universities (kenkyu-daigaku) and non-research universities.

Hideto Fukudome & Tsukasa Daizen 181

The criteria used to identify research universities were taken from the typology
developed by Ikuo Amano (1984). In this paper, the university to which faculty
belong was classified as one of four types: national research, private research,national non-research, and private non-research.
In 2007, 17.1% of the respondents belonged to a national research university,
unchanged statistically from the proportion in 1992 (Table 18). Again, thedistribution of academic disciplines among the types of university also show
little or no statistically significant changes between 1992 and 2007 with the
exception of medicine where the proportion in the national research universities
had doubled (Table 19).
Table 18. Distribution of type of university*

Table 19. Distribution of academic disciplines by type of university (%)

Faculty reporting that their research is regularly assessed
Formal schemes of academic staff appraisal have been introduced fairly
recently into universities. In 2007, 71.8% of faculty reported that their research
activities were evaluated, almost double the proportion in 1992 (Table 20). A
similar tendency is shown for all academic disciplines (Table 21).
Table 20. Faculty reporting that their research activities are regularly assessed

182

Education and Research Activities of the Academic Profession in Japan
Table 21. Faculty reporting that their research activities are
regularly assessed according to academic discipline

Importance of a strong record of successful research activity in facultyevaluation
Largely unchanged are the proportions of faculty reporting in 2007 that astrong record of successful research activity is important in faculty evaluation(Table 22); nor, with the exception of engineering, were there any significant
differences between 2007 and 1992 according to academic discipline (Table 23).
Table 22. Importance of a strong record of successful
research activity in faculty evaluation

Table 23. Importance of a strong record of successful research
activity in faculty according to academic discipline

Research funding in the previous three years
Research grants and funding resources are allocated to faculty fromgovernment agencies and to individual institutions. The national universities
derive a large part of their institutional funds from government sources.

Hideto Fukudome & Tsukasa Daizen 183

Responses to the CAP survey indicate that almost all faculty, 95%, have received
grants for individual or collaborative research projects in the previous three years,
a substantial increase since 1992. About 40% of the respondents have had
grants totalling less than $25,000, while about 39% have received $50,000 or
more in 2007 (Table 24). Faculty received more grants in 2007 than in 1992, atendency that was shared across all academic disciplines (Table 25).
Table 24. Research funding in the previous three years

However, the extent of research support varies widely with academic
discipline. A high proportion of the large research grants and funding, of$250,000 or more, goes to faculty in the natural sciences (including engineering,
agriculture and health and medical science) (Table 25). The distribution offunding among disciplines receiving research moneys is as follows: 1.4% in thehumanities, 1.4% in the social sciences, 16.0% in engineering, 25.8% in thenatural sciences, 28.3% in agriculture, 27.1% in medicine and dentistry.
Table 25. Research funding in the previous three years
according to academic discipline

Assessment of research equipment and instruments
In 2007, the proportion of faculty who reported that the research equipment

184

Education and Research Activities of the Academic Profession in Japanis excellent was 69.4%, a substantial increase from 1992 (Table 26). Significant
increases are indicated across all academic disciplines (Table 27) but significant
differences emerge in terms of the levels of satisfaction. Facilities provided in
the humanities and social sciences are regarded as far more satisfactory thanthose in the natural sciences (including engineering, agriculture and health andmedical sciences).
Table 26. Assessment of research equipment

Table 27. Assessment of research equipment by discipline (%)

Preference for teaching or research
As was shown earlier (see pages 170, 171, Figures 3, 4) Japanese faculty
place great emphasis on research, essentially unchanged since 1992 and sharedby all academic disciplines (Table 28).
Table 28. Preference for teaching or research by academic discipline (%)

Hideto Fukudome & Tsukasa Daizen 185

Even so, the time devoted to research has decreased (see pages 169, 170,
Tables 3, 4, Figures 1, 2), a change evident across all disciplines (Table 29).
Table 29. Time spent per week on research activities (hours)

4. Determinants of the number of articles published in academic
books or journals
To explore which of the explanatory variables identified in Figure 5
contribute significantly to regulation of the numbers of published research papers,a multi-regression analysis was employed. The results for the data from 1992
are displayed in Table 30 and for 2007 in Table 31.
Table 30. Determinants of research productivity (1992)

186

Education and Research Activities of the Academic Profession in Japan
Table 31. Determinants of research productivity (2007)

Although the model is clearly incomplete (R2 0.2), the data for the total
samples from 1992 (Table 30, right-hand column) show that factors withstatistical significance are provided by research expenses, the type of university,and the level of academic qualification.
When the analysis is performed separately with the 1992 data for individual
academic disciplines, in addition to the first two of these factors, academic rank,
research record and a preference for research activities in engineering andacademic rank in health and medical sciences were significant determinants.
The results from analysis of the 2007 CAP sample data are in Table 31.
The results from the total data for 2007 show that only research funding offers astatistically significant factor. Application of the analysis to individual
academic disciplines indicates that research funding and time spent on researchin the humanities, and research funding and type of university for engineering are
significant factors.
Comparison of the values of the significant partial regression coefficients of
the 1992 and 2007 data, the coefficient for research funding over the previous
three years has increased from 1992 to 2007 but those for the level of academic
credentials and type of university have decreased. For the individual academic
disciplines, the values of the coefficients for academic rank and the importanceof a strong record of successful research activity have also decreased. For theHideto Fukudome & Tsukasa Daizen 187

humanities, although research funding was significant in 1992, it ceases to be soin 2007; in contrast, although time spent per week on research activity was not
significant in 1992, it has become so by 2007.
Perhaps not surprisingly, the results show that the influence of researchfunding on the number of research papers published has become stronger overthe 15-year period from 1992 to 2007; and that at the same time the influence offactors such as academic rank and type of university have diminished.

5. Findings and considerations
Findings
There were two purposes for this paper that were stated at the outset. The
first was to consider the changes that have occurred in the academic profession in
Japan as indicated by comparison of the results of the Carnegie and CAP surveys,
with a particular focus on the relationship between teaching and research. The
second was to examine the involvement of and the extent of the scholarly
contributions made by faculty through research.
The following six points became clear as a result of the analyses.
(1) In total, the average time spent on professional activities, teaching,services, administration, and other academic activities, became longer in2007 than in 1992; the exception is the time devoted to research. The
average time spent on research sharply decreased. Time for otheractivities got much longer, and particularly so for teaching andadministration.
The academic profession in Japan has been
experiencing a dilemma, not only between education and research, butalso between academic work and non-academic work.
(2) There is no significant change in the preferences of the Japanese
academic profession between 1992 and 2007. But, when we compare
faculty preferences by types of universities (research universities andnon-research universities), we can discover clear differences. In
research universities, there is a slight shift of preferences to teaching: inparticular the proportion of those who have a strong orientation toward
research has declined.
On the other hand, in the non-research
universities, there is no evident change in preferences. We can say that ahigher education policy which has emphasized enhancement ofeducational activities has had a major influence on an academic
profession which had previously shown a relatively high researchorientation.

188

Education and Research Activities of the Academic Profession in Japan(3) Provision in graduate schools is more highly esteemed in 2007 than it wasin 1992 both as training for researchers and for university teachers,
even though research training is much more emphasized, and training forteachers is still marginal. Graduate training is important to nurture
research skills based on each discipline, but at the same time some way tomotivate young researchers towards teaching should be introduced.
(4) On average, in 2007 and over a period of 3 years, a member of Japanesefaculty writes 1.9 academic books, edits 0.7 books, publishes 9.7 papers
in academic journals, publishes 1.6 monographs, and presents papers 6.7
times at academic conferences. The average numbers of academic books
written and edited, papers published in academic journals and research
reports or monographs are more in 2007 than in 1992, but, the average
numbers of papers presented at meetings has decreased from 1992 to2007.
(5) The main changes in the characteristics of faculty, its attributes,
awareness, activity and research environment are summarized in thefollowing six points.
①The proportion of woman faculty in the humanities and social sciences
has significantly increased in the past 15 years.
②The proportion of faculty who hold a PhD was higher in 2007 than in
1992. This tendency was shared by all academic disciplines. A
strikingly substantial number of respondents with PhD degrees is found in
the natural sciences, in comparison with the numbers in the humanities
and social sciences.
③The proportion of faculty who reported that their research activities were
evaluated was higher in 2007 than in 1992. This tendency was evident
in all academic disciplines.
④Faculty received more grants for research in 2007 than in 1992, a trendthat is shown across all academic disciplines.
⑤The proportion of faculty in 2007 who reported that research equipment
is excellent was significantly higher than in 1992.
⑥The time spent on research has decreased in the past 15 years, especiallyin the social sciences.
(6) Of the identified factors that determine the output of research papers, theincreases in research funding has the largest effect. This tendency was
similar for all academic disciplines and the scale of this effect has
increased over the 15-years from 1992 to 2007. In contrast, theinfluence on the number of research papers of factors such as academicHideto Fukudome & Tsukasa Daizen 189

rank and type of university has declined.
Considerations
Since the 1990’s, in order to cope with many of the problems discussed inthis article, various reforms have been carried out from a position in which
re-activation of both the educational and research activities in high education isseen as critical.
Of course teaching and research have an inherently close relationship but at
the same time, and particularly at the practical level of individual faculty, these
two aspects of academic work frequently experience conflicts of time and energy.
If we accept this complex relationship of academic work, the way to interpret oursurvey data is far from simple.
Our final consideration may sound ambiguous but, despite the need toincrease the emphasis to be placed on teaching, simply to increase the proportionof teaching-oriented faculty does not satisfy the need. It should be accepted, asa positive attribute, that many faculty members in Japanese universities retain
their research orientation.
Even faculty members in teaching oriented
institutions should be enabled to engage in research in order to maintain theiracademic identities. The problem is at a more substantial level: whether ourhigher education policy and higher education system can build essential linkages
between research and teaching, and whether faculty can develop a true sense ofvalues toward both activities.
It is still difficult to find such linkages in the results of our survey, but it iscertain that this issue is critical also for higher education research.

References
Amano, I. (1984). Method for the types of universities and colleges in T. Keii (ed.), Study ofuniversity evaluation (pp.57-69). Tokyo: Tokyo Daigaku Shuppankai (in Japanese).
Arimoto, A. (1998). Daigaku kyoin no Kenkyu – Daigakukyojyu no Shimei to Shijyo[Research on the Academic Profession – Mission and Marketplace of the Academic
Profession]. Kotou kyouiku kenkyu, 1, 141-162.
Arimoto, A. & Ehara, T. (eds.) (1996). Daigaku kyoujusyoku no kokusai hikaku [Academic
Profession in the Comparative Perspectives]. Tokyo: Tamagawa University Press (inJapanese).
Bellas, M.L. & Toutkoushian, R.K. (1999) Faculty Time Allocations and Research
Productivity: Gender, Race, and Family Effects. The Review of Higher Education, 22(4),190

Education and Research Activities of the Academic Profession in Japan
367-390.

Ben-David, J. (1977). Centers of Learning: Britain, France, Germany, United States. Carnegie
Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.
Bland, C.J., Center, B.A., Finstad, D.A., Risbey, K.R., & Staples, J. (2006). The Impact of
Appointment Type on the Productivity and Commitment of Full-Time Faculty in
Research and Doctoral Institutions. The Journal of Higher Education, 77(1), 89-123.
Bonzi, S., & Day, D.L. (1991). Faculty Productivity as a Function of Cohort Group, Discipline,
and Academic Age. Proceedings of the ASIS Annual Meeting, 28, 267-275.
Boyer, E.L. (1990). Scholarship Reconsidered: Priorities of the Professoriate. Carnegie
Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.
Central Council for Education (2005). A future image of higher education in Japan. Higher
Education

Bureau,Highereducation

generalplanning

andpolicydivision.

(http://211.120.54.153/b_menu/shingi/chukyo/chukyo0/toushin/05013101.htm)
Clark, B.R. (1995). Places of Inquiry: Research and Advanced Education in Modern
Universities. University of California Press.
Daizen, T. (1996a). A Comparative Study on the Determinants of Academic Achievements
between USA and Japan-on the field of physics. Human Sciences, 207-237.
Daizen, T. (1996b). The International Comparison of Research Productivity. In A. Arimoto & T.
Ehara, (eds.), The International Comparison of the Academic Profession (pp.166-183).
Tokyo: Tamagawa University Press.
Daizen, T. (2008). Research Productivity. In A. Arimoto (ed.), The Changing Academic
Profession in Japan (pp.245-262). Tokyo: Tamagawa University Press.
Daizen, T., & Yamanoi, A. (2008). The Changing Academic Profession in an Era of University
Reform in Japan. In The Changing Academic Profession in International Comparativeand Quantitative Perspectives (RIHE International Seminar Reports) 12, 293-325.
Ehara, T. (1996). Dilemma between Teaching and Research. In A. Arimoto & T. Ehara (eds.),
International Comparison of Academic Professions (pp.147-165). Tamagawa University
Press (in Japanese).
Fujimura, M., (2006). A Study of Relevance between Teaching and Research: Integration,
Conflict and Sanction in Higher Education. Research in Higher Education, 37, 213-230(in Japanese).
Kotrlik, J.W., Bartlett, J.E., Higgins, C.C., & Williams, H.A. (2002). Factors Associated with
Research Productivity of Agricultural Education Faculty. Journal of Agricultural
Education, 43(3), 1-10.
Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Sciences and Technology (MEXT) (1950-2007).
School basic survey. Tokyo : Printing Bureau, Ministry of Finance.
MEXT (2006). FY2005 white paper on education, culture, sports, science and technology.
Tokyo : Printing Bureau, Ministry of Finance.

Hideto Fukudome & Tsukasa Daizen 191
Ministry of Education, Science, Sports and Culture (MESSC) (2000). Japanese Government
Policies in Education, Science, Sports and Culture 1999 (p.14-16). Tokyo: Printing
Bureau, Ministry of Finance.
Stack, S. (2004). Gender, Children and Research Productivity. Research in Higher Education,
45(8), 891-920.
Yamanoi, A. (ed.) (2007). Nippon no Daigaku Kyojyu Shijyo [Academic Marketplace in Japan].
Tokyo: Tamagawa University Press.

Appendix
Table A. Explanatory Variables

The correlation coefficients for each of the explanatory variables are shownin Table B.
A correlation coefficient, among the explanatory variables, which included

192

Education and Research Activities of the Academic Profession in Japan⑫ age, is shown in Table B. Because of strong co-linearity between thevariables ⑫ and ③, variable ⑫ was not included in the causal model (Figure
1).
Table B. Correlation coefficients for the explanatory variables

Note: As for the value in the table, the upper section is the correlation coefficient correlation,
the middle section is the level of significance level and the bottom section is thenumber of cases.

RIHE International Seminar Reports, No.13, 2009 193

The Academic Profession in Mexico: changes,
continuities and challenges derived from acomparison of two national surveys 15 years apart1

Jesús F. Galaz-Fontes, Manuel Gil-Antón, Laura E. Padilla-González,Juan J. Sevilla-García, José L. Arcos-Vega, and Jorge G.
Martínez-Stack∗Introduction
In the context of a more salient and visible role of higher education in
today’s world, the academic profession has been itself in a process of change.
Seen traditionally as centrally devoted to the generation and transmission ofknowledge, a statement that in itself brings to mind goals beyond the material
and immediate, higher education is nowadays seen increasingly as responsible
for training professionals and generating and applying knowledge alreadytransformed into technology. With such changes in societal expectations forhigher education, it is indeed natural for its academics, in one way or another, tochange as well. The international project “The Changing Academic Profession”
1

The work reported here was made possible by funds provided by the Secretariat of Public
Education through its Program to Support University Development, 2006-2008. We also
thank the members of the Network of Researchers on Academics, whom made the faculty
survey possible.
∗
Jesús F. Galaz-Fontes: Professor, Faculty of Human Sciences and Institute of Engineering,
Autonomous University of Baja California, México, e-mail: galazfontes@gmail.com
Manuel Gil-Antón: Professor, Department of Sociology, Iztapalapa Campus, Metropolitan
Autonomous University, México, e-mail: maga@correo.azc.uam.mx
Laura E. Padilla-González: Professor, Department of Education, Autonomous University ofAguascalientes, México, e-mail: lepadill@correo.uaa.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: arcos@uabc.mx
Jorge G. Martínez-Stack: Professor, General Direction of International Evaluation, Seminaron Higher Education, National Autonomous University of México, México, e-mail:jorgestack@gmail.com

194

The Academic Profession in Mexico

is but a recognition of such a state of affairs and, as part of it, Mexican academics
were surveyed during the 2007-2008 academic year.
The central purpose of this report is to assess changes that may haveoccurred in the Mexican academic profession between 1992 and 2007 when theInternational Survey of the Academic Profession (ISAP92) and the Changing
Academic Profession Survey (CAPS07) were carried out.
But before
proceeding it is necessary to qualify in various ways the following comparativework.
In the first place, it should be stressed that the comparative analysis is based
almost entirely on the information generated by the ISAP92 and the CAPS07
surveys. Although similar, the surveys differ in a number of ways that need tobe considered when drawing conclusions. The instruments used differed inextent and, more specifically, in item wording and, in some cases, response
scales. Given that the instruments were designed with different concerns in
mind, its content also differed. Notwithstanding this situation, the two
instruments contain a sufficient number of equivalent or similar items to allow ameaningful comparison. It should be acknowledged, however, that not all thecomparable items were included in this report, as that would have demanded amuch larger space.
Second, the ISAP92 and the CAPS07 also differed in the procedure bywhich the respective samples were generated. The general correspondence inthe results obtained in key variables by these surveys and other national studies
done around 1992 (Gil-Antón et al., 1994) or later (Grediaga-Kuri,
Rodríguez-Jiménez & Padilla-González, 2004), as well as the consideration of
official data (e.g., Rubio-Oca, ed., 2006) provides us with a reasonableconfidence that a comparison based upon the ISAP92 and the CAPS07 islegitimate.
Third, one should remember that between 1992 and 2007 Mexican higher
education itself changed in major ways, both in quantitative and qualitative
matters: more and different higher education institutions were created, more andmore diverse students were enrolled and, more closely to the purpose of thisreport, the faculty body grew significantly (Rubio-Oca, ed., 2006). While in1994 there were approximately 156,500 faculty members working in all Mexican
higher education institutions (HEI), of which around 47,000 (30%) had afull-time (FT) appointment (SEP & ANUIES, 1997), by 2005 there wereapproximately 255,274 academics, of which 75,863 (29.7%) were FT. Such

Jesús F. Galaz-Fontes et al. 195

figures represent a 63.1% increment in all faculty and, in FT positions, anincrease of 61.4% between 1994 and 2005.3 So, while in our 1992 figures a 1%change might represent around 470 FT academics, in 2007 that same 1% mostprobably represents around 789 FT academics (there are now 67.9% moreacademics than in 1994). In comparing percentages between two points in time
this is something that should not be overlooked.
Fourth, although the results and analysis to follow still need to beconsidered preliminary, their status is more definitive than the ones presented ina previous report almost a year ago (Galaz-Fontes et al., 2008). While at thattime, results were based on 826 returned questionnaires from FT and half-time
faculty, the present report can now be based, with respect to the CAPS07 survey,
upon 1,775 questionnaires answered by FT faculty only. Data from the ISAP92,
on the other hand, were filtered in order to use only information from FT faculty.
Such filtering allowed the identification of 609 questionnaires of FT faculty, outof 1,022 respondents. The goal in using only FT faculty was to maximize thecomparability of the information gathered in the two surveys involved.
Considering all of the above, in this report information regarding four
themes will be presented: personal characteristics, professional trajectory,
academic work and, finally, faculty internationalization. Given the space
available, not all items that are potentially comparable were included in thisreport. Finally, a small set of closing remarks is made.

Personal characteristics and professional trajectory
Table 1 presents, overall, three personal characteristics of Mexican faculty:
gender, age and highest degree. In relation to gender, Table 1 shows thatbetween 1992 and 2007 there was an increment in the participation of females in
the academe from 30.9% to 35.7%. The process is a continuation of a trend
described by Gil-Antón et al. (1994) as taking place since the 1970s.
Also at an overall level, Table 1 shows that academics have grown older.
The average age of faculty members has increased from 40.1 years, to 49.9 years.
Analysis of the year in which faculty entered the profession suggests that almost
two-thirds of the faculty has remained in higher education since 1992, but it also
speaks of a replacement process in which some faculty have left the academic
3

These comparisons constitute a conservative estimate of the change in faculty positions
between 1992 and 2007. The figures for such years were not readily available indisaggregated form for all degree levels, and for this the years 1994 and 2005 were used.

196

The Academic Profession in Mexico

profession, and others have come into the profession for the first time.
Unfortunately, there is no evidence to consider the replacement process,including the retirement aspect, as one that has been planned and is attractive tofaculty.
Table 1. Gender, age, and highest degree of Mexican full-time faculty in
1992 (NT = 609) and 2007 (NT = 1775)
1992
GenderFemale
Male
Total

n
187
418
605

Age

Total

n
599

HighestdegreeLicensure (up to)
Masters’
Doctorate
Total

n
305
228
72
605

mean
40.1

2007
%
30.9
69.1
100.0

n
625
1126
1751

s
7.9

n
1740

%
50.4
37.7
11.9
100.0

n
439
738
592
1769

%
35.7
64.3
100.0
mean
49.9

s
9.4
%
24.8
41.7
33.5
100.0

Finally, Table 1 shows a quite impressive change in the distribution ofhighest degrees held by academics. The larger change can be observed at thedoctoral level, where the proportion of academics increased from 11.9% to33.5%. By considering graduate studies at the masters’ and doctoral levels
together, it turns out that between 1992 and 2007 the aggregate figures have
moved from 49.6% to 85.2%. This increment is most surely associated withvarious public policies that have demanded and rewarded higher degrees as
requirements both to enter the profession and to progress up the academic ladderonce in it. While in some disciplines, most notably the natural and exact
sciences, this situation has coincided with an internal process of growth andconsolidation, this is not the case for disciplines such as health andadministrative sciences, as will be shown later in the paper.
Table 2 presents data on the educational background of academics’ parents,
as well as similar information for the partnerships in which faculty currently
participate. The data on the educational attainment of parents in 1992 and 2007
show little change, particularly when considering the two highest levels (25.7%
versus 25.4%). It would appear, then, that similar academics participated inboth surveys. However, if one considers the educational attainment of thepartners of members of faculty, then 97.3% reported the highest educational
levels. So, the social mobility of faculty discussed in earlier reports, has now toJesús F. Galaz-Fontes et al. 197

be complemented with the fact that faculty are creating families with a very highcultural capital; in almost all of these families one of its members has had contact
with higher education. Sociologically this is a most interesting phenomenon.
Table 2.

Educational attainment of parents and of the partners of
Mexican full-time faculty in 1992 (NT = 547) and 2007 (NT =
1775)
1992

Educational
attainment of
parents

Both low
Medium - low
Both medium
High - low
High - medium
Both high
Total

n
213
61
87
32
99
37
529

%
40.3
11.5
16.5
6.0
18.8
6.9
100.0

2007
n
634
248
288
73
251
171
1665

%
38.1
14.9
17.3
4.3
15.1
10.3
100.0

n
%
Both low00.0
Medium - low0
0.0
Both medium
1
0.1
No data available
High - low
36
2.6
High - medium
321
23.7
Both high
997
73.6
Total
1354
100.0
Notes: 1. Data for 1992 are taken from the 1992 Traits of Diversity study (Gil-Antón etal., 1994).
2. Low attainment = no schooling up to elementary school;
Medium attainment = secondary, high and normal school, technician;High attainment = higher education, including graduate level.
Educational
attainment offaculty’s
partners

Table 3 provides data about where, in terms of institutions and disciplines,
Mexican faculty worked in 1992 and in 2007. In both cases there is relocation.
In terms of types of institutions, the proportions of faculty located in federal andstate public institutions diminished by more than 10 percentage points, from
34.9% to 22.7%, in the case of federal institutions, and less in the case of state
institutions. Public technological and private institutions have increased theirshare up to around 15%, while research centers appear, due to the way in whichsampling was done in 1992, for the first time with 6.3%. This distributionchange can be interpreted as a reflection of institutional diversification and, at thesame time, the decentralization that mirrors in general terms a new distribution ofboth institutions and student enrollment (Rubio-Oca, ed., 2006). In relation to
discipline there is general stability, except for a small decline in faculty in thesocial sciences (21.2% to 17.9%), and an also small increment in the faculty inhealth sciences (9.1% to 13.4%).

