document resume fd 350 967 author title teaching ...the goal of the sears project was to enhance...

FD 350 967

AUTHORTITLE

INSTITUTION

SPONS AGENCYREPORT NOPUB DATENOTEPUB TYPE

EDRS PRICEDESCRIPTORS

ABSTRACT

DOCUMENT RESUME

HE 025 946

Gray, Peter J.; And OthersA National Study of Research Universities: On theBalance between Research and UndergraduateTeaching.Syracuse Univ., N.Y. Center for InstructionalDevelopment.Lilly Endowment, Inc., Indianapolis, Ind.ISBN-0-87411-557-4Mar 9223p.Reports Research/Technical (143)

MF01/PC01 Plus Postage.*Administrator Attitudes; *College Faculty; CollegeInstruction; Higher Education; *InstitutionalMission; Institutional Research; *Publish or PerishIssue; Research; *Research Universities; *TeacherAttitudes; Teacher Role

This study examined the relative importance ofteaching and research at 33 public and 14 private researchuniversities. In particular the study sought to understand theperceptions held by the study participants of the relative importanceof teaching and research and to compare and contrast the perceptionsof different groups within the university community. A total of46,193 surveys were distributed and 23,302 were returned from facultyat all levels as well as deans and administrators. The resultsindicate that people in. the university community tend to favor abalance between research and undergraduate teaching.. In contrast,respondents reported that the "university" places greater emphasis onresearch than on teaching. Differences in the way respondentsperceived the direction the university is taking and the direction itshould take suggested a conflict between the culture of theuniversity and the values of individuals. Open-ended comments aboutthe tension between teaching and research primarily focused on thereward system, which heavily favors research, distribution ofresources, and the campus culture. Included are extensive tables andfigures displaying the results and 19 references. (.113)

1.:c::******************************************************************

Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be madefrom the original document.

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

A National Studyof Research UniversitiesOn the Balance Between Research

and Undergraduate Teaching

Peter J. GrayRobert C. Froh

Robert M. Diamond

o cfn 0

rpm ,41td.

6 ,..57 y m laYo vso c m

e4 S

7.-v- 4'm -4.5.-n:r

"PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE THISMATERIAL HAS BEEN GRANTED BY

Center for

Instructional Deve.Syracuse University

TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCESINFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)."

March 1992

Ina

U.S. DEPARTMENT Of EDUCATIONOffice of Educational Research and Improvement

EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATIONCENTER (ERIC)

i/his document has been reproduced asreceived from the person or organizationoriginating it.

O Minor changes have been mode to Improvereproduction. Quality

Points of view or opinions stated in this docu-ment do not necessarily represent &ha.OERI position or policy.

Center for Instructional Development o Syracuse University

BEST COPY MAKE

A National Study ofResearch Universities

On the Balance Between Researchand Undergraduate Teaching

Peter J. Gray

Robert C. Froh

Robert M. Diamond

Assisted by

Julie C. Mills

Tray D. Johnson

Center for Instructional Development

Office of Evaluation and Research

Syracuse University

Supported by a grant from

The Lilly Endowment

March 1992

Copyright ®1992 by Syracuse University, Center for Instructional DevelopmentAll rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America

Second Printing

ISBN 0-87411-557-4

TABLE OF CONTENTS

National Reports and Studies 1

Previous Research at Syracuse University 2

National Study 3

National Sample 3

National Results 5

Total Sample 5

Demographic Sub-groups 9

Campuses 9

Major Academic Areas 11

Open-ended Comments 13

Conclusions 15

References 16

The Lilly Endowment sponsored a national study of research universities regarding thebalance between research and undergraduate teaching. The project has been conductedby the Syracuse University Center forinstructional Development. Itspurposes are, first,to examine the relative importance of research and undergraduate teaching as perceivedby faculty, department chairs, deans, and central administrators; second, to determinewhether these groups agree on the balance that should exist; and third, tocompare andcontrast the perceptions of these groups across institutions and major academic areas.