198

The Academic Profession in Mexico

Table 3. Distribution of Mexican full-time faculty by type of institution andby discipline of highest degree in 1992 (NT = 609) and 2007 (NT = 1775)
1992
Type ofinstitution

Public research centers
Federal public institutions
State public institutions
Public technological institutions
Private institutions
Total

n
n.a.
212
284
64
47
607

Disciplineof highest
degreeNatural and exact sciences
Health sciences
Agricultural sciences
Engineering and technology
Social sciences
Administrative sciences
Education
Humanities and arts
Total

n
115
55
12
135
128
53
65
40
603

2007

%
n.a.
34.9
46.8
10.5
7.8
100.0

n
112
403
739
280
241
1775

%
6.3
22.7
41.6
15.8
13.6
100.0

%
19.1
9.1
2.0
22.4
21.2
8.8
10.8
6.6
100.0

n
305
230
70
401
308
167
156
79
1716

%
17.8
13.4
4.1
23.4
17.9
9.7
9.1
4.6
100.0

Table 4. Gender by highest degree of Mexican full-time faculty in 1992
(NT = 609) and 2007 (NT = 1775)
1992
Females

Licensure (up to)
Masters’
Doctorate
Total

Males

Licensure (up to)
Masters’
Doctorate
Total

n
91
74
20
185
n
212
153
51
416

Femaleswithin highest
degreeLicensure (up to)
Masters’
Doctorate
Total

n
303
227
71
601

2007
%
49.2
40.0
10.8
100.0
%
51.0
36.8
12.2
100.0

n
138
305
180
623
n
293
428
402
1123

%
22.1
49.0
28.9
100.0
%
26.1
38.1
35.8
100.0

%
30.0
32.6
28.2
30.8

n
431
733
582
1746

%
32.0
41.6
30.9
35.7

Table 4 presents data about the relationship between gender and highest
degree amongst Mexican faculty. While in 1992 the distribution of degrees was
similar for both women and men, with the licensure being the predominantdegree in both cases, by 2007 a higher proportion of men than women reported aJesús F. Galaz-Fontes et al. 199

doctorate (35.8% versus 28.9%). At the same time, women are more likely toreport a master’s degree than men (49.0% versus 38.1%). Both of thesedevelopments are also reflected in the increasing representation of women at themasters’ level, as they represented 32.6% of all those holding a masters’ degreein 1992, and 41.6% by 2007. What are the reasons for the fact that female
faculty have not kept pace with male academics? This is a topic to follow up
considering factors related to graduate programs characteristics, as well as to thegeneral cultural dimensions of Mexican society.
Table 5 indicates how the composition of faculty by gender has changed bytype of institution between 1992 and 2007. With the diversification of HEI
there has also been an opening of more positions, which in turn has brought more
opportunities for female faculty. While in 1992 16.7% of all female faculty
worked in public technological and private institutions, in 2007 this figure has
increased to 30.3%.
This change is more clearly observed in publictechnological institutions, where female academics have increased theirrepresentation by 12.9 percentage points, from 22.2% to 35.1%. Why it is thatthe biggest increment in female participation has occurred in these institutions issomething to explore in future studies.
Table 5. Gender by type of institution of Mexican full-time faculty in 1992
(NT = 609) and 2007 (NT = 1775)
1992
Females

Males

Femaleswithin typeofinstitution

Public research centers
Federal public institutions
State public institutions
Public technological institutions
Private institutions
Total
Public research centers
Federal public institutions
State public institutions
Public technological institutions
Private institutions
Total
Public research centers
Federal public institutions
State public institutions
Public technological institutions
Private institutions
Total

n
n.a
73
81
14
17
185
n.a.
138
201
49
30
418
n.a.
211
282
63
47
603

%
n.a
39.5
43.8
7.5
9.2
100.0
n.a.
33.0
48.1
11.7
7.2
100.0
n.a.
34.6
28.7
22.2
36.2
30.7

2007
n
35
153
248
98
91
625
76
243
483
181
143
1126
111
396
731
279
234
1751

%
5.5
24.5
39.7
15.7
14.6
100.0
6.7
21.6
42.9
16.1
12.7
100.0
31.5
38.6
33.9
35.1
38.9
35.7

200

The Academic Profession in Mexico

Table 6 presents gender data in relation to disciplines between 1992 and2007. It can be observed that the proportions of women in natural and exact
sciences diminished (20.0% to 15.1%), while in engineering and technology they
increased (8.6% to 13.2%). The proportion of men, on the other hand,increased in health sciences (5.8% to 11.0%) and decreased in social sciences(21.5% to 15.8%). Although these changes do not represent dramaticdifferences, they probably reflect a tendency that needs to be attended to. In
relative terms, female faculty increased their representation substantially inengineering and technology (from 11.9% to 20.5%), in social sciences (from29.9% to 43.0%) and, most importantly, in administrative sciences (from 26.4%
to 43.1%).
Table 6. Gender by discipline of Mexican full-time faculty in 1992 (NT = 609)
and 2007 (NT = 1775)
1992
Females

Males

Femaleswithindiscipline

Natural and exact sciences
Health sciences
Agricultural sciences
Engineering and technology
Social sciences
Administrative sciences
Education
Humanities and arts
Total
Natural and exact sciences
Health sciences
Agricultural sciences
Engineering and technology
Social sciences
Administrative sciences
Education
Humanities and arts
Total
Natural and exact sciences
Health sciences
Agricultural sciences
Engineering and technology
Social sciences
Administrative sciences
Education
Humanities and arts
Total

n
37
31
1
16
38
14
29
19
185
75
24
11
119
89
39
36
21
414
112
55
12
135
127
53
65
40
599

2007
%
20.0
16.8
0.5
8.6
20.5
7.6
15.7
10.3
100.0
18.1
5.8
2.7
28.7
21.5
9.4
8.7
5.1
100.0
33.0
56.4
8.3
11.9
29.9
26.4
44.6
47.5
30.9

n
91
108
7
80
130
72
76
40
604
214
120
61
311
172
95
78
37
1088
305
228
68
391
302
167
154
77
1692

%
15.1
17.9
1.2
13.2
21.5
11.9
12.6
6.6
100.0
19.7
11.0
5.6
28.6
15.8
8.7
7.2
3.4
100.0
29.8
47.4
10.3
20.5
43.0
43.1
49.4
51.9
35.7

Jesús F. Galaz-Fontes et al. 201
Table 7. Age by gender, highest degree, type of institution and discipline of
Mexican full-time faculty in 1992 (NT = 609) and 2007 (NT = 1775)
GenderHighestdegreeType ofinstitution

Discipline

FemaleMale
Total
Licensure (up to)
Masters’
Doctorate
Total
Public research centers
Federal public institutions
State public institutions
Public technological institutions
Private institutions
Total
Natural and exact sciences
Health sciences
Agricultural sciences
Engineering and technology
Social sciences
Administrative sciences
Education
Humanities and arts
Total

n
185
411
596
302
223
71
596
n.a
208
282
61
46
597
114
55
12
133
124
52
64
39
593

1992
mean
39.6
40.4
40.1
39.4
39.8
44.6
40.1
n.a.
41.9
38.9
40.6
39.3
40.1
40.4
41.1
36.1
39.5
40.5
39.3
40.4
41.3
40.1

s
8.4
7.6
7.9
7.9
7.4
7.7
7.9
n.a.
8.0
7.9
5.5
7.9
7.9
8.5
7.5
5.6
7.8
8.3
6.3
7.3
8.6
7.9

n
619
1120
1739
430
728
575
1733
109
394
724
279
234
1740
302
227
68
388
300
166
154
77
1682

2007
mean
48.0
50.9
49.9
50.0
49.6
50.2
49.9
48.9
52.4
49.3
50.4
47.2
49.9
50.6
51.2
51.9
48.6
49.2
50.5
48.8
48.0
49.7

s
9.0
9.4
9.4
10.9
8.7
9.1
9.4
9.9
9.7
9.2
7.9
10.0
9.4
9.3
9.4
9.0
9.2
10.0
7.4
9.6
10.3
9.4

More detailed data for Mexican faculty by age, both for 1992 and for 2007,
appear in Table 7. Between 1992 and 2007 the overall mean age of Mexican
faculty increased by approximately 9 years: males aged somewhat more thenfemales (10.5 versus 8.4 years more on average), and faculty with a doctorate
less than those with a master’s or a licensure (5.6 versus 9.8 and 10.6 years moreon average). This last comparison might speak of younger academics coming
into the profession already holding doctorates. Also, faculty in private
institutions are aged less than faculty in other types of institutions (7.9 years on
average), while faculty in agricultural sciences are aged more than theircolleagues in other disciplines (15.8 years on average). On the other hand,
while in general for 2007 there are no differences greater than five years between
the compared subgroups, there are some differences between the mean ages offemale and male academics (48.0 versus 50.9 years), between faculty working inprivate and in public federal institutions (47.2 versus 52.4 years), and between
those working in the humanities and arts and those working in agriculturalsciences (48.0 versus 51.9 years). A more detailed analysis is needed in termsof age at entrance into the academic profession, where there is evidence that this202

The Academic Profession in Mexico

Jesús F. Galaz-Fontes et al. 203

204

The Academic Profession in Mexico

indicates larger differences (Gil-Antón et al., 1994; Galaz-Fontes et al., 2008).
Also needed is a comparative study of junior versus senior faculty, much along
the lines worked out by Finkelstein, Seal and Schuster (1998).
Table 8 presents data on the highest degree by type of institution anddiscipline. In general, there are radical changes between 1992 and 2007.
While in federal public institutions the increment in doctorates is strong (26.9%
versus 44.5%), the increment in state public institutions is impressive (3.6%
versus 30.3%). It is important to note that the federal policies of the Program
for the Improvement of the Professoriate (PROMEP) have targeted these
institutions (Urbano-Vidales, Aguilar-Sahagún & Rubio-Oca, 2006) and theresults speak for themselves. It is a matter for future studies to identify how
much of this increment is related to new and to in-service faculty, and what the
implications are for each type of faculty. An interesting point to analyze is thestrength of the formative processes by which faculty in state public institutions
have obtained their degrees, given the relatively short time in which thesechanges have taken place. In relation to discipline, it can be observed thatlarger changes in doctoral degrees from 1992 to 2007 have occurred in thenatural and exact sciences (23.5% versus 62.4%), agricultural sciences (zeroversus 34.3%), social sciences (13.4% versus 42.5%), and engineering andtechnology (4.4% versus 27.4%). Given the professional orientation of
Mexican higher education, an analysis of the relevance of the doctorate in highly
professional fields is required.
Information about the professional trajectory of Mexican faculty is includedin Table 9. While changes in work experience in a variety of HEI are small in
general, more academics appear to have worked in four or more institutions in2007 as compared to 1992 (18.3% versus 4.2%). While in 1992 surveyed
faculty reported a mean of 12.5 years of work in HEI, in 2007 the corresponding
figure was 14.6 years; although this number might underestimate the average, as
the wording in the 2007 questionnaire asked for years of having worked as FT
faculty, while the wording in the 1992 questionnaire did not make such a
qualification. In a similar trend, years of seniority at the HEI in which theacademic was surveyed increased from a mean of 11.5 years in 1992, to 18.9
years in 2007 and depicts low mobility in the faculty body in general. Finally,
there is a large increase in the proportion of faculty that reports having no work
experience outside higher education, from 20.9% in 1992, to 49.3% in 2007.
This provides evidence that a work space for academics has been more
intensively built during the last fifteen years, and such space has allowed faculty
members to devote themselves solely to their work, as other professionals do.

Jesús F. Galaz-Fontes et al. 205
Table 9. Work experience of Mexican full-time facultyin 1992 (NT = 609) and 2007 (NT = 1775)

Number ofhighereducation
institutions
worked in

1992
Number of HEI worked in witha regular academic contract
n
%
347
58.6
165
27.9
55
9.3
25
4.2
592
100.0

1
2
3
>=4
Total

n

mean

s

Number of years worked in HEI in
FT status since first degree
n
mean
s

603

12.5

6.7

1752

Number of years worked in HEI
Years worked in higher
education

Number of years worked at thisinstitutionnmeansYears worked at thisinstitution

606

11.5

7.7

Percentage of faculty reporting nowork experience outside HEIn%Work experience
outside higher
education

2007
Number of HEI in which you haveworked since your first degree
n
%
977
57.9
278
16.5
123
7.3
308
18.3
1686
100.0

545

20.9

14.6

10.6

Approximate number of years
worked at this institution
n
mean
s
1503

18.9

10.0

Percentage of faculty reporting nowork experience outside HEI
n
%
1752

49.3

Academic work
In relation to academic work, Table 10 describes the way in which Mexican
faculty distribute their time among various activities. As can be observed,
academics reported more work hours per week on average in 2007 than in 1992
(means of 45.9 hours versus 38.8 hours), with the largest time being devoted toteaching in both 1992 and 2007 (means of 18.0 hours versus 21.5 hours),
followed by research, which has somewhat diminished from 1992 to 2007
(means of 10.7 hours versus 10.1 hours). An interesting development is that the
average time devoted to administrative tasks increased from 1992 to 2007
(means of 5.0 hours versus 8.6 hours).
Data show quite clearly that the activities performed by faculty areassociated with the type of institution. While in 1992 state public and publictechnological institutions were very heavily involved in teaching, with their

206

The Academic Profession in Mexico

faculty devoting an average of more than 20 hours per week to it, in 2007 alltypes of institutions, except for public research centers, had their faculty
reporting a mean of at least 19 hours per week for teaching. Given the national
goal of increasing student enrollment and with little growth in financial resources,
it would appear that academics already hired are solving the issue of increasingteaching demands. With respect to research, on the other hand, there is moredifferentiation. In 2007 faculty at public research centers, as would be expected,
reported the highest mean of hours devoted to research (24.7 hours), followed byfaculty in public federal and state institutions (means of 14.1 hours and 9.4
hours), and then by private institutions (6.1 hours). It is interesting to observethat academics in public technological institutions reported the smallest amountof time devoted to research activities (4.1 hours per week). In 1992 the pattern
was very similar, although in private institutions there was more research
reported in 1992 than in 2007 (means of 10.4 hours versus 6.1 hours per week),
something which most probably reflects the growth of the private sector intraining at the professional level. Finally, while in 1992 it was mainly faculty inprivate institutions who devoted more hours than the overall average toadministration (7.3 hours versus 5.0 hours), in 2007 faculty in all types of
institutions increased, in a relatively important amount, the number of hours per
week devoted to administrative tasks (see Table 10), perhaps reflecting new andmore complex administrative procedures.
Table 11 presents data related to various aspects of Mexican faculty’s
research activity. In general, the data show that the proportion of academics
that indicate activity in research has increased among Mexican academics
between 1992 and 2007 (61.4% versus 69.1%). At a more specific level, it canbe observed that research has become a part of academic work for the majority offaculty in state public institutions by 2007 (50.8% in 1992 versus 74.4% in 2007),
while in federal public institutions more than 80% of its faculty reported doing
research since 1992. It is interesting to observe a slight decrement in research
activity in these institutions from 1992 to 2007 (85.1% to 81.7%, respectively).
As expected, research is highest in public research centers (100%). Associatedwith the research activity, there was also an increment in faculty who reported
having published at least one paper in 2007 as compared to 1992 (80.2% versus
65.4%). Again, the highest increment is shown by faculty working in statepublic institutions (83.9% versus 61.3%). Finally, there is a slight variation
overall in relation to faculty obtaining funds for research between 1992 and 2007
(45.6% versus 51.5%). In terms of types of institution, the change is larger infederal public institutions (46.8% versus 59.4%). In 2007 faculty in publicJesús F. Galaz-Fontes et al. 207

research centers reported the largest figure in this respect (77.3%), as perhaps
might be expected.
Table 10. Hours per week worked in different activities by Mexican full-time
faculty in 1992 (NT = 609) and 2007 (NT = 1775)

Activity

Teaching by
type ofinstitution

Research bytype ofinstitution

Teaching
Research
Service
Administration
Other activities

1992 (n = 585)
mean
s
18.0
11.2
10.7
10.6
2.4
5.8
5.0
7.6
2.7
4.5

2007 (n = 1600)
mean
s
21.5
10.9
10.1
10.3
1.6
4.0
8.6
10.0
4.2
5.9

Total number of hours per week

38.8

18.7

45.9

10.5

mean
n.a.
14.3
20.4
20.5
16.1

s
n.a.
8.1
12.0
12.6
11.2

mean
11.1
19.3
21.0
26.7
25.1

s
9.1
10.4
9.7
10.4
11.9

18.0

11.2

21.5

10.9

mean
n.a.
14.7
9.0
4.8
10.4

s
n.a.
12.1
9.1
6.0
10.2

mean
24.7
14.1
9.4
4.1
6.1

s
13.4
10.8
9.1
6.0
6.2

10.7

10.6

10.1

10.3

Public research centers
Federal public institutions
State public institutions
Publictechnologicalinstitutions
Private institutions
Total

Public research centers
Federal public institutions
State public institutions
Publictechnologicalinstitutions
Private institutions
Total

mean
s
mean
s
Administration Public research centers
n.a.
n.a.
7.3
10.7
Federal public institutions
by type of
8.8
4.4
6.4
7.2
State public institutions
institution
8.9
10.3
5.0
8.1
Publictechnological
5.1
9.0
8.3
9.8
institutions
10.6
10.7
7.3
7.1
Private institutions
Total
5.0
7.6
8.6
10.0
Notes: 1. Teaching involves preparation of instructional materials and lesson plans, classroom
instruction, advising students, reading and evaluating student work.
2. Research involves reading literature, writing, conducting experiments, fieldwork.
3. Service involves services to clients and/or patients, unpaid consulting, public orvoluntary services.
4. Administration involves committees, department meetings, and paperwork.
5. Other activities involve professional activities not clearly attributable to any of thecategories above.

208

The Academic Profession in Mexico

Table 11. Research activity, publication and research fund raising of Mexican
faculty in 1992 (NT = 609) and 2007 (NT = 1775)
1992

2007

Faculty research
activity

Yes
No
Total

n
342
215
557

%
61.4
38.6
100.0

n
1196
536
1732

%
69.1
30.9
100.0

Faculty research
activity within
type of institution

Public research centers
Federal public institutions
State public institutions
Public technological institutions
Private institutions
Total

n
n.a.
201
256
53
45
555

%
n.a.
85.1
50.8
24.5
57.8
61.3

n
112
398
720
268
234
1731

%
100.0
81.7
74.4
36.6
53.4
69.1

Faculty with atleast onepublication

Yes
No
Total

n
398
211
609

%
65.4
34.6
100.0

n
1310
323
1633

%
80.2
19.8
100.0

Faculty with atleast onepublication
within type of
institution

Public research centers
Federal public institutions
State public institutions
Public technological institutions
Private institutions
Total

n
n.a.
212
284
64
47
607

%
n.a.
82.1
61.3
25.0
68.1
65.2

n
112
393
685
230
214
1634

%
99.1
88.8
83.9
49.6
75.2
80.2

Fund raising byfaculty doing
research

Yes
No
Total

n
154
184
338

%
45.6
54.4
100.0

n
603
568
1171

%
51.5
48.5
100.0

Fund raising byfaculty doing
research within
type of institution

Public research centers
Federal public institutions
State public institutions
Public technological institutions
Private institutions
Total

n
n.a.
171
126
13
26
336

%
n.a.
46.8
47.6
30.8
34.6
45.5

n
110
323
524
95
118
1170

%
77.3
59.4
48.1
32.6
35.6
51.5

It appears, then, that the roles of faculty are changing, as can be inferredfrom the way they reported their time allocation regarding different activities.
In particular, faculty are investing more time in teaching and administrative tasks
and, in parallel, are slightly diminishing the time devoted to research. To acertain extent, there is a convergence in time allocation between faculty inJesús F. Galaz-Fontes et al. 209

federal and state public institutions, while academics in public technologicalinstitutions are more devoted to teaching than research. Faculty in private
institutions, on the other hand, do as much teaching as faculty in publictechnological institutions, but do more research, and devote the highest hours per
week to administrative tasks. In addition to changes in time allocation, the data
presented in Table 11 show that productivity has also increased, at least in termsof the very general measures used here. A more detailed analysis is possible
and should be carried out to answer more specific questions regarding thisdimension.

Internationalization of Mexican facultyThis study also explores the extent to which Mexican academics havebecome internationalized during the period 1992-2007. Several items from theISAP92 and the CAPS07 are relevant in this regard. Table 12 shows that there
is little variation in the nationality at birth for Mexican faculty; more than 95%
reported being Mexican at birth. There is, however, a significant increase in the
proportion of academics that received their highest degree abroad: from 13.9% in
1992 to 21.8% in 2007. Overall, nowadays, Mexican faculty that do researchcollaborate much more with foreign colleagues (16.1% in 1992 versus 35.7% in2007) and, at the same time, receive somewhat more funds from international
resources in 2007 as compared to 1992 (18.1% versus 13.6%). In relation to
publications there are considerable increments. While in 1992 15.1% of thesurveyed faculty reported having at least one publication in another country, in2007 the proportion had increased to 40.8%. In the same way, there has been an
increment in publications in another language: from 14.8% in 1992 to 37.7% in
2007. Finally, faculty reported a relatively considerable increase in serving as
faculty members abroad on the one hand (2.8% in 1992), and on teaching acourse abroad (6.9% in 2007).
The data just presented speak of Mexican academics being in the process of
becoming more international during the period 1992-2007. As in the case ofhighest degrees, there have been specific public policies targeted at attaining
such goals. It remains to assess the extent to which, by being involved in therespective activities, academic work has become more relevant in the sense ofincreasing its contribution to the economic and social development of thecountry.

210

The Academic Profession in Mexico
Table 12. Level of internationalization of Mexican full-time facultyin 1992 (NT = 609) and 2007 (NT = 1775)

Nationality
at birthCountry ofhighestdegreeMexicoOther country
Total
MexicoOther country
Total

1992
N*
526
21
547
520
84
604

%
96.2
3.8
100.0
86.1
13.9
100.0

Faculty doing research who
collaborated with colleagues
from another country in last
three years (n = 342)
n Yes%
Research collaboration withforeign colleagues

55

16.1

Faculty who raised funds
and were supported byinternational organizations(n = 154)4n Yes%
Receiving funds frominternational sources

21

13.6

Published in another country
in last three years (n = 398)
n Yes%
Publications in anothercountry by faculty having atleast one publication

60

15.1

Published in anotherlanguage in last three years(n = 398)
Publications in anotherlanguage by faculty having
at least one publication

n Yes

%

59

14.8

Served as faculty member
abroad in last three years(n = 609)
n Yes
%
17
2.8

2007
n
1651
86
1737
1369
381
1750

%
95.0
5.0
100.0
78.2
21.8
100.0

Faculty doing research who
collaborated with international
colleagues in current/previous
year (n = 1193)
n Yes
%
425

35.7

Faculty who raised funds andwere supported by internationalorganizations (n = 519)4
n Yes

%

94

18.1%

Published in another country inlast three years (n = 1310)
n Yes
%
535

40.8

Published in a language
different than that use in their
institution in last three years (n= 1310)
n Yes
%
480

37.7

Thought a course abroad incurrent or previous year(n = 1633)
n Yes
%
112
6.9

Functioning as faculty
abroadNote: * Data for 1992 are taken from the 1992 Traits of Diversity study (Gil-Antón et al., 1994).

Jesús F. Galaz-Fontes et al. 211

Concluding remarks
The Changing Academic Profession project began with the assumption that
there is an academic profession to start with. That might be the case forcountries with well established higher education systems. However, in the caseof Mexico it should be acknowledged that the change processes in which faculty
have been involved during the 1992-2007 period have also been, to a large extent,a process by which the Mexican academic profession has been built in the firstplace. This configuration and re-configuration of the academic profession makethe situation somewhat more complex and can explain how so much change canhave taken place, although at times departing from very low levels of occurrenceof specific events (highest degree is an example of this).
So, how has the Mexican academic profession evolved since 1992? Basedupon the previous data, the following conclusions appear reasonable.

• Mexican academics are today, as they were in 1992, pioneers in higher
education with respect to the educational attainment of their parents.
They are however building relationships with their partners with large
cultural capital. It remains to be seen what role the academic generation
coming from these families will play.
• Mexican academics have grown older. It is natural, but information fromthis same survey and other sources point out that there is no replacement
strategy at the institutional or federal policy levels. A first major
challenge in terms of retirement and replacement will be experienced
within the next 5 to 10 years.
• The Mexican academic profession continues a process in which a larger
proportion is women. There are still aspects in which women are notequitably represented (not reaching the same representation at the doctoral
degree level, for example), but at this moment it appears that the tendency
is there. It will be important to monitor how feminization advances,
confronts challenges and, maybe, reaches limits unforeseen at thismoment.
• The Mexican academic profession is becoming more professional in termsof training (highest degree), by having a work space in which it is possible
for an increasing number of academics not to work outside higher
education, a larger involvement in research − which constitutes a corecomponent of the academic role, and finally, with an increasing
participation in international networks − which opens the possibility for

212

The Academic Profession in Mexico

academics to become members of the larger academic community that
extends beyond national borders.
In general, many of the changes that have been described in this paper canbe seen as positive. However, given the higher expectations for higher
education to be relevant to society, it is still a pending task for Mexican
academics to demonstrate that by having higher degrees, having better working
conditions and becoming more international, allows them to do a better and more
locally relevant work, a job that contributes more meaningfully to the public
good of the country.

References
Finkelstein, M.J., Seal, R.K., & Schuster, J.H. (1998).

The new academic generation: A

profession in transformation. Baltimore, MD: The John Hopkins University Press.
Galaz-Fontes, J.F. (2008). The changing academic profession in Mexico. Participation in thepanel “The Changing Profession: First Report of the Results from the International
Survey in 21 Countries.” 52nd Annual Conference of the Comparative & International
Education Society, “Gaining Educational Equity Around the World.” New York, NY.
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). RIHE International Seminar Reports, 12, 345-361.
Gil-Antón, M., et al. (1994). Los rasgos de la diversidad: Un estudio sobre los académicos
mexicanos. México: Universidad Autónoma Metropolitana, Azcapotzalco.
Grediaga-Kuri, R., Rodríguez-Jiménez, J.R., y Padilla-González, L.E. (2004).

Políticas

públicas y cambios en la profesión académica en México en la última década. México:
Asociación Nacional de Universidades e Instituciones de Educación Superior.
Rubio-Oca, J. (ed.) (2006). La política educativa y la educación superior en México.
1995-2006: Un balance. México: Secretaría de Educación Pública y Fondo de Cultura
Económica.
Secretaría de Educación Pública, y Asociación Nacional de Universidades e Institutos de
Educación Superior (1997, Enero-Marzo). Programa de Mejoramiento del Profesorado delas Instituciones de Educación Superior. Revista de la Educación Superior, Vol. XXVI (1),No. 101, 99-173.
Urbano-Vidales, G., Aguilar-Sahagún, G., y Rubio-Oca, J. (2006). Programa de Mejoramientodel Profesorado: Un primer análisis de su operación e impactos en el proceso defortalecimiento de las universidades públicas.
Pública.

México: Secretaría de Educación

RIHE International Seminar Reports, No.13, 2009 213

Teaching and Research across Academic Disciplines:
faculty’s preference, activity, and performance

Jung Cheol Shin∗

1. Introduction
In the mid-1990s, higher education experienced enormous changes ininstitutional management as represented by “performance-based accountability.”In the U.S., performance based accountability takes the form of
performance-based budgeting, performance-based funding, or performance
reporting. In the UK, the New Public Management represents the changes.
These trends have spread rapidly and now most countries have a form ofaccountability or have instituted management reforms.
These reforms
emphasize institutional performance and thus eventually faculty performance.
Policymakers expect that performance-based accountability and managerialreforms will change higher education institutions and their faculty who are lessresponsive to social demands. However, when performance-based reforms areapplied to higher education, policymakers and institutional leaders often fail toconsider disciplinary differences in their policy implementation (e.g., faculty
tenure decisions).
So far, policymakers and institutional leaders have not paid much attention
to disciplinary differences. In academia, however, members of the academic
profession frequently experience difficulty in communicating with colleagues inother disciplines. This difficulty can be caused by differences between
disciplines in perceptional, cultural, epistemological, and methodologicalapproaches as well as in the academic subject itself (e.g., Biglan, 1973a; Leslie,∗

Assistant Professor, Department of Education, Seoul National University, Korea, e-mail:Jcs6205@snu.ac.kr

214

Teaching and Research across Academic Disciplines

2002; Braxton & Berger, 1999; Brew, 1999; Muis, Bendixen, & Haerle, 2006).
The differences are wider between social sciences and engineering compared tothose between engineering and natural sciences. Sometimes, the differences
become a source of conflict between disciplines on academic matters, facultyevaluation, and campus management. For example, social science Faculties
tend to provide elective courses whereas engineering Faculties prefer todesignate core courses; engineering faculty prefer to be evaluated by article
publication while humanities faculty want to be evaluated by book publication.
This disciplinary difference in academic research has not been discussed mucheither.
According to scholars who study disciplinary differences and its effects on
faculty and students (e.g., Biglan, 1973b; Braxton & Hargens, 1996), disciplinary
differences are identified in a wide range of higher education topics. Acrossdisciplines, for instance, faculty differ in their preference within their mainfunctions − teaching, research, and service − and spend their time in different
ways in the three functions. In addition, their performance in the threefunctions is different across disciplines. For example, faculty in ‘hard’ sciencessuch as physics and biology tend to publish their research in journals, while thosein ‘soft’ science such as education tend to publish their research as technicalreports (Baird, 1986; Biglan, 1973b; Hearn & Anderson, 2002). Disciplinary
differences are reported in faculty’s life patterns too (e.g., Bayer & Dutton, 1977).
Further, disciplinary differences are identified even among undergraduate
students.
For example, Paulsen and Wells (1998) applied disciplinary
differences in their study to examine college student’s epistemological beliefs ina U.S. public institution.
Policymakers and campus administrators are encouraged to take differences
between disciplines into account in their policymaking and institutional
administration. To date, however, higher education scholars have not provided
policymakers and institutional administrators with sufficient information about
the disciplinary differences. As a result, academic decision making is based on
institution-wide standards and thus might not thoroughly consider disciplinary
differences in decision making. In addition, most research studies have useddata from a specific institution or a group of institutions making it difficult togeneralize to different types of institutions. Even, the pioneering study by
Biglan (1973a) analyzed only two institutions: one research university(University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign) and one liberal arts college. Thereis clearly a need for further research on the differences between disciplines
across institutions.

Jung Cheol Shin 215

This study will discuss and analyze disciplinary differences in faculty’s
preferences among the three main functions, their activities, and theirperformance. Special focus will be given to institutional missions because thisis a critical factor in faculty’s preference, activities, and their performance(Fairweather, 2005).

2. Theoretical backgroundAs the theoretical basis of this study, I will summarize and discussdisciplinary differences of faculty activities and their performance. In addition,
the literature on institutional mission and faculty life-stage will be introduced toanalyze how disciplinary differences interact with institutional mission andfaculty’s life-stages.
Typology of academic disciplines
A well known study on disciplinary differences in higher education was
conducted by Biglan (1973a) who classified academic disciplines based on
empirical evidence. Biglan classified academic disciplines as (a) hard or soft
according to the existence of a single paradigm, (b) pure or applied according towhether or not they were concerned with application, and (c) life-system or
non-life-system according to faculty’s concern with life-systems. Of these three
dimensions, “hard-soft” and “pure-applied” have been used in many academic
researches (e.g., Paulsen & Wells, 1998; Braxton & Hargens, 1996; Lee, 2004).
By combining the two dimensions, academic disciplines are classified into one offour types: “hard-pure,” “hard-applied,” “soft-pure,” and “soft-applied.” In thehard-applied category are engineering-related disciplines; soft-pure disciplines
include arts and humanities, and some social sciences (e.g., sociology,
psychology); hard-pure disciplines include sub-disciplines of natural sciences;and soft-applied include social sciences that emphasize practical application suchas accounting, finance, economics, and education.
Using the four dimensions, Biglan (1973b) conducted a study on faculty’s
perceptions and their activities (e.g., teaching, research, and service). In his
study, Biglan found that hard disciplines demonstrate greater consensus about
content and method than the soft disciplines and hence research works can be
efficiently broken into sub-tasks and so collaboration with colleagues is the normin hard disciplines. In addition, because communication among scholars in hard
disciplines is more abbreviated, they tend to disseminate their research outputs
through academic journals. The applied disciplines emphasize contribution to216

Teaching and Research across Academic Disciplines

society, and faculty spend proportionately more time on service; their outputs are
published as technical reports rather than journal articles so as to provide detailsof their research findings and practical implications.
Since Biglan’s typology was proposed in 1973, scholars have used thetypology to study faculty behavior (e.g., faculty turn-over, collaboration withcolleagues), faculty activity (teaching, research, and services), faculty
performance, and cultural differences. These studies provide more in-depth
information on faculty studies than the earlier research, because the typology ofacademic discipline has enabled them to consider discipline-specific information.
Earlier research had considered all the disciplines to be the same or similar;
however, in reality, disciplines are diverse in epistemology, in training theirstudents and scholars, in communication between faculty, and in academic
culture (Braxton & Hargens, 1996; Lee, 2004). Consequently, studies that do
not consider disciplinary differences may produce misleading results andinconsistent findings, depending on the distribution of disciplines in the sample.
Table 1. Typology of academic disciplines
Dimension

Hard

Pure

Life Science (420), Physical Science(440), Mathematics & Statistics (460)

Soft
Humanities (220), Social &Behavioral Science (310)Teacher Training (141), Education
Science (142), Arts (210),
Journalism & Information (320),
Business & Administration (340),
AppliedLaw (380), Social Service (760),
Personal Service (810), Transport
Service (840), Security Service(860)
Note: Discipline classification is available from OECD Stat Extracts (downloaded on Jan. 7,2009).
Computing (480), Engineering (520),
Manufacturing & Processing (540),
Architecture & Building (580),
Agricultural, Fishery & Forest (620),
Veterinary (640), health (720),
Environmental Protection (850)Table 1 provides the typology of academic disciplines that this study isbased on. There are more than 100 academic disciplines in many of the major
PhD granting institutions. National quality assurance systems and datacollection systems have also developed typologies of academic disciplines. For
instance, the Quality Assurance Agency (QAA) of the UK developed
benchmarks for about 100 discipline areas in the UK higher education system.
The National Science Foundation (NSF) of the U.S. collects data for PhD
graduates based on their academic disciplines. In addition, international

Jung Cheol Shin 217

organizations developed categories for academic disciplines for international datacollection purposes. The quality assurance and data collections contribute tocategorize academic disciplines. The disciplines might include sub-disciplines
within a large discipline depending on the ranges of discipline category. For
instance, there are 23 major areas in higher education in the classification by theOECD and the UNESCO. Although there are more discipline areas in reality,
the other areas can be classified in each of these discipline areas according totheir proximity to one of disciplines in Table 1 in which are classified the 23
disciplines according to Biglan’s typology of hard-soft and pure-applieddimensions. Although the typology is simple, it represents the academic
characteristics of each discipline in which we are interested in this study.
Classification of mission
In this study, we pay special attention to the institutional missions as well as
the disciplinary differences because we believe that institutional mission has
great impact on faculty’s perceptions, their workloads, and their performances.
In many academic studies, as well as policy studies, institutional mission has
been applied in diverse contexts (e.g., faculty salary, student enrollment, culturaldifferences). The Carnegie Foundation developed a mission classification
scheme in the early 1970s and has subsequently revised and extended its
classification. According to its 2005 classification, there are 20 categories.
However, in general, many academic scholars are interested in two extreme
missions: research-oriented and teaching-oriented missions. The mission focus
has been reflected in the governance of higher education systems. For instance,
the Californian higher education system has been divided into the University ofCalifornia System which focuses on research, the California State University
System which focuses on job training, and the California Community College
System. Although administrative or legal classification was abandoned in the
UK and Australia, scholars still apply or develop typology to evaluate
institutional performance or analyze institutional differences (e.g., Ramsden,
1999; Patrick & Stanley, 1995).
We applied the institutional mission classification of higher education
proposed by Shin (2009a). Shin classified Korean higher education institutions
according to institutional performance rather than pre-determined benchmarks.
According to this classification, Korea has seven research “1” universities,
fourteen research active universities, and twenty-six doctoral universities, withthe remaining universities classified as comprehensive universities. Although
the classification provides detailed information on institutional characteristics

218

Teaching and Research across Academic Disciplines

and their mission focus, they are combined for simplicity. This results in thefollowing classifications: ‘research university’ (7 universities), ‘PhD granting
university’ (14 research active universities, 26 doctoral universities), and‘comprehensive university’ (all other 4-year universities in Korea).
In
interpreting the mission differences between institutions, ‘research university’might show quite different characteristics from those of ‘comprehensive
universities’, while ‘PhD granting universities’ show characteristics of bothresearch and comprehensive universities.
Through a comparison with U.S. peers, Shin (2009a) showed that thetypology is compatible with that of the Carnegie classification. In addition, in
his follow-up study on research performance among Korean universities, Shin(2009b) applied the classification in evaluating the growth of research
publications among Korean universities from 1995 to 2005. In the study, Shin
identified clear distinctions in the growth of research performance between
research universities and other types of universities.
Life stages of the academic profession
Higher education researchers (e.g., Baldwin & Blackburn, 1981; Baldwin etal., 2005; Bayer & Dutton, 1977) pay attention to the life-cycle of the academic
profession because faculty show quite different patterns in their campus life
including their preferences for teaching and research, their activities, and theirperformance. These studies showed that different generations demonstratedifferent perceptions on academic scholarship, their activities, and theirperformance.
Baldwin and Blackburn (1981) focused on how facultycharacteristics have been shifting across their academic life-stages and thengrouped faculty characteristics as stable, revolving, or fluctuating. In theirrecent study on faculty life-stages, Baldwin et al. (2005) identified that seniorfaculty spend more time on teaching, while junior faculty concentrate on
research; and that faculty are more productive at the mid-career stages in theirresearch performance than at earlier stages.
However, the relationships between faculty life-stages and their activities
and performance are not linear. In their discussions on faculty performance andlife-stages, Blackburn and Lawrence (1986) concluded that faculty teaching isquite stable across life-stages. In contrast, faculty’s research performanceacross life-stages is controversial. For instance, Clark and Lewis (eds., 1985),
Gander (1999), and Long (1978) identified that senior faculty perform better thanjunior faculty because senior faculty are generally better connected and havemore experience in securing outside funding than younger faculty. Mitigating

Jung Cheol Shin 219

this effect, however, tenure status may serve to undercut the motivation of seniorfaculty to conduct research, since their status in their department is stable (Tien& Blackburn, 1996). The controversial relationships between life-stages andresearch performance can be explained by fluctuations of research performanceby life-stages. For example, Bayer and Dutton (1977) identified that faculty
research performance has two peaks across their life-stages thus the relationships
between faculty life-stages and research performance are curvilinear.

3. Population and sample
The population in this study was 52,763 full-time faculty who are affiliatedwith bachelor degree-granting institutions in Korea. Their main functions areteaching and research. There are few faculty whose main job is research, but
most of them are not full-time “regular” faculty. The faculty information was
obtained from the researcher database of the Korean Research Foundation (KRF).
Using the database, we applied a random sampling method to identify the sample.
We collected data through an on-line survey, which was sent to each faculty
member’s e-mail address (available from the KRF).
We selected a sample of 4,814 in expectation of a response rate of 20%.
However, only 2,544 faculty accessed the on-line survey; and of those, only 416
responded. A second, larger sample of 9,139 faculty was selected of which
4,283 accessed the on-line survey and 484 responded. Overall 6,827 faculty
accessed the survey and 900 completed it for a return rate of 13.2%. Details of
population and sample are summarized in Table 2.
Table 2. Sample and survey administration
Administration

Samplee-mail accessed

Returned

1st (Feb.- March, 2008)
2nd (April, 2008)

4,814
9,139

2,544 (52.85%)
4,283 (46.87%)

416 (16.35%)
484 (11.30%)

Total

13,953

6,827 (48.93%)

900 (13.18%)

Regarding the low return rate, we cross-checked whether our random
sample adequately represents the population by gender, institutional sectors, andfaculty ranks. From the cross-check, we confirmed that the sample and survey
response well-represent the population. Table 3 shows the population, sample
and response by academic disciplines. Among the 11 disciplinary areas shownin Table 3, engineering, humanities and arts, and medicine areas areunder-represented in the survey return. This might be explained by their

220

Teaching and Research across Academic Disciplines

regularly expressed struggle with time constraints and also their lower interest inacademic works. The low return rate for the medicine areas might be explained
partly by the survey items on faculty activity related questions; faculty in the
medicine areas complained that the survey item does not represent theirdisciplinary characteristics as their workload is quite different from that of otherdisciplines. Although we encouraged them to respond to the survey, only asmall proportion of faculty answered the questions. In contrast, faculty in
education and social science are over-represented in the response. Their highreturn rate indicates that they are interested in faculty life. Also, faculty in
education might have chosen to answer because of their personal relationships
with survey administrators. This may demonstrate a kind of collegiality among
faculty in education and social science.
Table 3. Population and sample by disciplines
Discipline

Respondents (%)

Population (%)

Teacher training and education science
Humanities and arts
Social and behavioral sciences
Business and administration, economics
Law
Life sciences
Physical sciences, mathematics, computer sciences
Engineering, manufacturing and construction, architecture
Agriculture
Medical sciences, health related sciences, social services
Personal services, transport services, security services
Not applicable

113 (12.6%)
152 (16.9%)
118 (13.1%)
60 (6.7%)
30 (3.3%)
85 (9.4%)
73 (8.1%)
147 (16.3%)
26 (2.9%)78 (8.7%)
2 (0.2%)16 (1.8%)

2,046 (3.9%)
11,989 (22.7%)
4,226 (8.0%)
3,943 (7.5%)
1,233 (2.3%)
4,113 (7.8%)
1,935 (3.7%)
11,913 (22.6%)
1,704 (3.2%)
9,042 (17.1%)
10 (0.0%)609 (1.2%)

Total

900 (100.0%)

52,763 (100.0%)

4. Findings and discussions
Preference between teaching and research
In their preference for teaching or research, faculty lean more towards
research (60.4%) than teaching (28.4%) although the majority prefer both(88.8%) (Table 4). This preference is observed in their responses aboutcomparative weekly workloads between teaching and research. The majority ofthem emphasize research more highly than teaching. This may be a result of
the performance-based accountability emphasis dating back to the mid-1990s.
In performance-based accountability, faculty members are evaluated by theirJung Cheol Shin 221

research performance rather than by teaching. This is also seen in the level ofadministrative support. For example, more administrative support is provided
to research (46%) than teaching (28%). In relation to personnel decisions,higher education institutions have also favored research (33%) more thanteaching performance (24%). These changes have enormous impacts on faculty
workloads and their preference for teaching or research. This has been
accelerated by governmental funding methods which emphasize institutional
research performance. In 2004, for instance, 75% of governmental subsidies tohigher education institutions were based on institutional performance.
Table 4. Faculty’s preference between teaching and research (%)
PhD Granting

Comprehensive

Hard

Soft

Hard

Soft

Teaching
1.2
0.0
2.1
5.1
Both, but Teaching
15.3
23.4
22.8
34.8
Both, but Research
72.9
64.9
64.2
56.2
Research
10.6
11.7
10.4
3.4
n
85
77
193
178
Note: Proportion of faculty agreeing with each survey item.

4.4
23.7
66.7
5.3
114

4.9
36.3
51.8
6.9
245

Preference between
Teaching & Research

Research
Hard

Soft

Total
3.4
28.4
60.4
7.4
900

Regarding the relations between teaching and research, two competing
perspectives have supporters on each side. The first approach focuses on
quantitative data, preferring to measure research productivity by research
publications and teaching quality by students’ course assessment. The majorityof researchers report that there is a weak or no relationship between teaching andresearch (e.g., Feldman, 1987; Marsh & Hattie, 2002; Ramsden, 1999). The
alternative approach has been to conduct an in-depth qualitative study of therelations between teaching and research. Contrary to the quantitative studies,many qualitative studies found that research has a positive correlation withteaching (e.g., Durning & Jenkins, 2005; Griffiths, 2004; Robertson, 2007).
The findings of the qualitative studies are consistent with faculty’s general belief
that teaching and research are closely related (Table 5).
As Table 5 shows, faculty perceive teaching to be compatible with research(3.74). The perception is clearer at research universities, where faculty spend
more time on research than teaching, than at comprehensive universities. In
addition, soft disciplines show a higher percentage of disagreement on this acrossthe three types of mission. However, many of them believe that research
activity is useful (“reinforcement” in the survey item) in their teaching. It is
possible that those who perceive a conflict between teaching and research

222

Teaching and Research across Academic Disciplines

consider the conflict of time. If faculty spend more time on research, theymight reduce their time on teaching and perceive teaching in a negative light toresearch. Regarding the contribution of service activity (2.49), which is near
the mean in the 1 to 5 scale, many faculty believe that service activity may or
may not contribute to their teaching.
Table 5. Relationship between teaching, research, and service
Research
Teaching & Research
Teaching and Research notcompatible (B5)
Research reinforces teaching (C4)
Service reinforces teaching (C4)PhD
Granting

Comprehensive
Total

Hard

Soft

Hard

Soft

Hard

Soft

3.73

4.04

3.74

3.82

3.59

3.65

3.74

1.95

1.73

1.90

1.79

1.91

1.88

1.86

2.85

2.60

2.61

2.39

2.45

2.35

2.49

85

77

193

178

114

245

900

n

Notes (i) Questions in the CAP survey are identified in parentheses.
(ii) Scale of answers 1 = “strongly agree” to 5 = “strongly disagree”.

We also wish to examine academic scholarship when considering therelationship between teaching and research. Boyer (1990) proposed four
dimensions − discovery, integration, application, and teaching. He argued thatthe four dimensions should be considered together as academic scholarship andstressed the balance between these four. Boyer’s argument has attracted
attention from academics, policymakers, and university administrators and has
led to changes in higher education and/or campus-wide policy. The survey had
four related items. As Table 6 shows, faculty strongly agreed that integration
constitutes academic scholarship (1.79), followed by application (1.92),
discovery (1.97), and social service (2.06). However, the view of academic
scholarship differs according to missions and disciplines. For instance, faculty
in research universities tend to emphasize discovery while in applied disciplines
they tend to weigh application more than discovery.
Table 6. Emphasis on academic scholarship across disciplines
Boyer’s Academic
Scholarship

PhD Granting

Comprehensive

Pure

Research
AppliedPure

AppliedPure

AppliedDiscovery
Application
Integration
Social service

1.62
2.22
1.80
2.35

2.03
1.79
1.75
2.04

1.87
2.13
1.80
2.16

2.04
1.81
1.79
1.96

1.76
2.02
1.75
2.22

2.15
1.86
1.82
1.97

1.97
1.92
1.79
2.06

n
60
102
135
236
Note: Scale of answer 1 = strongly agree to 5 = strongly disagree.

124

235

900

Total

Jung Cheol Shin 223

Teaching and research activity
Faculty spend 53.29 hours per week on average engaged in academic
activity during the semester (see Table 7). In general, they spend more time onteaching (21.08 hrs) than research (18.24 hrs), administration (6.02 hrs), or
service (4.69 hrs). Faculty at a research university spend more time on researchthan teaching while at a comprehensive university they spend more time onteaching. Faculty’s time allocation differs also by discipline. Hard disciplines
spend more time on research. In soft disciplines, faculty spend more time onteaching than those in hard disciplines spend on research. This finding is
consistent with the literature (e.g., Biglan, 1973b) which has reported that hard
disciplines put more emphasis on research than teaching.
Table 7. Time allocation of faculty activity (hours per week)
Time allocation (in session)
Teaching
Research
Service
Administration
Other academic works
Totaln

Research
Hard
16.31
22.67
4.60
6.17
4.13
53.88
84

Soft
19.56
19.84
5.36
6.61
4.12
55.49
76

PhD Granting

Comprehensive

Hard
19.34
19.78
4.75
6.07
3.09
53.03

Soft
22.51
17.30
4.53
5.94
3.59
53.87

Hard
23.49
16.71
4.90
6.26
3.00
54.36

Soft
22.40
16.31
4.47
5.62
3.00
51.80

190

176

112

240

Total
21.08
18.24
4.69
6.02
3.36
53.39
880

30.00

Time Allocation

25.00

20.00
Teaching
Research
Administration

15.00

10.00

5.00

0.00
30-35

36-40

41-45

46-50
51-55
Age (Years)

56-60

60 -

Figure 1. Faculty time allocation by age

224

Teaching and Research across Academic Disciplines

As Figure 1 shows, faculty’s time allocation also differs according to age.
For example, faculty spend more time on teaching and administrative services
early in their career, but reduce the time on teaching and administration in later
years. Likewise, they increase the time spent on research as they age. Thispattern is quite different from that in the U.S. where senior faculty teach morecourses and do more administrative work when they are tenured. In the U.S.,
Baldwin et al. (2005) identified that mid-career faculty had higher administrative
workloads than junior or senior faculty. From the academics’ viewpoint, faculty
workloads of Korean faculty might be beneficial for senior faculty but may harm
junior faculty’s academic development because they are always focused oncourse development and publications regardless of their affiliated institutional
types. In Korea, this research shows that junior faculty have excessively heavy
workloads − teaching, doing administrative service, and publishing.
In their teaching activity, almost all faculty (97.9%) use lecturing as themain instructional method, followed by individualized instruction (58.1%), andproject-based learning (47.6%) (Table 8).
However, only 10.7% use
information and communication technology (ICT) in their classes. This low
rate of technology use is disappointing for administrators because many
institutions invest a great amount to facilitate ICT. There are also differences in
the use of instructional methods between disciplines. Faculty in hard
disciplines prefer to use project-based learning while in soft disciplines they
prefer individualized instruction and ICT. This difference reflects the difference
between disciplines because hard disciplines share a similar paradigm and thus
are able to use project-based instruction. However, in soft disciplines, student
learning is individualized because there is no single paradigm in the soft sciences
and thus most of the learning is individualized. In this respect, ICT is very
helpful because it facilitates individualized learning.
Table 8. Instructional methods across disciplines (%)
Instructional Method

Research
Hard

Soft

PhD Granting

Comprehensive

Hard

Soft

Hard

Soft

98.3
59.7
39.8
9.9
178

98.2
59.6
54.4
7.9
119

98.0
59.6
44.5
20.0
245

Lecturing
95.3 100.0
97.4
Individualized instruction
60.0
66.2
51.3
Project-based learning
62.4
42.9
50.3
ICT-based learning
1.2
10.4
5.2
n
85
77
193
Note: Proportion identifying use of teaching method (C2).