NATIONAL REPORTS AND STUDIES

The question of the relative importance of teach-ing and research has been considered in otherstudies involving research universities. How-ever, these studies focused primarily on thecurrent status regarding how faculty spendtheir time, the criteria for making promotionand tenure decisions, and faculty productivityregarding publications, citations and grantsawarded (for example, Blackburn, 1985;Blackburn and Havinghurst, 1979; Cameron,1981; Clark and Centra, 1982; Clemente, 1973;Cole and Cole, 1967; Hogan, 1981; Reskin 1977;Samson, 1984). In other words, they took forgranted the existing culture, which emphasizesresearch over teaching, rather than attemptingto determine whether or not this culture waseither appropriate or supported by the majorityof those in the academic community.

Other studies such as Cochran (1989), as well asnumerous national reports and publicationsfrom the mid-1980's, suggest that administra-tors and others feel that more attention shouldbe given to teaching (for example, College: TheUndergraduate Experience in America, Boyer,1987;Integrity in the College Curriculum: A Report to theAcademic Community, Association of AmericanColleges, 1985; Involvement in Learning: Realiz-ing the Potential of American Higher Education,The National Institute of Education, October1984; To Reclaim a Legacy, Bennett, 1984).

Many people have an intuitive sense that aconflict between research and undergraduateteaching exists, as a recent headline in theChronicle of Higher Education proclaims: 'Pro-fessors Feel Conflict Between Roles in Teaching

and Research" (Mooney, 1991, A15). The studyby Astin, reported in the Mooney article, "foundthat 27 percent of all professorsand 44 per-cent of those at public universitiesfelt thatdemands for research interfc red with teach-ing" (A16). In this regard, faculty committed toteaching often find themselves torn betweentheir concern for teaching students and thedemands for research and publication that areperceived as essential for professional advance-ment within their home institution and withintheir discipline.

Boyer (1987) reported that divided loyaltiesand competing career concerns among the fac-ulty were major points of tension that "ap-peared with regularity and seemed consistentlyto sap the vitality of the baccalaureate experi-ence" (p. 4). In addition, Derek Bok, the presi-dent of Harvard University, noted in a presen-tation at the annual meeting of the AmericanCouncil of Learned Societies that, "many pro-fessors believe the current faculty-reward sys-tem places a premium on the quantity of schol-arly work produced" (In Box. 1991, A15). Afundamental tension seems to exist in highereducation. This tension is stimulated by con-flicting values regarding how faculty spendtheir time and what should be rewarded. Thistension raises major issues related to the appro-priate balance between research and under-graduate teaching. In addition, on many cam-puses there a.e sub-issues regarding narrowlydefined reward systems that not only stressresearch over undergraduate teaching, but thatalso seem to emphasize the quantity ratherthan the quality of research and scholarly work.

6

"manyprofessorsbelieve the

currentfaculty-reward

system placesa premium on

the quantityof scholarly

workproduced."

Balance Between Research and Teaching

"Gaining abetter

understandingof the extentto which the

highereducation

communityreally valuesresearch and

teaching isthe ultimate

oval of thepresentstudy,"

Gaining a better understanding of the extent towhich the higher education community reallyvalues research and teaching is the ultimategoal of the present study. The nation-widequantitative profile and the extensive qualita-tive comments that have resulted from thisstudy provide the backdrop for national andlocal discussions, which have already begun tooccur, about the balance between research andundergraduate teaching and the redefinitionof scholarship.

The Lilly study results provide participatinguniversities with information on the percep-tions that exist on their campus-s, as well as acomposite national picture that they can use for

comparative purposes. A number of follow-upmeetings have been held to disseminate theinformation on these campuses and to discusstheir implications.

Professional organizations representing a widevariety of academic areas have also receivedstudy results related to their members. As withparticipating campuses, the study results havestimulated discussions regarding the appro-priate balance between research and under-graduate teaching and the redefinition of schol-arship. The outcomes of these discussions arelikely to be recommendations about intrinsicand extrinsic rewards at national and locallevels.

PREVIOUS RESEARCH AT SYRACUSE UNIVERSITY

In the Spring of 1989, Syracuse University re-ceived a twelve-month grant from the SearsRoebuck Foundation entitled Affecting Prioritiesat a Research Institution: Focus on Teaching. TheLilly study builds on this grant.