Total
97.9
58.1
47.6
10.7
900.00Jung Cheol Shin 225

In their research activity, faculty collaborate in conducting research projects(72.8%), but very few faculty (28.7%) are involved in international collaboration(Table 9). Among the three mission types, faculty in research universities arevery active in collaborating with their colleagues domestically and/orinternationally. Faculty in research universities may have more contacts with
their colleagues domestically and internationally because research universities
are very involved in networking. In addition, hard disciplines show clear
differences in collaboration across the three mission types when compared with
soft disciplines. Because hard disciplines have a similar paradigm in subject
knowledge and research methods, there is mutual benefit in collaboration. In
Biglan’s study (1973b), he found that scholars in hard disciplines publish withmany authors while scholars in soft disciplines tend to publish with one or very
few co-authors. The same differences by discipline were also identified in thissurvey.
Table 9. Faculty collaboration in conducting research (%)
Research Collaboration
Independent

Research

PhD Granting

Comprehensive

Hard

Soft

Hard

Soft

Hard

Soft

25.9

36.4

24.9

42.7

29.8

42.9

Total
35.0

Collaborative research

92.9

71.4

87.0

61.8

71.9

62.4

72.8

Collaboration_is domestic

82.4

57.1

69.9

52.8

66.7

58.4

63.1

Collaboration_is international

54.1

33.8

38.3

20.2

28.9

15.9

28.7

n
83
75
185
Note: Proportion of faculty engaging in this activity.

172

111

243

862

In general, faculty emphasize applied and practical research (2.11) followedby basic and theoretical research (2.30) (Table 10). However, relatively few ofthem prefer to do commercially oriented (3.69), or socially oriented (3.16)
research. There is a clear disciplinary distinction between pure and applied
disciplines in basic and applied research. As Table 10 shows, pure disciplines
prefer to do basic and theoretical research across the mission types while applied
disciplines prefer applied research.
The differences may be based on
fundamental differences in academic orientation between the two types of
disciplines. It is interesting to note that commercially oriented and sociallyoriented researches are not popular though applied research is popular in applied
disciplines. This implies that the social impacts of applied research might not
be high even though faculty conduct research in applied disciplines.

226

Teaching and Research across Academic Disciplines
Table 10. Faculty research orientation across disciplines

Research Orientation

Research
Pure

AppliedPhD Granting

Comprehensive

Pure

Pure

AppliedApplied

Total

Basic/theoretical
1.75
2.42
1.94
2.48
2.02
2.53
2.30
Applied/practical
2.75
1.73
2.56
1.93
2.42
1.93
2.11
Commercially-oriented
3.98
3.46
3.98
3.45
4.17
3.58
3.69
Socially-oriented
3.78
3.29
3.39
3.10
3.16
2.93
3.17
n
60
102
132
230
121
232
877
Note: Faculty responses to characterization of their research as shown in column 1, scale ofanswer 1 = strongly agree to 5 = strongly disagree (D2).

Faculty disseminate their research mainly through journal articles (10.6
articles during the three years from 2005 to 2007) (Table 11). However, themethod of dissemination is quite different across disciplines. In hard disciplines,
the tendency is to publish journal articles in international journals. In soft
sciences, there is a preference for publishing books as well as journal articles.
The clear distinction between hard and soft disciplines is seen in the different
mission types. In research universities, as shown in Table 11, faculty in hard
disciplines publish many articles in international journals as well as domestic
journals while faculty in soft disciplines publish fewer articles by comparison.
Because faculty in hard disciplines have a greater consensus about content
knowledge and method, it may be easier to collaborate with colleagues and thusachieve a higher acceptance rate.
Table 11. Research publications across disciplines
Publication Types
Books
Articles_total(Articles_international journals)
Research Reports
Newspaper articles

Research

PhD Granting

Comprehensive

Hard

Soft

Hard

Soft

Hard

Soft

0.8
19.1
13.2
4.1
0.5

2.5
9.3
1.3
2.3
1.8

1.5
14.9
7.7
3.1
1.3

2.0
7.2
0.3
1.9
1.4

1.1
10.3
4.2
2.6
0.4

1.7
7.2
0.3
2.2
0.9

1.6
10.6
3.7
2.6
1.1

193

178

114

245

900

n
85
77
Note: Numbers of publications from 2005 to 2007.

Total

As well as the disciplinary differences in faculty performance, there may be
individual factors that are interrelated with institutional mission and disciplinary
factors. For instance, faculty in hard disciplines tend to start their careers at an
earlier age than faculty in the soft disciplines.
In addition, research
performance may differ depending on age or the length of career. In hardJung Cheol Shin 227

Number of Publications

disciplines, faculty tend to be actively engaged in research earlier in their careers
than faculty in soft disciplines. Figure 2 shows an interesting pattern ofresearch publication. Faculty in hard sciences show a first peak in research
output in mid-career and a second peak appears later in their careers at an age
between 56 and 60 years. This highlights the cycle of faculty life: faculty arevery active in research during their mid-careers in order to obtain tenured status;
they then enjoy job security after having obtained tenure; then, finally they begin
to restart their research in the 56-60 year age range before they reach retirementage (in Korea, faculty retire at 65 in most institutions).

Age (Yearｓ)

Figure 2. Article publication by age

Compared to the hard sciences, faculty in soft sciences do not show thesecond peak. This is quite different from the general perception that faculty insoft sciences publish more in their later career stages. We might interpret theresults in terms of the quality of publications, which implies that the quality of
research in their later career may be much higher than the research they
conducted earlier in their careers. In their early years, faculty tend to focus on
the quantity of publications rather than the quality in order to obtain tenure.
An interesting aspect of research performance is book publication. As
Figure 3 shows, faculty in hard sciences as well as in soft sciences publish a
growing number of books as they advance in their careers. This may be
because faculty are able to integrate subject knowledge more broadly within theirdiscipline area or with knowledge of other disciplines. The rapid increase in228

Teaching and Research across Academic Disciplines

Number of Publications

books published at retirement age should be contrasted with the decrease inarticle publication at the same time. These interesting patterns in faculty’s
research should be explored by follow-up studies. There may be some
psychological and socio-contextual backgrounds to the publication patterns that
may not be fully explained by our survey data.

Age (Yearｓ)

Figure 3. Book publication by age

5. Concluding remarks
This paper shows how disciplinary differences are important inunderstanding faculty activity and performance. This finding has implications
for policymakers and campus leaders, who tend to establish a single standard forall disciplines and implement the criteria regardless of disciplinary differences.
These practices are broadly applied in modern higher education management.
For instance, many Korean universities require a given number of journal
publications in order to be hired, tenured, and promoted. However, the criteria
may undermine institutional diversity and mission focus. It is therefore criticalto develop diverse criteria for different disciplines. It may be a hard task
because faculty tend to hide under the name of “disciplinary differences” when
external agencies and/or campus administrators with a different disciplinary
background initiate innovations. In terms of policy, the key is to find a balance
between disciplinary differences and managerial reforms.

Jung Cheol Shin 229

References
Baird, L.L. (1986). What characterizes a productive research department? Research in Higher
Education, 25(3), 211-225.
Baldwin, R.G., & Blackburn, R.T. (1981). The academic career as a developmental process:Implications for higher education. Journal of Higher Education, 52(6), 598-614.
Baldwin, R.G., Lunceford, C.J., & Vanderlinden, K.E. (2005). Faculty in the middle years:
Illuminating an overlooked phase of academic life. Review of Higher Education, 29(1),97-118.
Bayer, A.E., & Dutton, J.E. (1977). Career age and research-professional activities of academic
scientists: Test of alternative nonlinear models and some implications for higher
education faculty policies. Journal of Higher Education, 48, 259-282.
Biglan, A. (1973a). The characteristics of subject matter in different academic areas. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 57(3), 195-203.
Biglan, A. (1973b). Relationships between subject matter characteristics and the structure andoutput of university departments. Journal of Applied Psychology, 57(3), 204-213.
Blackburn, R.T., & Lawrence, J.H. (1986). Aging and the quality of faculty job performance.
Review of Educational Research, 23(3), 265-290.
Boyer, E.L. (1990). Scholarship Reconsidered: Priorities of the Professoriate. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Braxton, J.M., & Berger, J.B. (1999). How disciplinary consensus affects faculty. In R. J.
Menges (ed.), Faculty in New Jobs: A Guide to Settling in, Becoming Established, andBuilding Institutional Support (pp. 243-267). San Francisco: Jassey-Bass.
Braxton, J.M., & Hargens, L.L. (1996). Variation among academic disciplines: Analyticalframeworks and research. In J.C. Smart (ed.), Higher Education: Handbook of theory andresearch (Vol. 11, pp.1-146). New York: Agaton Press.
Brew, A. (1999). Research and teaching: Changing relationships in a changing context. Studies
in Higher Education, 24, 291-301.
Clark, S.M., & Lewis, D.R. (eds.) (1985). Faculty vitality and institutional productivity:
Critical perspectives for higher education. New York: Teachers College Press.
Durning, B., & Jenkins, A. (2005). Teaching/research relations in departments: theperspectives of built environment academics. Studies in Higher Education, 30(4),407-426.
Fairweather, J.S. (2005). Beyond the rhetoric: Trends in the relative value of teaching andresearch in faculty salaries. Journal of Higher Education, 76(4), 401-422.
Feldman, K.A. (1987). Research productivity and scholarly accomplishment of college
teachers as related to their instructional effectiveness: A review and exploration. Researchin Higher Education, 26(3), 227-298.

230

Teaching and Research across Academic Disciplines

Gander, J.P. (1999). Faculty gender effects on academic research and teaching. Research inHigher Education, 40(2), 171-184.
Griffiths, R. (2004). Knowledge production and the research-teaching nexus: the case of thebuilt environment disciplines. Studies in Higher Education, 29(6), 709-726.
Hearn, J.C., & Anderson, M.S. (2002). Conflict in academic departments: An analysis ofdisputes over faculty promotion and tenure. Research in Higher Education, 43(5),503-529.
Lee. J.J. (2004). Comparing Institutional Relationships with Academic Departments: A Studyof Five Academic Fields. Research in Higher Education, 45(6), 603-624.
Leslie, D.W. (2002). Resolving the dispute: Teaching is academic’s core value. Journal ofHigher Education, 73, 49-73.
Long, J.S. (1978). Productivity and academic positions in the scientific career. American
Sociological Review, 43: 889-908.
Marsh, H.W., & Hattie, J. (2002). The relation between research productivity and teachingeffectiveness: Complementary, antagonistic, or independent constructs? Journal ofHigher Education, 73(5), 603-641.
Muis, K.R., Bendixen, L.D., & Haerle, F.C. (2006). Domain-generality and domain-specificity
in personal epistemology research: Philosophical and empirical reflections in thedevelopment of a theoretical framework. Educational Psychology Review, 18, 3-54.
Patrick, W.J., & Stanley, E.C. (1995). Teaching and research quality indicators and theshaping of higher education. Research in Higher Education, 39(1), 19-41.
Paulsen, M.B., & Wells, C.T. (1998). Domain differences in the epistemological beliefs ofcollege students. Research in Higher Education, 39(4), 365-384.
Ramsden, P. (1999). Predicting institutional research performance from published indicators:
A test of a classification of Australian university types. Higher Education, 37, 341-358.
Robertson, J. (2007). Beyond the ‘research/teaching nexus’: exploring the complexity ofacademic experience. Studies in Higher Education, 32(5), 541-556.
Shin, J.C. (2009a). Classifying higher education institutions in Korea: a performance-based
approach. Higher Education, 57(2), 247-266.
Shin, J.C. (2009b). Building world-class research university: The Brain Korea 21 project.
Published online at Higher Education, DOI: 10.1007/s10734-009-9219-8.
Tien, F.F., & Blackburn, R.T. (1996). Faculty rank system, research motivation, and faculty
research productivity. Journal of Higher Education, 67(1), 2-22.

RIHE International Seminar Reports, No.13, 2009 231

Teaching and Research in English Higher Education:
new divisions of labour and changing perspectives
on core academic roles

William Locke* and Alice Bennion**

1. Introduction
The UK higher education (HE) system has undergone dramatic changes
between the surveys of academics in England in 1992 (supported by the Carnegie
Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching) and those throughout the United
Kingdom (UK) for the Changing Academic Profession (CAP) study in 2007.
The formal binary divide between universities and the larger non-university
institutions (polytechnics) was abolished in 1992, and further eroded in Englandin 2004, with the loosening of the criteria for award of the title, so that new‘universities’ no longer require research degree awarding powers. There has
been a huge (86%) 1 expansion in the number of students entering higher
education, especially of those studying part-time and at postgraduate level, andas international students. A significant emphasis has been placed on widening
participation to those parts of the population that have tended not to consider HE
study, but to limited apparent effect (NAO, 2008). In parallel, but at a slower
rate due to the relative decline in public funding of HE in the UK, the number ofacademic staff has grown from approximately 100,000 (Fulton, 1996) to nearly
170,000 (HESA, 2008a).

* Assistant Director, The Centre for Higher Education Research and Information (CHERI),The Open University, United Kingdom, e-mail: W.D.Locke@open.ac.uk** Research Assistant, The Centre for Higher Education Research and Information (CHERI),The Open University, United Kingdom, e-mail: ab23332@openmail.open.ac.uk
1
1991/92: 1,267,900 (Connor et al, 1996 using previously unpublished Government data;
2006/07: 2,362,815 (HESA, 2008b).

232

Teaching and Research in English Higher Education

Since 1992, the external evaluation of the core activities of teaching andresearch has intensified and been co-opted for government purposes in thesteering of HE institutions (HEIs) towards diversity of purpose while maintaining
quality standards. A ‘third stream’ of funding has been established in order toencourage HEIs in their efforts to reach out to businesses and the community anddisseminate the knowledge they generate more widely than via the students they
graduate. Finally, since 1997, devolution of power to the four constituent
nations of the UK – Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, as well as England –has progressed at a different pace in each, leading to (and, in some respects,
strengthening) some significant differences in educational policies and practices.
So, it is timely to compare the findings from the surveys in 1992 and 2007
on the nature of academic roles in the UK and the ways they are changing, andon how academics view the profession after a period of turbulence. This paper
focuses on the findings from an analysis of the responses to an online survey ofnearly 1,700 academics from a wide range of HEIs throughout the UK which was
carried out by the Centre for Higher Education Research and Information(CHERI) at The Open University. The responses have been weighted to
produce a representative sample of 800 from HEIs across the UK. The paper
includes comparisons with data from the 1992 paper-based survey of 1,400
academics in England as part of the first International Survey of the Academic
Profession (Fulton, 1996). Therefore, this paper concentrates on the responses
to the 2007 survey from those employed in HEIs in England.
The CAP questionnaire repeated 13 items from the earlier survey. The
comparison allows us to explore the changes in English HE as they are reflected
in responses on: the amount of time the respondents spent on different activities;
academics’ primary interests in teaching and research; their affiliations to theirsubject, department and institution; their satisfaction with their jobs and views on
the attractiveness of the profession; their opinions on teaching; their views on
research, their scholarly contributions and sources of research funding; and theevaluation of teaching, research and service activities. For the purposes of thispaper, we have analysed the data according to a range of factors (gender, age,time in the profession, grade, academic discipline and type of institution) andfocused on the results where there is a significant correlation. First, however,
we identify some of the key characteristics of the UK academic profession in
relation to teaching and research.

William Locke & Alice Bennion 233

2. The UK academic profession and teaching and research: key
characteristics
Universities are organisationally autonomous from the national governmentsof England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland – the four constituent nationsof the UK. They are free to employ and dismiss academic staff, set salaries,
decide on academic structure and course content, spend their budgets to achieve
their objectives and own and dispose of their buildings and equipment. Withincertain parameters, they can decide the size of student enrolment and borrowmoney. In England, from 2006, HEIs were able to decide the level of tuition
fees for full-time undergraduate home and European Union (EU) students up to a
maximum ‘cap’. Tuition fees for part-time, postgraduate and international(non-EU) students are not regulated. However, despite this relative autonomy
and falling levels of public expenditure per student, the governments of the UK
still exercise a considerable degree of influence over HEIs, through the allocationof funding and the conditions attached to this, and the regulation and evaluationof their activities. A series of intermediary bodies, such as Funding Councils,
Research Councils, the Quality Assurance Agency, the Office of the Independent
Adjudicator and the Office for Fair Access – as well as the relevant government
department or ministry – attempts to steer institutions in the direction of theadministration’s policies, although these policies are not always consistent witheach other and can suddenly take different courses (Locke, 2008a). Of course,
some aspects of HE are clearly the subject of legislation and, for our purposes,
the abolition of tenure in universities2 in 1988 is a clear example of government
influence.
HEIs in the UK are highly differentiated by institutional origin, status,
mission, historical wealth, resources, research activity and income, educational
provision and student characteristics. This differentiation influences howchanges impact on individual HEIs and how much autonomy they can exercise inaddressing government policy, the various markets they operate in and otherdrivers such as demography, technology and environmental change. For
heuristic purposes, we have distinguished five types of HEI: research intensive(Russell Group) universities, other pre-1992 universities, post-1992 universities,

2

Academics working in polytechnics did not have tenure. However, there is some debate
about whether tenure remained in practice, given universities’ reluctance to makecompulsory redundancies (Fulton & Holland, 2001).

234

Teaching and Research in English Higher Education

post-2004 universities and HE colleges.3 Analysis of the survey data reveals
differences that are strongly consistent with this categorisation: HEI-type is moresignificantly correlated with differences in responses to the questionnaire thanany other factor, including gender, age, subject, grade, and mode of employment.
University success and prestige are still largely associated with research – evenfor those post-1992 universities who have sought to prove their new credentials(Locke, 2004). However, the vertical differentiation of institutions has endured.
For example, Figure 1 shows the distribution of the public funding of research,demonstrating its concentration in a small number of higher education
institutions, each one represented by a bar. Figure 2 shows the relationshipbetween public research income and all income generated by each institution.
There is a steep gradient above the upper decile. The extent of concentration ofresearch funding is demonstrated by the fact that the overall ratio of publicresearch income to overall income is 13%: the median institution receives just
3% of its income from public research funds – and this has decreased from 4% in
2005/06 (Universities UK, 2008).

(from Universities UK, 2008, p44)

Figure 1. Public funding of research (£000) in the UK, by Institution, 2006/07

3

However, we remain open to identifying different patterns of institution through further
analysis of the CAP UK data.

William Locke & Alice Bennion 235(from Universities UK, 2008, p.45)

Figure 2. Public funding of research in the UK as a percentage of all income,by institution, 2006/07

90000

80000

Number of academics

70000

60000

Teaching only
Research only
Teaching & research

50000

40000

30000

20000

2003/04

2004/05

2005/06

2006/07(data extracted from HESA, 2008a)

Figure 3. Types of academic contract in UK HEIs: trends 2003-2007

This concentration of research funding has led to an increasing number ofindividuals, academic departments and even universities effectively becoming
teaching-only or, at least, ‘research inactive’. At the same time, the number of236

Teaching and Research in English Higher Education

research-only academics has increased, though at a slower pace, and the vast
majority of these are on fixed-term contracts associated with specific research
projects. Figure 3 illustrates that those academics on contracts that require themto teach and research represent little more than half of the total population.
Table 1 summarises the main characteristics of UK academics.
Table 1. Profile of academic staff in the UK, 2006/07
All academic staff
By gender
FemaleMale
By grade
Professors
Senior lecturers & researchers
Researchers
Lecturers
Other grades
By age30 & under years
31-40 years
41-50 years
51+ years
Terms of employment
Permanent
Fixed- term

Full-time
113,685

Part-time
56,310Total
169,995

58%
73%

42%
28%

42%
58%

90%
86%
60%
84%
25%

10%
14%
40%
16%
75%

10%
20%
31%
22%
18%
15%
28%
28%
29%

72%
28%
62%
44%
56%
38%
(data extracted from HESA, 2008a)

3. Findings from the 1992 and 2007 surveys
Academic work: the balance of activities and interests
Between 1992 and 2007, responses to the two surveys suggest that themedian number of hours academics spend teaching has decreased, as has the timespent on administrative work (Table 2). This may be the result of more accurate
recording as much as an actual decrease in time spent on these activities.
Increasingly, academics in England are being required to complete time
allocation schedules in an attempt to provide their institutions with more
information about the costs of different activities. This has meant that
individuals are far more aware of how they spend, and account for, their time.
Also, activities which may have been incorporated in a broad notion of ‘teaching’in 1992 may now be disaggregated and included in the categories of ‘service’ or‘other academic activities’ which have seen a rise in the 2007 survey. TimeWilliam Locke & Alice Bennion 237

spent on ‘research’ has also increased since 1992 which reflects the growingpressure on academics to produce high quality research outputs suitable forsubmission to the periodic UK Research Assessment Exercise. It also follows
an increase in the number of research-only staff employed since 1992 and a
growing emphasis on research for career progression in, and between,
institutions.
Table 2. Median hours per week on teaching, research, service, administrationand other academic activities, in session and not in session, 1992/2007

Teaching
Research
Service
Administration
Other

In Session
20
10
2
8
2

1992
Not in Session
5
20
2
5
3

In Session
15
10
4
5
4

2007
Not in Session
6
25
4
5
5

Given the increase in the number of hours spent on research, it isunsurprising that the proportion of academics claiming a primary interest in
research has increased (Table 3), while those stating a primary interest inteaching or in both teaching and research has decreased in the 2007 survey.
Table 3. Primary interest (%), 1992/2007
1992
12
32
40
15

Primarily in teaching
In both, but leaning towards teaching
In both, but leaning towards researchPrimarily in Research

2007
11
28
37
24

Table 4. Primary interest (%), by age, 2007

Primarily in teaching
In both, but leaning
towards teaching
In both, but leaning
towards researchPrimarily in Research4

30 & Under
(32)4
6

31-40
(155)
7

41-50
(167)
7

51+
(198)
18

Total
(552)
11

16

10

47

32

38

16

50

29

37

37

63

34

17

13

24

The figures in this row (and in subsequent tables) represent a proportion of the responses
from the UK weighted 800 (but England only), and not the actual numbers of individual
responses to the questions.

238

Teaching and Research in English Higher Education

The high proportion (63%) of those under 30 years old interested primarily
in research reflects the predominance of contract researchers in the early stagesof an academic career in the UK. A large majority (71%) of respondents in the
category ‘30 years and under’ and on fixed term contracts stated they wereprimarily interested in research. There were no academics on fixed-term
contracts in the age category ‘30 years and under’ who stated they were primarily
interested in teaching. This reflects the structure of the academic profession
and the common pathways to career progression. Again, this is reflected in thehigh proportion (50%) of 31-40 year old academics who regard their primaryinterest to be in both but leaning towards research. By mid-career, respondents
are more evenly spread across the four options.
Table 5. Primary interest (%), by institution type, 2007

Primarily in teaching
In both, but leaning
towards teaching
In both, but leaning
towards researchPrimarily in Research

Research
Intensive
Univ.
(193)
3

Other
Pre-1992
Univ.
(249)
11

Post-1992
Univ.
(99)

Post-2004
Univ.
(19)

HE
Colleges
(7)

(569)

16

60

14

11

23

31

34

16

43

38

36

38

40

21

43

37

39

20

10

5

0

24

All

Of academics from research intensive universities, 39% are primarily
interested only in research whilst only 3% are primarily interested only inteaching. Institutions that have more recently become universities have a lower
percentage of academics stating their primary interest in research. Although
only small numbers of academics from HE colleges answered this question, it isstill surprising to see so few stating teaching as their primary interest. It would
be interesting to investigate the thinking that lies behind these responses so that
we can develop a clearer understanding of what academics within these different
institutions regard as research and teaching, how they conceive these activities
and the relations between them.
There are also differences between academic disciplines. Of academics
currently employed in the field of education, 21%, and of academics working indesign, creative and performing arts 22%, state a primary interest in teaching,whilst only 7% and 8% respectively are primarily concerned with research.
Only 8% of academics currently working in engineering and technology
departments state a primary interest in teaching compared with 44% who regard

William Locke & Alice Bennion 239

research as their primary interest. This is quite different from the picture
portrayed in the 1992 survey when 18% of academics stated a primary interest inteaching and 8% a primary interest in research. The majority of academics(74%) working in this discipline in 1992 suggested an interest in both areas ofacademic work.
Affiliation
Table 6 presents the results given to survey questions on affiliation.
Interestingly, in both 1992 and 2007, academics appear far more affiliated totheir academic discipline and department than to their institution. The findingspresented in Table 6 somewhat contradict previous research that suggests a
decline in academics’ commitment to their institution (e.g. Bryson, 2004).
Although the figures for 1992 and 2007 are not directly comparable due to slightdifferences in the scales used in the UK CAP questionnaire, there has clearly
been no decline in the proportion of academics who are affiliated to theiracademic discipline, department or institution. If the 2007 responses for“Essential” and “Very Important” are combined and compared with those for“Very Important” in 1992, the proportion has increased since the first survey by
18%. In support of this finding, the figures for “Not at all Important” and thenext response in each questionnaire (“Not Too Important” in 1992 and “Useful
but not that Important” in 2007) have dropped by 11% in the CAP survey. So,
all three institutional levels now appear to be more significant in the working
lives of academics.
Table 6. Affiliation (%), 1992/2007
Academic
Discipline
Very
Important
FairlyImportant

1992
Department

Institution

64

40

18

29

44

46

Not Too
Important

6

13

28

Not at All
Important1

4

8

Essential
Very
Important
Quite
ImportantUsefulbut not
that
Important
Not at all
ImportantAcademic
Discipline
41

2007
Department
17

Institution
10

41

40

26

12

26

39

6

11

19

1

6

6

240

Teaching and Research in English Higher Education
Table 7. Affiliation by institution type (%), 2007

Academic
Discipline

Department

Institution

Essential/
Very
Important
Quite
Important
Not
too/Not atallimportantEssential/
Very
Important
Quite
Important
Not
too/Not atallimportantEssential/
Very
Important
Quite
Important
Not
too/Not atallimportant

Research
Intensive
Univ.
(189)

Other
Pre-1992
Univ.
(254)

Post-1992
Univ.
(99)

Post-2004
Univ.
(26)

HE
Colleges
(10)

All

84

81

85

47

88

82

7

12

11

27

0

12

6

6

4

27

11

7

55

56

59

58

60

57

25

27

29

15

10

26

20

17

11

27

30

17

42

37

27

27

50

36

41

38

39

38

20

39

18

26

33

35

30

25

Academics from research intensive (42%) and other pre-1992 (37%)
universities appear to show more affiliation to their institution than thoseworking in post-1992 (27%) or post-2004 universities (27%) (Table 7).
Academics working in post-2004 universities appear far less affiliated to their
institution than those in other types of HEI. These findings may reflect theinternalisation of market-based valuations of HEIs, as expressed by the media inuniversity rankings or ‘league tables’ (Locke et al, 2008).
Interestingly, younger, less experienced academics feel far less affiliated totheir departments (41%). This may be because the majority (69%) are on fixed
term contracts (and many of these research-only) and are less likely to beengaged in departmental decision-making (Bryson, 2004). Of these, only 28%
claim that their department is essential or very important. Almost half (48%)

William Locke & Alice Bennion 241

believe it is useful but not that important or not important at all.
A high proportion of academics working in the field of design, creative andperforming arts feel little or no affiliation to their institutions (38%) or
department (36%). However, 79% felt an affiliation to their discipline, with
50% describing their academic discipline as essential. In the field ofarchitecture and planning, 80% of academics felt little or no affiliation to their
institution, yet 95% felt an affiliation to their department and academic discipline.
Though 86% of academics working in engineering and technology departments
state some affiliation towards their institution, only 21% of academics working in
biological, mathematical and physical sciences describe their institution as
essential.
The satisfaction debate
There is a large body of recent research which focuses on the declining
morale and satisfaction of academics with the profession (e.g. Rose, 2000).
However there is also disagreement about the extent to which this affects theentire professional population and the implications this has for the academic
workforce. Commentators in the UK contend that there are variations between
different groups of staff, such as research-only and teaching staff (Bryson, 2004),
pre-1992 and post-1992 university staff (Casey, 1997), and junior and senior staff(Martin, 1999). The data presented here help to refine our understanding,illustrating a complex and diverse picture of satisfaction throughout the
profession. The CAP findings (Table 8), like others (Bryson, 2004), do notsuggest a rapid decline in satisfaction amongst the academic profession.
Although overall satisfaction has fallen slightly (2%), dissatisfaction has also
fallen, by 13%.
Table 8. Overall satisfaction (%), 1992/2007
1992
1. Very Satisfied
2
Neutral4
5. Very Dissatisfied

2007
8
41
24
21
7

Very High
High
MediumLow
Very Low

8
39
39
8
7

However, the proportion (49%) of academics in England claiming they aresatisfied with their job is still much lower than those in other counties in the 2007
CAP study (e.g. Canada (73%), Japan (69%), US (64%)), and there are otherindicators of a decline in morale within the profession from the UK CAP survey.

242

Teaching and Research in English Higher Education

Support for statements such as those in Table 9 illustrate a decline in academics’
perceptions of the profession, including 37% of respondents who agreed that they
had considered working outside of HE altogether.
Table 9. Views on the profession, proportion answering “strongly agree” or“agree” (%), 1992/2007
This is a poor time for any young person to begin an
academic career in my field
If I had it to do over again, I would not become an
academic
My job is a source of considerable strain

1992

2007

42

49

20

27

47

52

As suggested earlier, satisfaction varies among academics, especiallyaccording to gender (Table 10). Male respondents appear slightly moredissatisfied with the job, and 41% of men had considered working outside higher
education compared with 34% of women.
Table 10. Views on the profession by gender, proportion answering “strongly
agree” or “agree” (%), 2007
This is a poor time for any young person to begin an
academic career in my field
If I had it to do over again, I would not become an
academic
My job is a source of considerable strain

Male

Female

All

58

45

49

36

22

27

55

51

52

On other variances within the data, 61% of academics over the age of 51
years agreed that their job was a source of considerable strain compared with anaverage among all respondents of 53%. Researchers (36%) were the least likely
to agree with this statement, followed by professors (48%) who ranked justbelow the average of 53%. Senior lecturers, senior researchers and readers
were most likely to agree (62%). Despite job uncertainty, researchers on fixedterm contracts experience far more autonomy in the planning and execution of
their work, and this aligns with other evidence (Bryson, 2004). Unsurprisingly,
only 22% of those who had only been in the profession since 2000 agreed that if
they had their time over again they would not become academics compared withan average of 27%. Only 41% of academics who had entered the profession
since 2000 agreed that it was a poor time for any young person to begin an
academic career in their field. However, 62% of academics who had entered
the profession in the 1980s, and 58% who had entered the profession before 1980,

William Locke & Alice Bennion 243

agreed with this statement.
In line with previous findings (Casey, 1997; Locke, 2008b), institutional
type has some bearing on how academics responded to questions relating tosatisfaction. Academics working in post-2004 universities appear moredissatisfied currently than others.
Table 11. Views on the profession, by institution type, proportion answering“strongly agree” or “agree” (%), 2007

This is a poor time
for any young
person to begin an
academic career in
my field
If I had it to doover again, I would
not become an
academic
My job is a sourceofconsiderable
strainResearch
Intensive
Univ.
(192)

Other
Pre-1992
Univ.
(252)

Post-1992
Univ.
(97)

Post-2004
Univ.
(19)

HE
Colleges
(10)

(572)

51

44

55

56

63

49

32

19

34

47

22

27

45

54

59

64

80

52

All

Finally, there appear to be differences between the academic disciplines.
Only 23% of academics working in design, creative and performing arts appear
to be satisfied with their current job, whilst 35% describe their satisfaction as low
or very low. Interestingly, 75% of academics working in this field agreed orstrongly agreed that their job was a source of considerable strain. Althoughacademics working in the field of fine art appeared more dissatisfied than theiracademic counterparts in 1992, it was those working in the field of computerscience who appeared most dissatisfied, with 17% stating they were very
dissatisfied with their job situation. In comparison 62% of academics working
in the field of psychology in 1992 stated they were very satisfied or satisfied with
their job situation. Over half of academics working in engineering andtechnology units (53%), and administrative, business and social studies (52%) in2007 rate their overall job satisfaction as high or very high, whilst only 2% ofacademics working in the field of education rated their overall satisfaction as
low.

244

Teaching and Research in English Higher Education

Teaching
Table 2 illustrated a drop, since 1992, in the number of hours academics
spend on teaching. A more detailed examination of their teaching activities
reveals some interesting differences in the experiences of academics working indifferent types of institution. Figure 4 gives an indication of the average classsize at various levels of provision and in different types of HEI. Unsurprisingly,
the largest classes are at undergraduate level with a median score of 50 students
per course. Research intensive universities appear to have the smallest classsizes across the board, while post-1992 universities have higher class sizes at theundergraduate and postgraduate level. This appears to confirm recent findings
based on a survey of first and second year undergraduate students (HEPI, 2006).
Academics were asked whether they agreed with a number of statements
referring to their teaching activities. More than three-quarters of respondents
agreed or strongly agreed with the statement that “Your research activities
reinforce your teaching”, with only 8% disagreeing or strongly disagreeing.
Even larger majorities agreed or strongly agreed that “You inform students of theimplications of cheating or plagiarism in your courses”, “Grades in your courses
strictly reflect levels of student achievement” and “You incorporate discussionsof values and ethics into your course content”. Once again the responses tocertain questions differed significantly between institution-types, with thegreatest variations included in Figure 5. Respondents from the newer
universities were more likely to agree that “Practically oriented knowledge andskills are emphasised in your teaching” and that “Your service activities reinforce
your teaching”. Those in research intensive and other pre-1992 universities
were more likely to emphasise international perspectives or content in theircourses and have a majority of international graduate students.
Similarly, a higher proportion of academics working in the more applied
academic disciplines such as engineering and technology (71%), medicine,
dentistry and health (83%) and design, creative and performing arts (88%) agreed
with the statement “Practically oriented knowledge and skills are emphasised inyour teaching”. Some 55% of academics working in engineering andtechnology departments and 45% of those working in the area of administration,business and social studies agreed that “Currently, most of your graduate students
are international”, whilst only 10% of academics working in medicine, dentistry
and health, 11% of those working in the field of education and 15% of thoseworking in humanities and language based studies agreed with this statement.

William Locke & Alice Bennion 245

80

Approx. no. of students per course

70

60

50

Research Intensive

Research Intensive Univ.
Univ.
Other Pre-1992 Univ.
Other Pre-1992 Univ.
Post-1992 Univ

40

Post-1992 Univ.

Post-2004 Univ.
Post-2004
HE
Colleges Univ.
HE Colleges
All

30

All

20

10

0

Undergraduate level

Continuing professional

Postgraduate level

Other

education

Figure 4. Approximate average number of students per course,
by institution type, 2007100

% Strongly agree/agree

90
80
70

Research Intensive.
Univ.
Other Pre-1992 Univ.
Post-1992 Univ.

60
50

Post-2004 Univ.

40

All

30
20
10
0

Practicallyorientedknowledge andskills areemphasized inyour teaching

In your courses
you emphasizeinternational
perspectives orcontent

Since you started
teaching, thenumber ofinternational
students has
increased

Currently, mostof your graduate
students areinternationalYour service
activities
reinforce yourteaching

Figure 5. Views on teaching, by institution type, 2007

246

Teaching and Research in English Higher Education

Research
Figure 6 indicates the types of research that academics in England are
currently undertaking. More respondents reported undertaking: applied orpractically-oriented research than basic or theoretical research; multi- orinter-disciplinary research than investigations based in one discipline; andsocially-oriented research intended for the betterment of society thancommercially-oriented research intended for technology transfer.
These
emphases may reflect the priorities of funders, academic publishers, institutional
managers and others who can influence the type of research that is supported.
For example, the UK research councils expect the research they fund to have “asocietal and economic impact”, and require researchers to demonstrate anawareness of the wider environment and context in which the research takes
place and to engage actively with the public at both the local and national levels
about the research and its broader implications (RCUK, 2008).
Once again there are differences between those working in different types of
institution. A higher percentage of academics in post-1992 (60%) andpost-2004 (55%) universities stated that very much or a fair amount of theirprimary research was socially-orientated or intended for the betterment of society.
At research intensive universities, 62% of academics and 67% of academics inother pre-1992 universities stated that very much or a fair amount of theirprimary research was international in scope, compared with only 40% of those inpost-1992 universities and 22% of those in post-2004 universities. This may
reflect the greater likelihood of academics in the older universities aiming for thehigher grades in the Research Assessment Exercise (RAE) that reward researchthat is internationally excellent or even ‘world-leading’.
There are again differences between the academic disciplines.
In
humanities and language-based studies, 70% of academics working stated thatvery much or a fair amount of their primary research was international in scope.
Unsurprisingly 63% of academics working in the field of medicine, dentistry andhealth stated that very much or a fair amount of their primary research wassocially-orientated for the betterment of society compared with only 19% of
those working in engineering and technology units and 22% of those working in
biological, mathematics and physical sciences who agreed with this statement.
Research output has been heavily influenced by the RAE, and to a lesser
extent the Research Councils, which privilege “medium and large scale original
quantitative research that will yield short-term results publishable in high-status
journals rather than smaller scale applied and discursive research, some of whichis communicated to end-users in ways that students might also benefit fromWilliam Locke & Alice Bennion 247
7060% very much/fair amount

50

40

30

20

10

0
Commerciallyoriented/intended fortechnology transfer

Based in one
discipline

Sociallyoriented/intended forthe betterment ofsociety

Basic/theoretical

International in
Multi/interdisciplinary Applied/practicallyscope or orientation
oriented

Figure 6. Emphasis of primary research, 2007
Table 12. Scholarly contributions, 1992/2007
1992
Authored or co-authored books
Edited or co-edited books
Articles published in an academic book or journal
Research reports/monographs for a funded project
Papers presented at a scholarly conference
Professional articles written for a newspaper ormagazine
Patents secured on a process or invention
Computer programs written for public use
Artistic works performed or exhibitedVideos or films produced

Mean
0.9
0.7
5.4
2.4
4.0

Median
0
0
3
1
2

Mean
1.3
1.4
5.8
3.4
5.2

2007
Median
1
1
4
2
4

2.4

1

2.2

1

0.1
0.4
0.3
0.4

0
0
0
0

2.0
2.4
4.3
2.3

2
1
2
1

it” (Locke, 2004, p.103). Table 12 outlines the scholarly contributions made byacademics in the three years previous to the survey being conducted in 2007. It
compares these with the contributions made by academics in the three years
previous to the 1992 survey being conducted. In all types of contribution, apartfrom professional articles written for a newspaper or magazine, output has
increased.
Interestingly, while the numbers of papers presented at scholarly
conferences has increased significantly, the number of articles published in248

Teaching and Research in English Higher Education

academic books or journals has not, perhaps reflecting the increased competitionin academic publishing. The increased productivity in patents, computer
programs, artistic works and videos or films, also reflects the greatercommercialisation and commodification of research. Table 13 outlines theviews of academics on a number of statements relating to their research.
Table 13. Views on research (%), 2007

Restrictions on the publication of resultsfrom my publicly-funded research haveincreased since my first appointment.
Restrictions on the publication of resultsfrom my privately-funded research haveincreased since my first appointment.
External sponsors or clients have noinfluence over my research activities.
The pressure to raise external research funds
has increased since my first appointment.
Interdisciplinary research is emphasized at
my institution.
My institution emphasizes
commercially-orientated or applied research.
My research is conducted in full-compliancewith ethical guidelines.
Research funding should be concentrated(targeted) on the most productive
researchers.
High expectations to increase research
productivity are a threat to the quality of
research.
High expectations of useful results andapplication are a threat to the quality of
research.

Strongly
Agree/Agree

NeutralDisagree/Strongly
Disagree

12

61

28

10

71

20

36

30

34

76

21

3

65

26

9

55

35

11

84

15

1

22

29

49

72

20

8

55

29

16

A large majority (76%) of academics agreed that the pressure to raise
external funds had increased since their first appointment. A majority was also
concerned that high expectations to increase research productivity – and of useful
results and application – are a threat to the quality of research.
Figure 7 gives an overview of the median percentage of funding foracademics’ research. It illustrates the advantage of the older universities, andthe research intensive universities in particular, in attracting funding from publicresearch funding agencies and private not-for-profit foundations and agencies.

William Locke & Alice Bennion 249
100

90Median % of funding

80

70

Research Intensive
Univ.
Other Pre-1992 Univ.

60

50

Post-1992 Univ.
All

40

30

20

10

0

Your own
institution

Figure 7.

Public researchfundingagencies

Government
entitites

Business firms
or Industry

Private not-for-profit
foundations/agencies

Percentage of funding for research from different sources (median),by institution type, 2007

Evaluation
Finally, it is not surprising that respondents in 2007 were more likely thantheir 1992 counterparts to report that their teaching and research are evaluatedregularly by both peers in their department and external reviewers. This reflects
the growth in quality assessment of all academic activities. In 2007, external
review played a greater part in research than teaching, although the difference
may not have been so pronounced earlier in this fifteen year period when theassessment of teaching included classroom observation. A clear majority now
reports that students regularly evaluate their teaching, and this is likely to be a
response to feedback in annual course monitoring processes and a reaction to thefirst two rounds of the annual National Student Survey in 2005 and 2006.
Table 14. Evaluation of teaching, research and service, 1992/2007

Your peers in your department or unit
The head of your department
Senior administrative staff
Your students
External reviewers
Yourself
No oneYour Teaching
1992
2007
11
46
44
37
4
5
45
59
14
21
37
1

Your Research
1992
2007
8
31
41
39
9
11
3
2
15
36
33
5

Your Service
2007
19
35
12
12
6
20
6

250

Teaching and Research in English Higher Education

4. Discussion
The findings from the 1992 and 2007 surveys clearly reflect the increasingemphasis on research in the UK after the abolition of the binary divide gave the
new universities the opportunity (in theory, at least) to secure public funding forthis activity. As public expenditure per student on teaching declined, research(and particularly the RAE) represented one of the few means for HEIs to increase
income, even at less than the full costs of the activity generated. Growing
evaluation of the outputs helped to increase productivity but also raised
expectations to a point where a majority of respondents feels that quality is at
risk. The assessment procedures and mechanisms for allocating researchmoney were also designed to increase selectivity in research funding between
institutions. Within institutions, this has often been translated into selectivity
between departments and between individuals within departments. So much so,that institutional managers had to make tactical decisions about the proportion ofacademics to submit to the periodic assessment exercise and, ultimately, about
which individuals (and departments) could remain ‘research-active’ and whichshould focus mainly on teaching and income-generating alternatives to research.
The period between the two surveys is characterised by the final separationof research and teaching, as a result of policy and operational decisions to
distinguish the way these activities are funded, managed, assessed and rewarded(Locke, 2004). This process had started with the introduction of the RAE in1986 and, by 2007, resulted in the substantial increase in the number ofteaching-only posts and (largely fixed-term) research-only contracts in HEIs,
such that together these now account for nearly half of all academics in the UK.
The 2004 HE Act also led to the conversion of 14 or so HE colleges andinstitutes into teaching-only universities, without research degree awarding
powers. The separation of the core academic activities in which, increasingly,
only some institutions can attract sufficient sums of money for research, thennecessitated the creation of a ‘third stream’ of funding to support collaboration
between universities and business and industry that might become a ‘second core
mission’ – after teaching – for some institutions seeking “to play to theirstrengths”. Although designed to encourage diversity, these policy initiatives –and, equally, HEIs’ responses to them – have had the effect of fragmenting
academic activities and introducing new divisions of labour and changing
perspectives on core academic roles which appear to be experienced differently
by academics according to their age, gender, grade and career stage.
The CAP findings further indicate the key influence that institutional role

William Locke & Alice Bennion 251

and type has in this process. Although academics in 2007 still claim greateraffiliation with their academic discipline and department than with their
institution, the responses suggest a stronger role for both departments andinstitutions in their working life. The need to manage the processes offragmentation, external evaluation and internal quality assurance, financial
constraints and opportunities, new and growing relations with business etc., has
required a growth in institutional operations and the associated administrativeand management personnel, such that academics now represent less than half ofthe ‘workforce’ in UK HEIs. Again, there are variations in the way thesechanges are experienced and operationalised within different types of institutions,depending on how well they are positioned to withstand the external pressuresand constraints and take advantages of the opportunities opening up to them in an
increasingly competitive and marketised HE environment.

References
Bryson, C. (2004). What about the workers? The expansion of higher education and thetransformation of academic work. Industrial Relations Journal, 35(1), 38-57.
Casey, B. (1997). Academic Staff in Higher Education: Their Experiences and Expectations,
Report 3 of National Committee of Inquiry into Higher Education (the Dearing Report)
Higher Education and the Learning Society, London: The Stationery Office,https://bei.leeds.ac.uk/Partners/NCIHE//report3.htm
Connor, H., Pearson, R., Court, G., & Jagger, N. (1996). University Challenge: Student
Choices in the 21st Century, A Report to the CVCP, Report 306, Brighton: Institute for
Employment Studies.
Fulton, O. (1996). The Academic Profession in England on the Eve of Structural Reform. In
P.G. Altbach, & L.S. Lewis (eds.), The International Academic Profession: Portraits ofFourteen Countries, Special Report (pp. 391-437). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Fulton, O., & Holland, C. (2001). Profession or Proletariat: Academic Staff in the United
Kingdom After Two Decades of Change. In J. Enders (ed.), Academic Staff in Europe:
Changing Contexts and Conditions (pp. 301-321). Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press.
HEPI (2006). The academic experience of students in English universities. A report by Bahram
Bekhradnia, Carolyn Whitnall and Tom Sastry, Oxford: Higher Education Policy Institute.
HESA (2008a). Resources of Higher Education Institutions 2006/07. Cheltenham: Higher
Education Statistics Agency.
HESA (2008b). Students in Higher Education Institutions 2006/07. Cheltenham: Higher
Education Statistics Agency.

252

Teaching and Research in English Higher Education

Locke, W. (2004). Integrating Research and Teaching Strategies: Implications for Institutional
Management and Leadership in the United Kingdom. Higher Education Management andPolicy, 16(1), 101-120.
Locke, W. (2008a). Higher education policy in England: missed opportunities, unintended
consequences and unfinished business. Journal of Access Policy and Practice, 5(2),181-208.
Locke, W. (2008b). The Academic Profession in England: Still stratified after all these years?
The Changing Academic Profession in International Comparative and Quantitative
Perspectives (RIHE International Seminar Reports), 12, 89-115.
Locke, W., Verbik, L., Richardson, J.T.E., & King, R. (2008). Counting what is measured or
measuring what counts? League tables and their impact on higher education institutions
in England. Circular 2008/14, Bristol: Higher Education Funding Council for England,
http://www.hece.ac.uk/pubs/hefce/2008/08_14.
Martin, E. (1999). Changing Academic Work: Developing the Learning University.
Buckingham, Society for Research into Higher Education/Open University Press.
NAO (2008). Widening Participation in Higher Education. National Audit Office, Report by
the Comptroller and Auditor General to the House of Commons, HC 725 Session
2007-2008, 25 June, London: The Stationery Office.
RCUK (2008). Expectations for Societal and Economic Impact. Swindon: Research Councilsof the United Kingdom.
Rose, M. (2000). Future Tense: Are growing occupations more stressed-out and depressive?
Future of Work Series, Working Paper 3, Leeds: University of Leeds.
Universities UK (2008). Patterns of Higher Education Institutions in the UK: Eighth Report. A
report by Professor Brian Ramsden on behalf of the Longer Term Strategy Group of
Universities UK, London: Universities UK.

Country Reports on Careers

RIHE International Seminar Reports, No.13, 2009 253

The Changing Employment and Work Situation of
the Academic Profession in Germany

Anna Katharina Jacob∗ and Ulrich Teichler**

1. Introduction
In the early 1990s, a comparative survey on the academic profession wasundertaken for the first time. The Carnegie survey brought about various highlyinteresting results as regards the German academic profession in a comparative
perspective (cf. Enders & Teichler, 1995a, 1995b, 1996). The results of thatstudy were discussed in the German press with greater interest than most major
analyses of German higher education at that time.
Obviously, issues of the employment and work of the academic profession
addressed in that survey raised more public attention than other issues. Some of
the findings confirmed conventional wisdom, others certainly were surprising,but altogether the results confirmed the basis of public debates in Germany thatchanges were due in the employment and work situation of the academic
profession and eventually in the respective views and activities of the academics
themselves.
Therefore, findings of the comparative study “The Changing Academic
Profession” (CAP) can be discussed in this context. The CAP survey provides
the opportunity to examine whether the conditions, perceptions, views andactivities of German academics have remained constant or have changed in thethematic areas mentioned above. Moreover, comparison between the two∗

Research associate, the International Centre for Higher Education Research Kassel,
University of Kassel (INCHER-Kassel) and the Department of Economics, Chair of
Human Resource Management, University of Duisburg-Essen, Germany, e-mail:Katharina.Jacob@uni-due.de**
Professor, INCHER-Kassel and the Department for Social Sciences, University of Kassel,
Germany, e-mail: Teichler@incher.uni-kassel.de254

The Changing Employment and Work Situation of the Academic Profession in Germany

surveys allows us to analyze whether changes in the views and activities of theGerman academic are in tune with major higher education reforms in Germany
since the 1990s aimed at affecting the academic profession.

2. Background: the academic system in Germany
The following provides a short summary of the typical structures of thesystem of higher education in Germany and the political and legal framework
affecting it (cf. Kreckel, 2008). Higher education in Germany shows a binary
division with traditional universities and “universities for applied sciences”(Fachhochschulen, FHs). The latter institutions do not award doctoral degrees
and are not in charge of training of the future generation of scholars; professors
at these institutions have to teach twice as many hours as university professors
and are not obliged to do research; both teaching and research at these
institutions is expected to have an applied emphasis. Some specialized higher
education institutions, notably for fine and performing arts as well as a few
teacher training colleges are not substantially different from universities as far as
their legal status is concerned. In 2007, we note 105 universities, 74 otherinstitutions with comparable institutional status, 166 universities of appliedsciences and 29 Fachhochschulen for public administration, whereby about 70%of the almost two million students are enrolled in the university sector. It
should be noted that publicly supported research does not take place only inhigher education institutions. Additionally, 78 Max Planck Institutes, 84
institutes of the Leibniz Gemeinschaft, 15 of the Helmholtz Gemeinschaft, and
58 of the Fraunhofer Gesellschaft deal with a variety of different researchfunctions and areas, and in which the resources for research are seen to be clearly
more favorable than at universities.
At German universities, a clear line is drawn between professors who are
life-time employed full-time civil servants as a rule and have a strong say about
academic matters on the one hand, and the junior and middle-rank academic staff.
Even the official occupational category, Hochschullehrer (higher educationteacher), applies only to the professors but not to other academic staff. Morethan half of persons working on their doctoral dissertations are already employed
at a university, mostly on half-time fixed-term contracts. Also, more than 60%
of academic staff at doctoral level are employed on short-term contracts with aperiod of employment lasting for up to five years or even less if the position isfunded by an external research grant. Academic staff are expected to qualify
for a Habilitation, a second level doctorate, as a regular entry requirement to aAnna Katharina Jacob & Ulrich Teichler 255

professorial position. Mobility between institutions of higher education is not
only encouraged, but enforced by regulations like the German
Hausberufungsverbot that excludes the possibility of moving up to aprofessorship from a middle-rank position or even from an associate to a full
professorship within the same institution. The situation of junior- andmiddle-rank academic staff is characterized by a high degree of uncertainty, as
more than five times as many people are employed in these categories as there
are university professors (cf. Statistisches Bundesamt, 2008) and less than 10%of those opting for academic work eventually get into permanent senior positions(cf. Janson, Schomburg & Teichler, 2007).

3. The results of the Carnegie survey
The research function of university professors.
When the firstinternational comparative study on the academic profession took place in theearly 1990s, concern was not only widespread in Germany but also in other
European countries that they might fall behind the U.S. and possibly also Japan
as far as resources and conditions for research and the actual quality of researchwere concerned. At German universities, complaints had been frequent that theresources for research, as well as the time available for research, had eroded as aconsequence of a more impressive increase of student numbers than ofuniversities’ resources; furthermore, many professors argued that theparticipatory models of decision-making in higher education absorbed too muchtime and required too many wise decisions for the enhancement of academic
quality. The Carnegie survey, in contrast, showed that German university
professors had been able to spend as much time on research as on teaching andthat they had not spent more time on administrative and service matters than theircolleagues in other economically advanced countries. Also, German professors
rated the conditions for their teaching and research, on average, similarly to thoseof academics in other economically advanced countries.
The teaching function of university professors. It was generally assumed
that German university professors were so devoted to research that teachingtended to be neglected. The Carnegie survey, in contrast, showed that German
professors had not differed from British professors – who were generally viewed
as regarding their teaching function more favorably – in the proportion of theirtime spent on teaching and related activities and their general appreciation of thelink between teaching and research.
Overall satisfaction of university professors.
Altogether, university

256

The Changing Employment and Work Situation of the Academic Profession in Germany

professors in Germany were quite satisfied with their jobs. Their responses
provided “less of a sense of crisis in the academic profession than the publicdebate would suggest” (Enders & Teichler 1996, p. 491). One should add that
German professors differed strikingly from professors in almost all the othercountries addressed in having a low sense of affiliation to their individual
university: they were more likely to consider themselves as professors or
scholars in the field “X” who happened to have their working place in university“A” than to consider a specific university as being part of their identity.
Academic staff.
In contrast, the other academic staff at German
universities differed more strikingly from the professors in their country andfrom academic staff in other countries in terms of a lower overall satisfaction.
As they did not rate the work conditions less favorably, and as they could
concentrate to a higher extent on research because the teaching assignments foracademic staff in junior- and middle-ranks at German universities are relatively
small, the authors of the German Carnegie study concluded that the clear status
gap between senior academics and other academic staff was a major cause for the
dissatisfaction on the part of the latter.
Professors at other institutions of higher education. The Carnegie study
made clear that the teaching load for professors at institutions of higher education
with a limited research function was exceptionally high in Germany. Although
the German Fachhochschulen are often praised in Germany as taking care of theteaching function in a better way than universities, the survey showed thatprofessors at these institutions spent less time on teaching and otherteaching-related activities as preparation, guidance, examinations etc. thanuniversity professors, thus calling the positive teaching image into question.

4. Changes occurring between the surveys
From the early 1990s onwards, major efforts have been made to reform
higher education. Even if we have to take into consideration that reform plans
might have been watered down in the implementation process and that the
expected impact might only be visible after a long time span or might nevermaterialize, it is worth naming the most salient reforms in order to examine
whether the respective impact is visible in the findings of the CAP survey of
2007.
First, the professors were more strongly exposed to supervisory mechanisms
to legitimize their work, as well as to incentives and sanctions. The
participatory powers of junior staff, other staff and students became weaker, butAnna Katharina Jacob & Ulrich Teichler 257

university presidents/rectors as well as deans of Faculties became more powerfulactors. Various systems of evaluation spread. While basic research funding
through the university budget became smaller over time, opportunities for raisingresearch funds grew. Whereas in the past, university professors only could
negotiate a higher salary and better resources for research on the occasion of
their first appointment and of subsequent external offers of a professorship, a
new salary system was introduced, which provides the opportunity of salary
increase every five years based on performance assessment.
Various efforts were made to enhance the conditions for junior academics(cf. Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung, 2008; Burkhardt, 2008): theestablishment of various doctoral programmes alongside the traditional
individual supervision, the introduction of various career paths for intermediatelevel staff, for example that of ‘junior professor’, and the facilitation of
possibilities to raise research funds independently from a professor, as well as
various programmes to support women in early stages of their careers. Views
vary on whether a new regulation, according to which persons can be employedin the German higher education system for at most 12 years on fixed-term
contracts, actually increases or lowers the attractiveness of academic careers.
Finally, the gradual introduction of a system of stages of study programmesof degrees since 1998 increased the overlap of teaching functions between theuniversities and Fachhochschulen. The latter do not only offer bachelor
programmes, but also master programmes, and both types of institutions are free
to offer academically-oriented and application-oriented master programmes. It
is too early to assess whether this stabilizes the binary structures or will lead to a
blurring and eventually a disappearance of the divide between the two types of
institutions.

5. The target group and the respondents of the German CAP
surveyThis article reports the major findings of a representative survey of theacademic profession at German institutions of higher education. The survey
was undertaken from January to July 2007 within the framework of thecomparative study, the “Changing Academic Profession”.
The questionnaire was sent to more than 5,000 regularly employed,
academically trained persons active in departments in charge of teaching and/or
research at a select number of Germany higher education and research
institutions. Altogether, 1,668 persons responded. The response rate was

258

The Changing Employment and Work Situation of the Academic Profession in Germany

about 30%. Among the respondents, 324 were professors (senior ranks) atuniversities, 695 other academic staff at universities, 215 academics (90% ofthem professors) at Fachhochschulen, 134 seniors at public research institutes,
and 300 other academic staff at public research institutes.
One has to bear in mind that the sampling procedure deliberately called foran over-representation of professors and seniors, women in senior positions andstaff in relatively small fields. This procedure was chosen in order to secure asufficient absolute number per staff category, gender and field of study. In thecurrent data analysis, a weighting of the responses which might counterbalancethese selection priorities, was not implemented.
The 2007 survey was financially supported by the Federal Ministry of
Education and Research. Marek Fuchs and Barbara B. Kehm were involved insetting up the project. Oliver Bracht and Florian Löwenstein did most of thenecessary work for undertaking the survey and analyzing the data, for which
Harald Schomburg served as the methodological advisor.

6. The employment situation of the academic profession inGermany
6.1 Socio-biographic characteristics
Age. In 2007, the mean age of the university professors surveyed was 53
years, i.e. one year younger than in the 1992 Carnegie study. The academics at
Fachhochschulen have an average age of 52 years, which means an increase of
two years since 1992. The most striking finding is the increase in average ageof the non-professorial academic staff at universities from 35 years in 1992 to 40
years in 2007. Obviously, the aim of the legislation of the early years of the 21st
century of limiting fixed contracts to a maximum overall period of 12 years andthereby bringing academics to responsible positions at a younger age than in thepast, has not been realized; rather more people are employed in their late 30s andearly 40s in intermediate positions, often with the help of external research
grants.
Gender.
The proportion of women among university professors was only
6% in 1992 – one of the lowest proportions among the countries participating in
the Carnegie study. Their share tripled thereafter, to 19% in 2007; yet there arefewer on the higher (15%) than the lower rank (26%) of university professors.
The share of women among academics at FHs increased during that period from
9% to 19% and among other academic staff at universities from 22% to 36%;again women are more strongly represented at lower career levels (without aAnna Katharina Jacob & Ulrich Teichler 259

doctoral degree: 41%) than at higher ones (with a doctoral degree: 33%).
More than 80% of the academics surveyed are married or live in apermanent partnership (slightly more than 1992) – more so among professors
than other academics at universities. Female professors at universities or FHs
are much more likely to be single with no children than their male colleagues.
These findings confirm the general view that it is easier to combine family andacademic profession for male persons with a higher income and a partner without
professional engagement – typical findings in German society as a whole and notjust for academics.
6.2 Employment conditions
Income.
The salary structure at German public institutions of higher
education, which comprise about 97% of the system, is homogeneous acrossdisciplines. However, professors and to some extent other academic staff varyby discipline moderately in opportunities for supplementary income from theirhigher education institution and substantially as regards side income (cf. Teichler,2008). For other academic staff in universities, the difference between staff in
full-time from those in part-time positions plays a further, important role.
The average annual salary (including supplements) of university professors
in Germany in 2007 was about €72,000 (€79,000 for the higher-ranking and€61,000 for the lower-ranking professors). Academics at Fachhochschulen earnslightly more than €57,000. Academic staff at universities with a doctoral
degree earn €40,000 on average (including part-timers) and €48,000 for full-time
work; and those without a doctoral degree actually earn €30,000, and €37,000 for
full-time work.
Employment situation.
Except for a few (between 2% and 6% eachaccording to category), professors in Germany are permanently (most as civil
servants) and full-time employed. In contrast, fixed-term employment isdominant for other academic staff, and part-time employment is by no means
infrequent (cf. Bracht & Teichler, 2006, p.145). In contrast to conventional
wisdom, comparison between the two surveys suggests that permanent
employment of other academic staff has increased over the years (from 21% to30%). Only a few academic staff without a doctoral degree are in a permanent
position (3%), but of the academic staff with a doctorate, 39% are. As alreadynoted, academic staff have got older on average; also the years of academic work
prior to the survey have risen from a mean of 7 years in 1992 to 10 years in 2007.
This obviously is not primarily due to longer fixed-term employment, but rather
to an increase in the number of people moving towards permanent middle-level

260

The Changing Employment and Work Situation of the Academic Profession in Germany

positions.
6.3 Elements of the career system
Highest level of qualification. Formal regulations as regards entry
qualification did not change during the period observed; actually, however, wenote an increase of the level of prior qualifications. This can be demonstrated
most clearly through data for the senior academics. The doctoral degree has
been a prerequisite for the university professor position for decades, except for a
few positions in fine arts. Actually, the share of university professors with
doctoral degree was 98% both in 1992 and 2007; however, the proportion of
those with a Habilitation has grown from 73% in 1992 to 81% in 2007.
The entry qualification for a professor position at Fachhochschulen is a
doctoral degree and five years of subsequent employment – predominantly in theprofessional area related to the field of study to be taught. Actually, the share of
doctoral award holders increased during the period observed from about threefifths to about four-fifths. Concurrently, even the proportion of those with a
Habilitation has risen from 5% to 14%.
Institutional mobility. As already pointed out, institutional mobility at the
moment of the first appointment to a university professorship is mandatory inGermany. Moreover, there is no internal promotion from a lower-ranking to ahigher-ranking university professor position. A comparison between 1992 and2007 shows that inter-institutional mobility of academics in Germany has
increased beyond the mandatory mobility at the first appointment to a professor
position. Though the average age increased slightly, as stated above, the periodof employment at the same institution up to the time when the surveys wereconducted has decreased from 17 years to 9 years for university professors andfrom 12 to 10 years for FH professors. Also, the constant number of 5 years of
employment at the same university or FH institution for other academic staff
suggests a relative increase of institutional mobility because the academic staff
surveyed in 2007 have clearly had a longer overall time of employment since
graduation.

7. The work situation of the academic profession in Germany
7.1 Work hours
In both surveys respondents were asked to estimate their average weekly
work hours. They were asked to provide estimates both for the periods whenclasses are in session and when classes are not in session; this distinction has

Anna Katharina Jacob & Ulrich Teichler 261

been made in order to avoid respondents only referring to weeks when classes
are in session and thus underestimating those periods when more time isavailable for research.
According to the self-rating of respondents in 2007 shown in Table 1,
university professors spend about one-third more time on their job than the usual
working hours for employees. Other academic staff spend on average about theusual hours on the job; as a considerable proportion of them are employed
part-time, the data also suggest some work voluntarily beyond official
assignments. In contrast, academics at Fachhochschulen report that they do notwork longer on average than normal employees’ work time.
Table 1. Weekly working hours spent by the academic professionin Germany 2007

Teaching

Academic staff
at universities
When
When
classesclassesare inare not insessionsession
11.3
5.1

Professors atuniversities
When
When
classesclassesare inare not insessionsession
19.3
7.5

Research

17.5

22.4

17.3

Service

7.2

7.0

Other activity

2.4

Administration

2.6

Total

41.0

Weekly working
hours spent on

Academics at FHs
Whenclassesare insession25.1

Whenclasses are
not insession
9.7

24.0

8.1

13.2

6.0

5.6

2.9

4.0

2.3

4.7

5.0

2.2

2.7

2.6

8.8

5.7

5.4

4.4

39.4

56.1

47.8

43.7

34.0

A comparison between the 1992 and the 2007 (see Tables 2 and 3) surveys
shows that the average weekly hours did not change substantially. However,German university professors nowadays allocate relatively less time for teaching
than 15 years earlier, while other academic staff have moved towards spending
less time on research. While other academic staff at universities spent only
about half of the proportion of their overall working time on teaching and related
activities as university professors in 1992, this proportion has risen to about
three-quarters in 2007. The polarization of functions between senior and juniorstaff visible in 1992 gave way to more moderate differences in 2007.
Tables 2 and 3 also show that academics at FHs have moved towards
spending more time on research. While they spent about one-fifth of theirworking time on research in 1992, this became more than one-quarter in 2007.
Comparing the findings of 2007 to those of 1992, the most striking change
concerns the decrease of the share of time spent on teaching tasks by university

262

The Changing Employment and Work Situation of the Academic Profession in Germany

professors and their colleagues at FHs. Only the other academic staff atuniversities experienced higher shares of teaching tasks.
It is worth noting the proportion of time devoted to other tasks than those ofteaching and research increased over time. Actually, there was an increase ofabout 5% of time devoted to other activities both by university professors andother academic staff at universities and by academics at FHs. The increase wasmost substantial in the category “other academic activities” which comprises
notably evaluation-related activities.
Table 2. Proportion of work time spent by the academic profession in Germany
on different activities when classes are in session, 2007 and 1992* (%)
Academic staff
Professors at
at universities
universities
2007
1992
2007
1992
Teaching
28
26
34
43
Research
43
49
31
29
Service1814
118
Other activity
6285Administration
6
9
16
16
∗
Differences from totals of 100% are due to rounding errors.

Academics at FHs
2007
57
19
7
5
12

1992
69
12
6
2
12

Table 3. Proportion of work time spent by the academic profession in Germany
on different activities when classes are not in session, 2007 and 1992*(%)
Academic staff
Professors at
at universities
universities
2007
1992
2007
1992
Teaching
13
12
16
20
Research
57
61
50
53
Service1815
129Other activity
73107Administration
6
8
12
12
∗
Differences from totals of 100% are due to rounding errors.

Academics at FHs
2007
29
39
12
8
13

1992
44
33
11
4
9

7.2 Preference for teaching or research
As in the 1992 study, academics were asked in 2007 whether their interest
lies in teaching or research. As Table 4 shows, the majority of university
professors have expressed in both surveys an interest both in teaching andresearch although they lean more strongly towards research; the second mostfrequent option they have named is an interest both in teaching and researchalthough in this they lean more strongly towards teaching; interest primarily inresearch and primarily in teaching are both less frequent. However, the data
show also that a leaning towards research increased somewhat from 1992 toAnna Katharina Jacob & Ulrich Teichler 263

2007.
In 1992, other academic staff at universities had emphasized research morestrongly than university professors. In 2007, other academic staff express
slightly more often than in 1992 a preference towards teaching, but altogether
remain somewhat more research-oriented than university professors. Thechanges of orientation from 1992 to 2007 were similar to the changes of theactual work time. University professors’ orientation and behavior reflect anincreasing emphasis on research in higher education policies and debates inGermany, e.g. increasing differential resource allocation to universities according
to research performance and other measures to strengthen competition forresearch excellence, while other academic staff’s orientation and behavior
respond to policies of preparing junior staff more comprehensively for the job
roles of senior academics.
In tune with the dominant teaching function of Fachhochschulen, academics
at these institutions express a stronger emphasis on teaching. However, morethan one-fifth of them have expressed a greater interest in research in bothsurveys. It is surprising to note that the major change occurring from 1992 to2007 was an increase of those who clearly emphasize teaching while theproportion of those oriented to both teaching and research but with a stronger
leaning towards teaching has declined. In reflecting the public debate, one
could have expected a slight increase in the research preferences.
Table 4. German academics’ interests primarily in teaching or research 2007
and 1992*(%)

Primarily in teaching

Academic staff
at universities
2007
1992
9
6

Professors atuniversities
2007
1992
2
5

In both, but leaning
towards teaching

22

22

20

In both, but leaning
towards research

42

46

66

Primarily in research
27
26
12
∗
Differences from totals of 100% are due to rounding errors.

Academics at FHs
2007
42

1992
29

30

35

49

58

21

22

7

2

0

7.3 Publications
Publications of various types are generally viewed as the most visible
results of research. According to the cultures of the individual academic
disciplines, substantial differences may be noted between type, number, and264

The Changing Employment and Work Situation of the Academic Profession in Germany

medium of publication. The findings of the 1992 survey about publications ofGerman scholars were in tune with the findings from other countries: senioracademics published more than junior academics, and academics at
research-oriented institutions more than those at institutions leaning towards
teaching. The most striking change of responses in 1992 and 2007 was theincrease of the number of publications German scholars produce. University
professors in Germany more or less doubled the number of articles, research
reports and conference papers; now, they write more publications and papers on
average than university professors of the other countries participating in thecomparative study. A doubling of publications holds true as well for academics
at Fachhochschulen, though with lower numbers at both points in time. Also,
academic staff at universities increased the number of their publications andpapers by more than half. However, the numbers of books authored and edited
remain the same for all these three groups of scholars in Germany, as Table 5shows.
The impressive increase of publications can be viewed as a success ofpolicies in Germany to strengthen evaluation and of incentives in order toincrease the quality and efficiency of research. However, criticism is voiced, as
well in Germany as in other countries, that some increase of publication is due toa growing smartness to make oneself visible rather than an actual increase in thequality of research.
Table 5. Scholarly contributions completed in the past three years by theacademic profession in Germany 2007 and 1992 (arithmetic mean)
Academic staff
at universities
2007
1992

Professors atuniversities
2007
1992

Articles published in an
academic book or Journal

5.5

3.6

16.0

Papers presented at ascholarly conference

5.3

3.0

Research report/monographwritten for a funded project

1.6

Professional articles written
for a newspaper or magazine

Academics at FHs
2007

1992

9.2

4.1

2.3

10.6

5.2

2.6

1.1

0.9

3.4

1.8

1.5

1.1

1.2

0.8

3.2

1.1

1.8

0.9

Scholarly books you authoredor co-authored

0.3

0.3

0.7

0.8

0.4

0.4

Scholarly books you edited orco-edited

0.2

0.1

1.3

0.9

0.3

0.2

Anna Katharina Jacob & Ulrich Teichler 265

7.4 Personal influence at and attitudes towards their institution of higher
education
Academics were asked both in the 1992 and 2007 surveys: “How influential
are you, personally, in helping to shape key academic policies?” on a scale ofpossible answers from 1, “very influential” to 4, “not at all influential” withrespect to the department or institute as the smallest unit, the Faculty (orFachbereich) as the intermediate one, and the institutional level of the university
itself. Table 6 shows, as one might expect, that academics’ influence is highest
on the smallest, and lowest on the largest, possible institutional unit. Also, it
does not come as a surprise that senior academics at universities andFachhochschulen consider themselves more or equally influential at their
institutions, while other academic staff obviously are far less influential and moreor less consider themselves lacking any influence at the institutional level.
Altogether, a comparison of the findings from 1992 and 2007 suggests that
academics believe they have increased their influence at their institution overtime. This is a surprising finding and in contrast to the conventional wisdomthat the growing power of management at institutions of higher education, as
well as the stronger role of evaluation activities, incentives and sanctions, might
have weakened the position of the academic staff.
Table 6. Rating personal influence at their institution by the academic
profession in Germany 2007
Academics at universities
At the level ofthe…

Academics at
Fachhochschulen

Professors at
higherrank(C4/W3)

Professors at
lower
rank (C3/W2)

Academic
staff

Department orsimilar unit

1.4

1.7

2.5

1.8

Faculty, schoolor similar unit

2.1

2.6

3.4

2.2

Institution

2.9

3.3

3.7

3.1

Note: Arithmetic mean on a scale from 1= “very influential” to 4= “not influential at all”.

In both surveys, the academics were asked to indicate how importantaffiliations to their academic field, to their department, and to their institution ofhigher education as whole were for themselves. In all countries, academics
consider affiliation to their field as highly important. The German respondents
stood out in 1992, however, in reporting only a lukewarm affiliation to theirdepartment and to their institution of higher education. The 2007 data show

266

The Changing Employment and Work Situation of the Academic Profession in Germany

that this affiliation increased moderately and is not exceptionally low anymore ininternational comparison.
Actually in 2007, university professors rateaffiliation to their department 2.6 on average on a scale from 1, “very important”
to 5, “not at all important”; and their affiliation to their institution of higher
education also as 2.6. The respective means are, for other academic staff atuniversities, 2.6 and 2.8 and for academics at FHs, 2.3 and 2.6. Over the years,
the strong emphasis on institutional strategies in German higher education seems
to have led to a decrease of the external orientation of academics (cf. also
Grözinger, 2008).
7.5 Assessment of working conditions
Academics were asked both in 1992 and 2007 to rate the facilities andresources needed to support their academic work on a scale from 1, “excellent”
to 5, “poor”. Seven areas were addressed in both surveys: classrooms,
technology for teaching, laboratories, research equipment and instruments,
computer facilities, library facilities, and secretarial support.
It is interesting to note that university professors and academic staff assess
the resources and facilities for their academic work identically on average at both
points in time; this suggests that other academic staff do not feel substantiallyconstrained in access to the available resources. Actually, the ratings of bothgroups increased on average marginally from 2.7 in 1992 to 2.6 in 2007.
The ratings by academics at FHs were lower in 1992 (3.0 on average) but
improved to the same level as the ratings by academics in universities in 2007
(2.6). These findings challenge the widespread notion that work conditions foracademics have deteriorated in recent years. Yet, that the average ratings are
not much higher than the centre of the scale also shows that an improvement of
the resources and facilities is called for by many academics.

8. Overall assessments
Two findings show how the academics surveyed assess their overall
professional situation. They present an ambivalent message about the notionsof the academic profession.
About 40% of the academics at universities considered their job as “a sourceof considerable personal strain” in 1992 (41% of professors and 40% of otheracademic staff). This proportion has increased to almost half in 2007 (49% ofprofessors and 47% of other academic staff). In contrast, fewer academics inFachhochschulen responded affirmatively in 1992 (36%), and their averageAnna Katharina Jacob & Ulrich Teichler 267

ratings were more or less identical in 2007 (35%).
Asked about their overall job satisfaction in 1992, the university professors
in Germany rated it 2.4 on average on a scale from 1, “very high” to 5, “verylow”. The average ratings improved to 2.2 in 2007 and are now among themost positive ones in the comparative study. The ratings of academics at FHs
had been somewhat less positive in 1992 (2.6) but now also improved over timeto 2.3 in 2007.
The overall job satisfaction of other academic staff at universities inGermany (3.1) was substantially lower, on average, in 1992 than that ofuniversity professors in Germany; indeed, it had been the lowest among otheracademic staff at universities in all the economically advanced countries includedin the survey in 1992. But by 2007 it has improved more than anywhere else to
2.5. It has remained somewhat lower than the job satisfaction of university
professors in Germany, but the gap has become substantially smaller.

9. Conclusion
In several respects, the employment and work situation of the academic
profession in Germany has remained more or less unchanged over the 15 years
from the first (1992) to the second (2007) comparative study of the academic
profession. The age composition of professors at universities and otherinstitutions of higher education did not change substantially; the salarydifferences between the various status and institutional groups have remained
more or less the same. Most professors in Germany, in ranks similar to full andassociate professors in the U.S., at both types of higher education institution,
have remained permanently and full-time employed. The ratings of facilities
and resources for academic work have remained more or less stable over time
except for the Fachhochschulen where some improvement is observed.
University professors continue to devote about 30% more working hours than isusually required for full-time employees; also other academic staff spend more
hours on their job than they are paid for, whereas academics at FHs identify
average working hours in line with the usually required work time for full-time
staff.
But the changes seem to outweigh continuity. The proportion of women
increased substantially. A higher proportion of non-professorial academic staff
at universities in 2007 is relatively old and overlaps more strongly with thetypical age brackets of university professors. The credentials increase − notably
the proportion of academics at FHs bearing a doctoral degree or even a

268

The Changing Employment and Work Situation of the Academic Profession in Germany

Habilitation and the proportion of university professors with a Habilitation.
Academics change their institution of higher education more often than in thepast.
The number of articles published, research reports submitted to sponsors
and papers presented at conferences increased dramatically. This is certainly intune with recent policies in Germany of emphasizing evaluation and competition
for improved quality of research more strongly than of teaching. Both theorientation and the proportion of working time among university professors leansomewhat more towards research in 2007 than they did in 1992. In contrast,
other staff at universities, traditionally more involved in research than professors,lean somewhat more towards, and spend somewhat more time on, teaching in2007 than in 1992, thus preparing themselves more comprehensively for the job
roles of senior academics.
The increasing strategic role of the individual higher education institution inGermany and the stronger strategic power of the management at the individual
institution seem to be reflected in an increase of the proportion of academics
feeling affiliation to their department and their institution as a whole. It issurprising to note that German academics in 2007 believe they have a stronger
influence in their department and institution than their predecessors did in 1992.
Finally, the overall assessment of employment and the work situation has
headed in not fully consistent directions. On the one hand, an increasing
proportion of professors and other academic staff at universities consider theirjobs increasingly as a cause of personal strain (This does not hold true foracademics at FHs). On the other hand, academics in 2007 are more highly
satisfied with their overall employment and work situation than theirpredecessors in 1992. Notably, the non-professorial staff at universities havemade a leap forwards towards higher overall job satisfaction.

References
Bracht, O., & Teichler, U. (2006). The Academic Profession in Germany. In Research Institutefor Higher Education (RIHE) (ed.), Reports of Changing Academic Profession ProjectWorkshop on Quality, Relevance, and Governance in the Changing Academia:International Perspectives (pp.129-150). Hiroshima: RIHE, Hiroshima University.
Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung (BMBF) (2008). Bundesbericht zur Förderung
des Wissenschaftlichen Nachwuchses (BuWiN). Berlin: Bundestag.
Burkhardt, A. (2008). Wagnis Wissenschaft: Akademische Karrierewege und das Fördersystem

Anna Katharina Jacob & Ulrich Teichler 269
in Deutschland. Leipzig: Akademische Verlagsanstalt.
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.
Bonn: Bundesministerium für Bildung, Wissenschaft, Forschung und Technologie.
Enders, J., & Teichler, U. (1996). The Academic Profession in Germany. In P.G. Altach (ed.),The International Academic Profession: Portraits of 14 Countries (pp.439-492).
Princeton, NJ: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.
Grözinger, G. (2008). Wie mobil sind Professoren? Erste Erkenntnisse zu Zweiten Rufen in
Deutschland. die hochschule, 1, 59-73.
Janson, K., Schomburg, H., & Teichler, U. (2007). Wege zur Professur: Qualifizierung undBeschäftigung an Hochschulen in Deutschland und den USA. Münster: Waxmann.
Kreckel, R. (ed.) (2008). Zwischen Promotion und Professur: Das wissenschaftliche Personalin Deutschland im Vergleich mit Frankreich, Großbritannien, USA, Schweden, den
Niederlanden, Österreich und der Schweiz. Leipzig: Akademische Verlagsanstalt.
Statistisches Bundesamt (2008). Bildung und Kultur: Personal an Hochschulen 2007.
Wiesbaden (Fachserie 11 Reihe 4.4).
Teichler, U. (2008). Academic Staff in Germany: per aspera ad astra? In RIHE (ed.), The
Changing Academic Profession in International Comparative and Quantitative
Perspectives (pp.131-152). Hiroshima: RIHE, Hiroshima University.

RIHE International Seminar Reports, No.13, 2009 271

The Changing Academic Profession in Japan

Yusuke Hasegawa∗ and Naoyuki Ogata∗∗

Changes in circumstances surrounding the academic profession
The academic workplace in Japan has been changing rapidly and thisphenomenon is worldwide (Altbach & Chait, 2001). This section outlineschanges in circumstances surrounding the academic profession in the 15 years
from 1992 to 2007 based on the national level statistics and presents an analyticalframework for discussion to be made in the following sections.
Changes in the size of the university system
Table 1. Changes in the size of the university system
18-year-old
population
1992
1995
1998
2001
2004
2007

2,050,902 100
1,774,535 87
1,623,009 79
1,512,840 74
1,411,420 69
1,299,762 63

Number of
Number of full-time
undergraduate
faculty
students
2,127,713 100
130,854 100
2,330,831 110
139,487 107
2,428,269 114
146,153 112
2,487,133 117
151,593 116
2,505,923 118
159,724 122
2,514,228 118
167,971 128

Source: Statistics of Japanese Higher Education.
Note: Numbers in italics are proportions (%), relative to 1992.

Table 1 shows changes in the size of university population and the numberof faculty in the 15 years from 1992 to 2007. During this time, the 18-year-old∗

Assistant Professor, Research Institute for Higher Education, Hijiyama University, e-mail:yhase@hijiyama-u.ac.jp∗∗
Associate Professor, RIHE, Hiroshima University, e-mail: nogata@hiroshima-u.ac.jp

272

The Changing Academic Profession in Japan

population decreased dramatically from 2.1 million in 1992 to 1.3 million in
2007, which amounts to only 60% of the level of 1992. However, in this period,
the number of undergraduate students increased from 2.1 million to 2.5 million
due to a surge in university participation rate from 26% to 47%. Accordingly,
the number of faculty increased as well by 28% from 130,000 to 170,000. Thismeans that the job market for academic profession expanded substantially inthese 15 years.
Careers for doctoral graduates
The realities of the job market of the academic profession cannot be grasped
only by looking at the quantitative aspect of the demand side, because the supply
side may also have changed. Table 2 shows the trend of careers for doctoral
graduates, the traditional route of entry to the academic profession. The mostevident trend is that the total size of doctoral courses has expanded dramaticallyover the 15 year period. The number of students studying at doctoral level was
only 32,000 in 1992 but increased by 2.3 times to 75,000 in 2007. In parallel,
the number of those who became members of faculty immediately after
completing doctoral courses also increased from 1,500 to 2,200. But the size of
this increase is limited and small in comparison to the increase in total number of
those who have been employed as faculty. Indeed, the ratio of faculty among
those who started working just after finishing doctoral courses has dropped from
35% to 22%.
Table 2. Careers for doctoral graduates

1992
1995
1998
2001
2004
2007

Direct entry to faculty on completion of doctoral course
Total number
Number of
Ratio of faculty
Number of those who
Employment of new faculty
students inamong those who
employed
become faculty
rate (%)
doctoral courses
start working (%)
32,154 100
1,499
100
34.7
66.6
6,638
43,774 136
1,684
112
33.6
62.6
8,922
55,646 173
1,852
124
27.7
60.9
9,333
65,525 204
1,815
121
24.3
56.6
10,28973,446 228
2,114
141
24.7
56.4
10,53574,811 233
2,191
146
22.2
58.8
11,528Sources: School Basic Survey and School Teachers Survey.
Note: Numbers in italics are proportions (%), relative to 1992.

Moreover, this decrease is not caused by the expansion of career routes inother than the academic profession. The rate of employment for those whohave just completed doctoral courses was already low at 67% in 1992 and it has
subsequently fallen further, so that for those who have just finished doctoral
courses finding a job in the academic profession has become even more difficult
272

Yusuke Hasegawa & Naoyuki Ogata 273

and entry to the academic profession has become more competitive.
Diversified career pathways and late participation in academic profession
As is evident in Table 2, not all of the newly employed faculty are those whohave just completed doctoral courses. Figure 1 shows where newly employedfaculty were previously employed. Already in 1992, the ratio of recruitment of
those who had just completed doctoral courses to all of newly employed faculty
was only 21% and quite substantial numbers were recruited from public offices,private companies and other places. The ratio for new doctoral graduates
declined in the 15 years to stand at 14% in 2007. It is necessary to note that theabsolute numbers employed have increased, but this emphasizes how much moredifficult to be employed just after finishing doctoral courses it has become.
100%
90%
80%

46.9

38.9

45.5

70%

48.8

57.3

61.5

60%
50%
40%
30%

Other
15.3

16.7

24.6

17.9

Public office
16.4

17.2

16.8

20%
10%

Private company
19.4

14.3

14.9

11.4

9.2

21.1

19.3

19.8

17.5

14.9

14.4

1992

1995

1998

2001

2004

2007

Newly
graduate
Newly graduated0%

Source: School Teachers Survey.

Figure 1. Sources of newly recruited faculty

It is also important to note that the ratios of those who are employed byuniversities after having worked in public offices or private companies have notthemselves increased. What has really changed is recruitment of thosecategorized as “others”, which is predominantly composed of postdoctoral
fellows. The number of those receiving scholarships as postdoctoral fellows
topped 10,000 in 1999 and has stayed at around the same level since then. Thismeans that it is difficult for new graduates to find employment as faculty, as thenumber of postdoctoral fellows available for employment as faculty has
increased, and this has given further downward pressure on employment of new
doctoral graduates. As a result of the decrease in employment of new doctoral

274

The Changing Academic Profession in Japan
100%
90%
80%

34.5

37.7

40.3

45.1

46.3

70%

48.8

60%
50%

32.6

40%

Age 35- years
33.7

Age 30-34 years

31.7

30.5

31.1

30.4

Age -29 years

30%
20%

32.9

10%

28.6

28.0

24.4

22.6

20.8

1995

1998

2001

2004

2007

0%
1992

Source: School Teachers Survey.

Figure 2. Age distribution of those employed as faculty

graduates as faculty, the age distribution of faculty has changed (Figure 2).
Among those employed as faculty, the proportion of those under 30 has
declined from 33% in 1992 to 21% in 2007, while for those 35-years-old or older
it has increased from 35% to 49%.
Work conditions
As the information gathered from the national level statistics on work
conditions for the academic profession is limited, we can present data only on theteaching load and remuneration. It is possible though to analyze thecharacteristics from the open recruitment information based on the researchpersonnel database of the Japan Science and Technology Agency (Japan
Research Career Information Network), although this can be only used forreference due to the information’s temporariness and some duplication.
Teaching load per week at undergraduate level was 6.6 hours on average in1992 and decreased to 6.2 hours by 1998, then turned upward to increase to 7.3
hours in 2007, up 0.7 hour from the level of 1992. In this period, students
became more diversified due to the surge in university participation rate andeducational reform was actively pursued. Although it is difficult to know fromthe statistics what kind of changes happened in time allocation for other activities
in their life, one could conclude that work conditions for faculty deteriorated in
the 10 years from 1998, on the supposition that the increased teaching load beenat the expense of other activities such as research.
Remuneration deteriorated as well. Figure 3 shows the average monthly
274

Yusuke Hasegawa & Naoyuki Ogata 275

wage by institution sector. The average wage for faculty increased from
413,000 yen in 1992 to 468,000 yen in 2001. But it decreased after peaking in2001 and declined in 2007 to 461,000 yen. The average wage at private
universities is the highest, followed by public and national universities, all ofwhich decreased after 2001.
Yen
480000460000Total

440000National
Public420000Private

400000380000

1992

1995

1998

2001

2004

2007

Source: School Teachers Survey.

Figure 3. Average monthly wage
100%
90%

0.7

0.8

24.2

26.3

11.7
0.3

7.5
0.2

80%
38.7

70%
48.4

60%

Part-time/Fixed

50%
40%

75.1

72.9

30%

53.5

20%

39.6

Full-time/Nonfixed

10%0%Professor

Associate professor

Lecturer, asssistantprofessor and assistantPart-time/Nonfixed
Full-time/Fixed

Total

Source: Japan Research Career Information Network.

Figure 4. Type of employment and term

276

The Changing Academic Profession in Japan

Figure 4 shows data from the open recruitment information on faculty,
categorized by type of employment (full-time or part-time) and term of
employment (non-fixed term or fixed-term) as of October 2008. In the case of
professors and associate professors, most of positions are offered with full-time
contracts and 75% of them are non-fixed term. In the cases of lecturers,
assistant professors, and assistants, more than 10% of positions are offered as
part-time; and even in case of full-time contracts, there are more fixed-term
than non-fixed term positions. Although these data are only for one specificpoint of time, it could be concluded that not a small number of faculty are
employed on limited term contracts, regardless of their positions.
Analytical issues
Through the analysis so far, we have noted some points of consideration foranalyzing the changing careers in the academic profession. First, there is theissue of entry to academic employment, that is to say, “type of employment”.
This refers to the entry route to academic employment, differences in full-timeand part-time contracts, and types of employment such as limited term or
non-limited term. These might be causing differences in the consciousness andactions of faculty. On the other hand, an increase in teaching load and decrease
in remuneration might be common problems for all the academic profession, but
it is also possible that the disparity of work conditions is widening among faculty.
Therefore, it is necessary to analyze how work conditions define theirconsciousness and actions. In addition to examining the aspect of factors
defining consciousness and actions of faculty, we will further consider the
influence on consciousness and actions themselves of factors such as degree ofsatisfaction in the work place, sense of belonging to the organization or to thediscipline, and opinions on the possibility of moving or turnover.

The changes of academic careers seen in the survey of theacademic profession
This section outlines changes in the academic career in the 15 years from1992 to 2007, by analyzing data from the surveys on faculty in Japan. For 1992,
we use the data of the “Carnegie International Survey of the Academic
Profession” (1,889 respondents) and for 2007, we analyze the data from the“International Survey of the Academic Profession (AP survey in 2007)” (1,100
respondents). The AP survey in 2007 differs from the CAP survey: it was

276

Yusuke Hasegawa & Naoyuki Ogata 277

conducted independently in Japan, and was conducted at the same universities asin 1992 and by using almost the same questions.
Work conditions, employment situation, and number of job switches
As was already clear from the national level statistics, the teaching load forJapanese faculty has increased, and working hours for faculty have certainly
changed. Table 3 shows the distribution of teaching and research across thetotal working hours according to four categories of faculty1.
The results showed, first, during the 15 years, the proportion of thosebelonging to the “Teaching type” (i.e. those who devote more hours to teaching)increased. It means that the proportion of teaching in the academic work load
has extended due to the increase in teaching load. Conversely,, the proportionof faculty belonging to the “Research type” (i.e. devoting more time to research)has decreased, with two possible reasons: (a) an increase in time used forteaching; (b) as it is clear from the increase of faculty belonging to the category“Other type” (the proportion who do not devote much time either or teaching or
research), the time to be used for other activities than teaching and research, forexample for service and administration, is increasing. Teaching and researchremain the core activities in academic work, but a shift from research to teaching,or expansion into other academic activities has been witnessed during the 15
years.
Table 3. The changes in four types of academic work

Total

1992

Teaching andresearch type19.2%

Teaching
type
29.3%

Research
type
39.0%

Other
type
12.5%

100.0%

2007

10.9%

40.7%

26.8%

21.6%

100.0%

Total

National
1992
7.2%
14.8%
58.8%
19.2% 100.0%
Research
2007
8.3%
12.2%
46.1%
33.3% 100.0%
National
1992
20.5%
18.1%
47.8%
13.6% 100.0%
non-Research 2007
11.8%
33.9%
29.9%
24.4% 100.0%
Private
1992
21.9%
17.2%
48.4%
12.5% 100.0%
Research
2007
15.2%
43.5%
26.1%
15.2% 100.0%
Private
1992
22.9%
43.3%
24.7%
9.1% 100.0%
non-Research 2007
10.7%
65.0%
12.0%
12.3% 100.0%
Note: *** p<0.001; ** p<0.01; * p<0.05. This symbolism is used also in other tables.
1

***
**
***
*
***

The specific method of classification is as follows. First, the total of all academic work
time was obtained. The proportion of time devoted to research and education (teaching)
was then obtained. The median values for education and research respectively (based ondata of all the respondents both in 1992 and 2007) was derived for each of the 4 categories.

278

The Changing Academic Profession in Japan

A similar tendency, with one exception, is observed when we classify
universities into the four categories: national research, national non-research,
private research, private non-research. 2 The exception is national research
universities where the ratio of the teaching and research type and the teachingtype has not changed so much.
Table 4 shows the changes in employment status between fixed-term andnon-fixed-term. The proportion of fixed-term employment increased from
2.4% in 1992 to 12.0% in 2007. This tendency is especially true in the national
universities. Employment on fixed-term appointments means an increase in thenumber of faculty with unstable employment conditions, and hence is expected
to promote mobility for faculty.
We calculated the number of higher education institutions at which faculty
have been employed so far. The average was 1.54 in 1992 and 1.60 in 2007
with no statistically significant difference. But when classified by age, adifferent result was found (Table 5). First, there was no change for the group of
39-year old or younger: this was not surprising, because these people have not
had time for change since staring their employment in higher education, and forwhich the entry age is becoming higher. However, for the 40-49-year old group,
the average number of higher education institutions has increased by 2007. It
cannot be concluded for sure, but it seems possible that increase in fixed-term
contracts for lecturers or lower positions is having an influence.
Table 4. Types of appointment
non-fixed-term

Total

1992

97.6%

2.4%

100.0%

2007

88.0%

12.0%

100.0%

National

1992

99.7%

0.3%

100.0%

Research

2007

83.9%

16.1%

100.0%

Total

2

fixed-term

National

1992

98.7%

1.3%

100.0%

non-Research

2007

86.6%

13.4%

100.0%

Private

1992

98.6%

1.4%

100.0%

Research

2007

90.6%

9.4%

100.0%

Private

1992

96.1%

3.9%

100.0%

non-Research

2007

91.3%

8.7%

100.0%

***

***
***
*
***

Refer to Daizen & Yamanoi (2008) for the method used to classify universities.

278

Yusuke Hasegawa & Naoyuki Ogata 279
Table 5. Average number of higher education institutions
where faculty has been employed
40-49
years old

50-59
years old60+ years
old

1992

39 years
old oryounger
1.49 n.s.

1.44

1.52

1.74

2007

1.51

1.61

National

1992

1.90

Research

2007

1.25

Total

National

1992

1.51

non-Research

2007

1.49

Private

1992

1.42

Research

2007

2.00

Private

1992

1.32

non-Research

2007

1.58

n.s.

1.63

**

1.63
n.s.

1.60
n.s.

1.49

n.s.

1.32

n.s.

1.61

n.s.

1.38

1.49

*
n.s.

1.72

n.s.

1.44

1.39
1.57

n.s.
n.s.

1.56

1.69
n.s.

1.69
1.88

1.46

1.63
1.34

1.67

*

1.59

2.06

1.68

n.s.

n.s.

n.s.

1.60
*

1.79

*

1.54

When analyzed by type of institution, the average number of higher
education institutions has increased by 2007 for the group aged 50-59 years incases of national research and private non-research universities.
Sense of belonging, degree of work satisfaction and possibility of leaving theprofession
Changes in work conditions have the possibility of changing faculty’s senseof belonging. Changes in number of job switches can be considered asreflecting changes in their sense of belonging. Table 6 shows the answers toother questions that relate to the sense of belonging regarding academic
discipline, institution, and department.
For the academic discipline/field, there is no change between 1992 and 2007.
Nearly 70% answered that it is “very important” both in 1992 and 2007, showing
a strong sense of belonging. If it can be considered that the sense of belonging
to an academic discipline/field is closely related to members of faculty’s own
research, one can say that many faculty retain their interests in their research,
although their work hours for research have decreased.
On the other hand, the sense of belonging to their institution either asuniversity or as department – which in neither case was high before – hasdeclined further over the 15 years. For example, those who answered that their
institution was “very important” declined by nearly 10 percentage points from
31.2% in 1992 to 22.9% in 2007. Research activities are often conducted280

The Changing Academic Profession in Japan
Table 6. Sense of belonging

Not at all
Veryimportantimportant
4
1
2
3
1992
68.9%
27.7%
3.1%
0.4% n.s.
My
Total
academic
2007
67.4%
29.0%
3.4%
0.2%
discipline
Private
1992
78.7%
20.0%
1.3%
0.0% */fieldResearch
2007
56.6%
35.8%
5.7%
1.9%
1992
31.2%
48.4%
18.6%
1.8% ***
Total
My
2007
22.9%
51.7%
23.3%
2.1%
institution
Private
1992
34.2%
49.8%
15.1%
0.9% **
non-Research 2007
26.9%
49.4%
22.5%
1.3%
1992
29.8%
49.6%
18.7%
1.9% **
Total
My
2007
23.7%
51.9%
22.4%
1.9%
department
Private
1992
39.7%
45.2%
13.7%
1.4% *
Research
2007
17.6%
51.0%
27.5%
3.9%
Note: The results of the analysis by type of university presents only those showing significant
difference (p<0.05).

beyond the borders of institutions. However, teaching activities are conductedwithin their institutions. Therefore, the sense of belonging with regard to
institution or department may well be more strongly related to teaching than toresearch. The fact that the sense of belonging to their institutions has not beenheightened, while hours spent for teaching have increased, might accordingly
reflect Japanese faculty’s awareness that their work conditions have deteriorated.
When we analyze by type of university, the sense of belonging to an
academic discipline/field and to my department has declined most notably interms of “Very important” in private research universities.
Table 7. Degree of satisfaction towards their work as a whole

Total
National
Research
National
non-Research
PrivateResearch
Privatenon-Research

1992

Very high
1
7.5%

2
46.0%

3
32.2%

4
11.5%

Very low
5
2.8%

2007

5.2%

46.6%

32.2%

13.1%

2.8%

1992
2007
1992
2007
1992
2007
1992
2007

7.4%
8.4%
6.7%
3.3%
11.1%
3.8%
7.6%
6.2%

58.3%
46.8%
40.5%
44.5%
55.6%
50.0%
43.9%
47.9%

20.2%
33.2%
33.6%
34.4%
25.0%
23.1%
36.5%
30.7%

10.1%
10.0%
15.5%
13.2%
8.3%
19.2%
9.8%
13.9%

3.9%
1.6%
3.7%
4.6%
0.0%
3.8%
2.1%
1.3%

280

n.s.
**
n.s.
n.s.
*

Yusuke Hasegawa & Naoyuki Ogata 281

Since work conditions have deteriorated and their sense of belonging totheir institutions has weakened, it could be expected that the degree ofsatisfaction towards university work as a whole has declined. However, one
can find no big difference during the 15 years (Table 7). While in 1992, atendency of satisfaction could be seen, with 7.5% answering “Very high” and46.0% “High” (2), the results were almost the same in 2007.
Nevertheless, the fact that no decline is witnessed in the degree ofsatisfaction does not necessarily mean that faculty is working with a positive
feeling towards present conditions. Furthermore when analyzed by type ofuniversity and paying attention to the aggregate of the proportions of “Very high”
and “High”, the degree of satisfaction has decreased in the national research
universities.3
Faculty were asked about the possibility of moving to other institutions,even though they are unable to specify what kind of institution they might
move to. The results are shown in Table 8. In 1992, those who answered that“the possibility of moving to other institutions is low” accounted for 45.0%: it
had declined to 36.6% in 2007. Those who answered “the possibility is high”,
19.7% in 1992, had risen to 23.2% in 2007.
When analyzing the results by age, only those in the over-40-year old age
groups showed changes over the 15 years. Faculty in their 40s and 50s should
be considered as those able to undertake leading roles especially in universities’
academic work, but the proportion of those who answered “the possibility ofmoving is low” declined by some 10 percentage points. This kind of change inthe feelings of this group of faculty should not be ignored when considering
management of each institution.
Table 8. Possibility of leaving current university within 5 years
high

3

low

1

2

3

4

5

Total

1992
2007

19.7%
23.2%

6.4%
7.7%

22.8%
25.3%

6.1%
7.2%

45.0%
36.6%

***

40-49
years old
50-59
years old

1992
2007
1992
2007

7.5%
12.9%
6.7%
6.8%

8.1%
12.2%
5.6%
4.8%

31.1%
31.0%
19.6%
27.3%

8.4%
10.2%
5.9%
8.5%

44.9%
33.7%
62.2%
52.7%

**
**

In Table 7, we could interpret that the proportion of satisfaction (total of 1(very much) and 2)
had decreased at private research universities. However the significance of this difference
was not confirmed.

282

The Changing Academic Profession in Japan

Factors to determine possibility of moving: analysis of CAP data
The analysis in the preceding sections has shown that working conditions
have deteriorated and the sense of belonging to the institutions has weakened
during the past 15 years. It was also found that the possibility of moving toother work places has increased among faculty in their 40s and 50s. The
possibility of leaving current positions should be determined by conditions
surrounding employment. The Japanese version of the CAP survey posed
specific questions on the possibility of faculty of moving to other work places.
With this data we can consider factors that determine this possibility.
Framework for analysis
First, as probable destinations of job switch, we presupposed two
possibilities: moving to other higher education institutions in Japan (working forhigher education or research institutions in Japan) and moving into other labormarkets (i.e., working in other places than higher education and research
institutions). As factors to determine the possibility of moving, we presuppose
faculty’s attribution, careers before the current position, current employment
status, work hours, sense of belonging, and degree of work satisfaction may be
relevant. In addition, we will analyze how these variables, faculty’s attribution
and others, determine their degree of work satisfaction (Figure 5).

possibility tomovingattribution
careers before
the current position
current
employment statusdegree ofwork satisfaction

higher education
institution

work hours
other labor markets
sense of belonging

Figure 5. Framework for analysis

For the factors that determine the degree of work satisfaction, a multiple
regression analysis was conducted. For the factors that determine thepossibility of moving, a logistic regression analysis was conducted. The
variables actually used are shown in Table 9.
282

Yusuke Hasegawa & Naoyuki Ogata 283

Before presenting the results of the analysis, it is useful to examine how
many members of faculty have ever considered changing workplace in the last 5
years. Faculty who have considered moving to other higher education
institutions in Japan amount to about a half (50.7%), while almost a quarter(23.5%) have thought of moving to other labor markets.
As in aknowledge-based society, other labor markets are becoming similar touniversities, an augmented possibility of moving into other labor markets should
not necessarily be considered negatively: it can also be evidence of increasing
ambiguity of the border between the academic profession and other professions.
Table 9. Variables used for analysis

284

The Changing Academic Profession in Japan

Factors to determine degree of satisfaction
Table 10 shows the results of analysis of factors to determine the degree ofwork satisfaction. The factors used to determine the degree of work satisfaction
are careers before the current position, present employment status, sense of
belonging, and work hours.
There are two especially notable points. First is the variable related to thesense of belonging. Those who have a strong sense of belonging to universities
are more satisfied with their work. However, since the sense of belonging touniversities shows a tendency to decline in the last 15 years, the degree of work
satisfaction for faculty might possibly be declining as well.
Table 10. Factors to determine degree of work satisfaction

Second is the variable related to careers before the current position andcurrent employment status. Those who have experience, current or past, ofworking in other labor markets tend to have a higher degree of work satisfaction.
If it can be supposed that degree of work satisfaction depends on comparison
with past experiences, it is possible that those who have been working only at284

Yusuke Hasegawa & Naoyuki Ogata 285

universities are feeling increasing dissatisfaction due to worsening work
environments. On the other hand, it is possible that those who have experienceof working in other labor markets are feeling more satisfied because they think
universities are comparatively more attractive workplaces than others they haveexperienced and they feel they can find expanded domains in universities toutilize their ability.
Factors to determine the possibility of moving
Table 11 shows the results of analysis on factors to determine possibility ofmoving. With regard to moving to higher education institutions in Japan, there
are two points to note. First is the significance of the variable regarding careers
before the current position. Those who have had experience of changing jobs
before have a higher possibility of moving in the future. This probably means
that, once having experienced changing jobs, they feel they can move to the next
workplace more smoothly. Since some people choose not to move because of agood work environment at present, the obvious conclusion is not necessarily
Table 11. Factors to determine possibility of moving

286

The Changing Academic Profession in Japan

appropriate, but if it is supposed that work environments can be improved bymoving to a new work place, it is possible that there could be a polarization ofperceptions of work environments between those who move and those who do
not.
Second is the sense of belonging. A sense of belonging to a university
restrains the possibility of moving. As we have already explained, faculty’s
sense of belonging to their universities has shown a tendency to decline,
therefore it is possible that dissatisfaction with the current university generates anincrease in the proportion of faculty who are considering changing workplaces.
If we define moving in a search for better environment as “positive moving”, andmoving in order to escape from poor surroundings as “negative moving”, wecould suppose that moving prompted by dissatisfaction towards the current
university as a driving force could possibly lead to stagnation of higher education,rather than activation.
Next, as for moving to another labor market, similarly to moving to higher
education institutions in Japan, the degree of work satisfaction can be asignificant factor in determining the possibility of moving. Apart from thispoint, it is very different from the factors to determine the possibility of moving
to higher education institutions in Japan. The influence from a sense of
belonging offers no statistically meaningful reason.
On the other hand, if we were able to compare current employment types,
those who work in the other labor markets also might show a higher possibilityof moving. Those who are able to develop their careers outside higher
education institutions have better access to information from other labor markets
and a higher affinity to such labor markets. However, working in the positionof a professor can restrain the possibility of moving to other labor markets.
Those who have risen to the high rank of professor have a stronger tendency tocontinue to pursue their careers in the academic profession.

Conclusion
A decrease in the 18-year-old population brought a “period of winter-like
hardship” to universities. Although the total number of faculty has not declinedin the last 15 years, it could possibly shrink in the future. Against the backdropof expanding doctoral courses, it has become very competitive for new graduatesfrom doctoral courses to find jobs in the academic profession. In addition,
employment has become more unstable and work conditions have deteriorated byintroduction of an employment system with fixed-term appointments, an286

Yusuke Hasegawa & Naoyuki Ogata 287

increasing teaching load and decreasing remuneration.
Reflecting these circumstances, faculty’s sense of belonging to their
institutions is becoming weaker. Half of faculty has thought of moving to otherhigher education institutions in Japan, although this is just on a possibility basis.
Moreover, nearly a quarter of faculty is considering moving to occupations otherthan the academic profession. It is possible to interpret this phenomenon
positively to conclude that faculty can also find areas to utilize their ability
outside universities, but it can also be understood as brain drain from universities
for the negative reason of dissatisfaction towards their current workplace.
It has been pointed out many times that faculty in Japan change theirworkplace very little and that it is necessary to improve their mobility.
However, if the increasing possibility of changing workplaces is rather caused bysuch negative factors as a deteriorating work environment surrounding careers, itcannot possibly lead to activating the production and transmission of knowledge,
but could result in promoting brain drain to employment outside universities.

References
Altbach, P.G., & Chait, R. (2001). Introduction. Higher Education, 41(1), 1-2.
Daizen, T., & Yamanoi, A. (2008). The Changing Academic Profession in an Era of University
Reform in Japan. In Research Institute for Higher Education (RIHE), Hiroshima
University (ed.), The Changing Academic Profession in International Comparative andQuantitative Perspective (RIHE International Seminar Reports 12) (pp.293-325).
Hiroshima: RIHE, Hiroshima University.
RIHE (ed.) (2005). A Study of the Academic Marketplace in Japan: Past, present and future(COE Publication Series No.15). Hiroshima: RIHE, Hiroshima University.

Conclusion

RIHE International Seminar Reports, No.13, 2009 289

What Changes happened to the Academic Profession
over 1992-2007?

Futao Huang∗

The Research Institutes for Higher Education (RIHE) of Hiroshima
University and of Hijiyama University in Hiroshima jointly organized thisinternational conference on the Changing Academic Profession (CAP) over
1992-2007 in International, Comparative and Quantitative Perspectives as part of
the Changing Academic Profession Project from January 28-29, 2009. Thisconference is the fourth concerning the CAP project that has been held in
Hiroshima. The first conference, entitled Relevance and Academic Quality inthe Enhancement of Higher Education, was held in February, 2006. Ninecountry reports and one report from Hong Kong were presented at the conference.
They mainly dealt with the contexts, driving forces, major aspects and specificcharacteristics relating to the changing academic profession in North America,
Europe and some Asian countries. The second conference was held in October,
2006, with the title Constructing University Visions and the Mission of the
Academic Profession in Asian Countries: a Comparative Perspective. Speakers
from China, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Mongolia, Japan, South Korea, Thailand,
and the Philippines presented reports on issues arising from reconstruction ofuniversity visions and the mission of the academic profession. The third
conference, entitled the Changing Academic Profession in International,
Comparative and Quantitative Perspectives took place in February, 2008. At
the meeting, 19 speakers from 14 countries and Hong Kong made presentations.
In these presentations an emphasis was placed on the findings from a preliminary
analysis of the responses to the national surveys which had been carried out inthe individual countries and regions in the year 2007. Whereas in this, thefourth conference, in 2009, invited speakers have come from Australia, Brazil,∗

Professor, RIHE, Hiroshima University, e-mail: futao@hiroshima-u.ac.jp

290

What Changes happened to the Academic Profession over 1992-2007?

Germany, Japan, Mexico, South Korea, UK, and USA. These eight countries
participated in both the 1992 Carnegie international survey and the 2007 CAP
survey. Apart from speakers and participants from these eight countries, nearlyanother 100 participants, including faculty and staff from the RIHE and otheruniversities and institutions, have attended the conference.
Differing from the previous conferences, the major purpose of the 2009conference has been more concerned with examining the nature and extent of thechanges experienced by the academic profession over the period 1992-2007
through the national surveys in individual countries. The following three themes
were particularly addressed through comparison of the responses in 2007-08 withthose in 1992.
1. Personal characteristics and careers of the academic profession: forexample, biography, prior career, employment and work situation,
mobility, and work load.
2. Education and research activities of the profession: for example,
education and research conditions, workload, views on the nature andthe extent of the changes in education and research activities
experienced by the academic profession.
3. Internationalization of the profession: though as yet there may be little
information in this regard, it was hoped that major findings about
international experience, international education and research activities
undertaken by the profession, the impact of internationalization on theprofession, and views about internationalization by the profession could
be shared and discussed.
During the one-and-half-day conference, three keynote speeches were given
with different focuses corresponding to the proposed three themes, followed byten country reports relating to the three themes in the three sessions. On the
final afternoon, a meeting was also organized to discuss the issue of publishing
the outcome as a report on the conference by RIHE and future collaborative work
among the participating countries.
From an international, comparative and quantitative perspective, thedistinguishing outcomes have been identified as follows.
First, a truly international, comparative, and quantitative study was made of
the changes in the AP over 1992-2007 at different levels and, to a large degree,with different focuses. For example, in the three keynote speeches, Professor
Arimoto from Japan dealt mainly with an overview of the CAP over the period of
1992-2007 at an international level. Professor Cummings from the U.S.
focused his address on recent shifts concerning the balance between teaching andFutao Huang 291

research among individual countries in a comparative perspective. Professor
Teichler from Germany also provided an international and comparative study butof the biographies and careers of the academic profession with a special focus on
the differences between its structure in different countries. In addition, the vast
majority of participating countries also gave accounts of their countries relating
to the three themes of the changing academic profession over the period
1992-2007 based on the findings from their national surveys both at a national
level and an institutional level. In a major sense, the three themes concerning
the changing academic profession were touched on from international, national,
institutional and sub-group levels.
Second, with many similarities existing in the participating countries,
several strikingly different patterns for the CAP in specific aspects wereidentified and discussed. To give a few examples of the changing academic
professions in Japan and the UK alone, at least two clear changing patterns wereidentified in relation to the balance between teaching and research. In Japan,
strongly facilitated by government, there has been an increasing emphasis onteaching activities since the early 1990s though the strong tradition ofemphasizing research among Japanese faculty persists. In contrast, in the UK,
an increased emphasis on research activities has been specifically identified byacademics, though they have tended to show an equal preference for both.
Moreover, accompanying the massification of undergraduate students in Japan,
there has been corresponding growth in numbers of Japan’s faculty, whereas in
the UK data analyses indicate that there has been a relative drop in the number ofacademics over the past fifteen years.
Third, some models for analyzing the changing academic profession were
provided. The conceptual framework on internationalization of the academic
profession was illustrated by Professor Finkelstein from the USA, the typologyof academic disciplines by Dr Shin from South Korea, and a statisticalframework on careers in the academic profession was used by Dr Ogata and Dr
Hasegawa from Japan. All can be considered as new research models that
could be adopted in exploring the changing academic profession in othercountries.
Fourth, some common changes and challenges were clarified. Among
participating countries they include:• a growing percentage of higher degrees, especially doctorates awarded
abroad;• an increasingly competitive labor market for the academic profession,and especially for new entrants;

292

What Changes happened to the Academic Profession over 1992-2007?

•

increased working hours and workload across the academic profession,in both mature and emerging countries due to more diversified activities;• increased numbers of articles and books published by the academic
profession; but• an increasingly aging academic profession (especially in Australia,
Japan);• a danger of erosion of academic freedom; and• seemingly fragmented academic activities and new divisions of laborwithin the academic profession.
As was evident at the 2008 conference, many countries are still in the earlystages of analyzing their CAP survey data. The main findings that were
presented by the speakers from a number of countries are relatively simple andtheir country reports remain preliminary. Apparently, substantial issues stillneed to be dealt with by future research. Much study has been made of thechanging academic profession at national level and some achievements are
beginning to be clarified at international and institutional levels; however, little isstill known of what changes over the period of 1992-2007 have taken place, towhat extent these changes have occurred at regional level and to what extent theyaffect the various sub-groups by academic rank, by age, by gender, by discipline,
by degree, and so on.
Moreover, more sophisticated, qualitative andquantitative analyses and interpretations of the following issues are desired.
• Defining some key terms and facts such as research, internationalization,
job satisfaction, stress.
• Universal factors or pressures affecting the common changes in the CAP
in the participating countries.
• The role of government policy on stimulating healthy changes in theacademic profession.
• Cooperative work on what role the academic profession should play inthis changing world.
• What implications our academic outcomes can have on political andlegal decisions, which might, in turn, result in positive effects on theacademic profession in individual countries.
Both the thoughtful and focused presentations by all the speakers and in thediscussions by the invited speakers and participants from the floor have provided
us with a more sophisticated analysis of and understanding of both the overview
of the CAP internationally and the specific situation of the CAP in individual
countries. As mentioned in the last report on the third conference, mostimportantly, the main value of this conference at Hiroshima has been to provide

Futao Huang 293

stimulation as different groups start to consider collaborative analytic projects.
This will provide a useful base for discussions on the subsequent research. In a
major sense, the meeting was timely, stimulating and yielded fruitful outcomes.

Appendices295

Appendix 1:

Conference Program

The Changing Academic Profession Over 1992-2007:
International, Comparative, and Quantitative Perspectives
Date: January 13-14, 2009
Venue: Hiroshima Garden Palace

Tuesday, January 13
8:30 -

Registration*** Opening Ceremony ***9:00 - 9:15
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 forHigher Education, Hijiyama University, Japan
9:15 - 9:25
Orientation
Futao Huang, Professor, Research Institute for Higher Education,
Hiroshima University, Japan*** Session 1: Keynote Speeches ***Chairs:Takekazu Ehara, Professor, Institute for Teaching and Learning,
Ritsumeikan University, Japan
Manuel Gil-Antón, Professor, Department of Sociology,
Iztapalapa Campus, Autonomous Metropolitan University,
Mexico9:25 - 9:55
Keynote Speech 1“Changing Academic Profession in the World from 1992 to 2007”
Akira Arimoto, Director & Professor, Research Institute forHigher Education, Hijiyama University, Japan
9:55 - 10:25
Keynote Speech 2“Balancing Teaching and Research: recent shifts?”
William K. Cummings, Professor of International Education,
Graduate School of Education and Human Development, The
George Washington University, USA
10.25 - 10:55
Keynote Speech 3“Biographies and Careers of Academics”
Ulrich Teichler, Professor & former Director, International Centre

296

Conference Program

10:55 - 11:05
11:05 - 11:20

for Higher Education Research Kassel (INCHER-Kassel),
University of Kassel, Germany
Q &A
Coffee Break*** Session 2: Country Reports on Internationalization ***11:20 - 11:50
Presentation 1: Australia“The Internationalisation of the Australian Academic Profession”
Hamish Coates, Principal Research Fellow, Australian Council for
Educational Research, Australia
Leo Goedgebuure, Associate Professor, Centre for Higher
Education Policy and Management (CHEMP), University of New
England, Australia
11:50 - 12:20
Presentation 2: Japan“The Internationalization of Japan’s Academic Profession
1992-2007: facts and views”
Futao Huang, Professor, Research Institute for Higher Education,
Hiroshima University, Japan
12:20 - 12:50
Presentation 3: USA“The American Academic Profession Then and Now: Dimensionsof Change and Continuity, 1992-2007”
Martin Finkelstein, Professor of Education, College of Educationand Human Services, Seton Hall University, USA
Elaine M. Walker, Associate Professor of Education, Departmentof Education Leadership, Management & Policy, Seton Hall
University, USA
12:50 - 13:00
Discussion
13:00 - 14:00
Lunch*** Session 3: Country Reports on Education and Research Activities ***Chairs:Reiko Yamada, Professor, Graduate School of Social Studies,
Doshisha University, Japan
Leo Goedgebuure, Associate Professor, Centre for Higher
Education Policy and Management (CHEMP), University of New
England, Australia
14:00 - 14:30
Presentation 4: Brazil“The Academic Profession in a Diverse Institutional Environment:
converging or diverging values and beliefs? The Brazilian
experience in the last decade”
Elizabeth Balbachevsky, Associate Professor, Department of
Political Science, University of São Paulo, Brazil

297
14:30 - 15:00

15:00 - 15:30

15:30 - 15:45
15:45 - 16:15

16:15 - 16:45

16:45 - 17:30
18:00 - 20:00

Presentation 5: Japan“Education and Research Activities of Academic Professions inJapan”
Tsukasa Daizen, Professor, Research Institute for Higher
Education, Hiroshima University, Japan
Hideto Fukudome, Associate Professor, Research Institute forHigher Education, Hiroshima University, Japan
Presentation 6: Mexico“The Academic Profession in Mexico: changes, continuities andchallenges derived from a comparison of two national surveys 15
years apart”
Jesús F. Galaz-Fontes, Professor, Faculty of Human Sciences,
Autonomous University of Baja California, Mexico
Manuel Gil-Antón, Professor, Department of Sociology,
Iztapalapa Campus, Autonomous Metropolitan University, Mexico
Laura E. Padilla-Gonzalez, Professor, Department of Education,
Autonomous University of Aguascalientes, Mexico
Juan J. Sevilla-Garcia, Professor, Institute of Engineering,
Autonomous University of Baja California, Mexico
José L. Arcos-Vega, Professor, Coordination of Planning andInstitutional Development, Autonomous University of Baja
California, Mexico
Jorge G. Martinez-Stack, Professor, General Direction ofInternational Evaluation, Seminar on Higher Education, National
Autonomous University of, Mexico, Mexico
Coffee Break
Presentation 7: Korea“Teaching and Research across Academic Disciplines: faculty’s
preference, activity and performance”
Jung Cheol Shin, Assistant Professor, Department of Education,
Seoul National University, South Korea
Presentation 8: UK“Teaching and Research in UK Higher Education: new divisionsof labour and changing perspectives on core academic roles”
William Locke, Principle Policy Analyst & Assistant Director,
Centre for Higher Education Research and Information (CHERI),The Open University, UK
Discussion
Reception at Hiroshima Garden Palace
MC: Jun Oba, Associate Professor, Research Institute for Higher
Education, Hiroshima University, Japan298

Conference Program

Wednesday, January 14
8:30 -

Registration*** Session 4: Country Reports on Career ***Chairs:Atsunori Yamanoi, Dean & Professor, Faculty of Childhood
Education, Kurashiki Sakuyo University, Japan
William Locke, Principle Policy Analyst & Assistant Director,
CHERI, The Open University, UK
9:00 - 9:30
Presentation 9: Germany“Employment, Work, Career: the changing situation of theacademic profession”
Katharina Jacob, Researcher, INCHER-Kassel, University ofKassel, Germany
Ulrich Teichler, Professor & former Director, INCHER-Kassel,
University of Kassel, Germany
9:30 - 10:00
Presentation 10: Japan“The Changing Academic Profession in Japan”
Naoyuki Ogata, Associate Professor, Research Institute for Higher
Education, Hiroshima University, Japan
Yusuke Hasegawa, Assistant Professor, Research Institute forHigher Education, Hijiyama University, Japan
10:00 - 10:45
Discussion
10:45 - 11:00
Coffee Break
11:00 - 11:15
Concluding Remarks
Futao Huang, Professor, Research Institute for Higher Education,
Hiroshima University, Japan
11:15 - 11:30
Closing Speeches
Akira Arimoto, Director & Professor, Research Institute forHigher Education, Hijiyama University, Japan
Shinichi Yamamoto, Director & Professor, Research Institute forHigher Education, Hiroshima University, Japan299

Appendix 2:

List of Participants∗

OVERSEAS PARTICIPANTS
Invited Experts
Australia
Hamish Coates
Leo Goedgebuure

Principal Research Fellow, Australian Council for
Educational Research
Associate Professor, Centre for Higher Education Policy
and Management (CHEMP), University of New England

BrazilElizabeth Balbachevsky

Associate Professor, Department of Political Science,
University of São Paulo

Germany
Ulrich Teichler
Katharina Jacob

Professor & former Director, INCHER-Kassel, Universityof Kassel
Researcher INCHER-Kassel, University of Kassel

MexicoManuel Gil-Antón
José L. Arcos-Vega

Professor Department of Sociology, Iztapalapa Campus,
Metropolitan Autonomous University
Professor, Coordination of Planning and Institutional
Development, Autonomous University of Baja California

South Korea
Jung Cheol Shin

Assistant Professor, Department of Education,
Seoul National University

UK
William Locke
Keith Morgan

Principle Policy Analyst and Assistant Director, CHERI,
the Open University
Visiting Professor, RIHE, Hiroshima University, Emeritus
Professor, Lancaster University, University of Newcastle

USA
William K. Cummings

Martin Finkelstein∗

As of January, 2009

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

300

List of ParticipantsParticipants
Germany
Florian Loewenstein

INCHER-Kassel, University of Kassel

MexicoJorge G. Martinez-Stack
Victor M. Alcantar

Professor, National Autonomous University of México
Professor, Autonomous University of Baja California

USA
Elaine M.Walker

Associate Professor of Education Department of
Education Leadership, Management & Policy, Seton Hall
University
and another 9 overseas participantsJAPANESE PARTICIPANTS
Presidents
Toshimasa Asahara
Susumu Takahashi

President, Hiroshima University
President, Hijiyama University

Invited Experts
Akira Arimoto
Takekazu Ehara
Yusuke Hasegawa
Reiko Yamada
Atsunori Yamanoi

Director and Professor, Hijiyama University
Professor, Ritsumeikan University
Assistant Professor Hijiyama University
Professor, Doshisha University
Dean and Professor, Kurashiki Sakuyo University

Research Institute for Higher Education（RIHE）
Shinichi Yamamoto
Ikuo Kitagaki
Tsukasa Daizen
Futao Huang
Naoyuki Ogata
Jun ObaMasataka Murasawa
Kazunori Shima
Hideto Fukudome
Satoshi Watanabe
Yumiko Hada
Liu Niancai

Director and Professor
Professor
Professor
Professor
Associate Professor
Associate Professor
Associate Professor
Associate Professor
Associate Professor
Associate Professor
Associate Professor
Visiting Professor
and another 46 Japanese Participants

R.I.H.E. PUBLICATION IN ENGLISH
RIHE International Publication SeriesNo. 1:
No. 2:
No. 3:
No. 4:
No. 5:
No. 6:
No. 7:
No. 8:
No. 9:
No.10:

Kaneko, M. (1987). Enrollment Expansion in Postwar Japan.
Guocai, Z. (1989). Higher Education Research in China: An Annotated Bibliography.
Abe, Y. (1989). Non-University Sector Higher Education in Japan.
Kaneko, M. (1989). Financing Higher Education in Japan: Trends and Issues.
Kaneko, M. (1992). Higher Education and Employment in Japan: Trends and Issues.
Morgan, J. Keith (1999). Universities and the Community: Use of Time in Universities
in Japan.
Arimoto, A. (ed.) (2001). University Reforms and Academic Governance: Reports ofthe 2000 Three-Nation Workshop on Academic Governance.
Arimoto, A. (ed.) (2002). University Reforms and Academic Governance
Reconsidered: Report of the Six-Nation Higher Education Research Project.
Arimoto, A., Huang, F., and Yokoyama, K. (eds.) (2005). Globalization and Higher
Education.
Huang, F. (ed.) (2006). Transnational Higher education in Asia and the PacificRegion.

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 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).

COE Publication Series
No. 6:

Construction and Quality Assurance of 21st Century Higher Education (Reports ofthe 2003 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 andCooperation) (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
Education and the Seminar on Innovations in Higher Education) (1981).
No. 4: Comparative Approach to Higher Education: Curriculum, Teaching and Innovationsin 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(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).