The goal of the Sears Project was to enhance theperceived importance of undergraduate teach-ing at Syracuse University. The project hadthree purposes related to this goal: first, to helpdeans and department chairs gain a better un-derstanding of how they influence the attitudesand priorities of faculty regarding teaching; sec-ond, to assist these administrators in identifyingthe various activities and resources they coulduse to influence attitudes and priorities; andthird, to indicate ways in which the centraladministrators could support deans and chairsin these efforts.

As the first step, the Sears Project AdvisoryCommittee developed and administered a set ofsurveys to faculty, department chairs, and deans.This survey focused on their current percep-tions of the balance between teaching and re-search at Syracuse University, the direction thatthey felt the institution was moving, and thedirection that they felt SU should go. The Lillystudy uses a modified version of the surveyoriginally developed as part of this project.

The response rate to the SU survey was 70%from deans (10), 59% from chairs (27), and justover 40% from faculty (352). The quantitativeresults from the survey items provided dataon the climate of the institution at that time,which will also be used as base-line data sothat changes over time can be ascertained.These data showed that respondentsperceivedresearch as being valued more highly thanteaching at Syracuse University and that thecentral admini. tration was perceived as plac-ing far greater emphasis on research than onteaching. All three groups agreed, however,that a balance between teaching and researchwas desired. An overwhelming number ofrespondents took the time to write powerfulresponses to the optional, open-ended questionon the surveys. These qualitative resultsidentified important strengths and weaknessesof the present reward system and suggestedways to bring the reward system into a properbalance between research and undergraduateteaching.

The Syracuse University data were used as thebasis for discussions of the importance of un-dergraduate teaching among academic admin-istrators, deans, chairs and faculty. Campus-wide changes in promotion, tenure and merit

Balance Between Research and Teaching Page 3

pay criteria and processes have resulted from listed among the references under Center forthese discussions. Reports on the Syracuse Instructional Development (January 1991,University research and related activities are April 1991).

NATIONAL STUDY

The Lilly study extends the Syracuse Universitysurvey on research and undergraduate teachingto forty-seven universities across the nation. Asimplified version of the formis shown in Figure1. The survey consists of eight items about therelative importance of research and undergradu-ate teaching. A teachingresearch continuumis associated with each item. On this continuuma 0 indicates equal importance and a 4 towardteaching or toward research indicates one or theother is of relatively greater importance. Thesurvey also includes an open-ended question, aswell as basic demographic items.

The survey forms were customized throughslight modifications to make them appropriateto the four groups surveyed (faculty, academicunit heads such as department chairs, deans,and central academic administrators) and to theparticipating universi ties and their jargon. While

Figure 1Faculty Survey Items

A. Evert if you do not teach undergraduates, please circle thenumberon each scale below that best represents your perception of therelative importance of research versus undergraduate teaching.For example, a 4 would indicate that one is of utmost importanceto the exclusion of the other, and a Q would indicate that they areof equal importance. All responses will be confidential. Onlygroup data will he reported.

In relation to each other, currently how important are researchand suutergraduate teaching to:

equalteaching impc. i.nce research

4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4

a.b.c.4.e.

you personallythe majority of other facirhy in your departmentyour academic unit head (e.g., department :hair)your deanthe Office of Academic Affairs

B. Please circle the number on each scale below that bestrepresents your perception of:a. the affrectiort that you think our university is goingb. the direction that you think our mniversityshooll goc. the direction that you think you await f go based on

your itotereets

C. Please comment on the similarities and differences in theabove ratings. (Use back of form if necessary.)

D. Demographicsa. department and school/collegeb. fiscally rankc. number of years at institution

of teaching devoted to tendert missiese. gender

some additional items were added at G.: re-quest of individual campuses, the basic itemsremained the same on all surveys.

National SampleThirty-three public and 14 private universitiesfrom all regions of the United States partici-pated in the Lilly study. All universities are inthe first four Carnegie classifications (TheCarnegie Foundation, 1987). A list of the cam-puses surveyed is shown in Table 1. These

Table 1Participating institutions

CarnegieName Qassification Status

NumberSurveyed

American U.Arizona State U.Ball State U.Baylor U.Carnegie Mellon U.Clarkson U.Clemson U.Cleveland State U.Drake U.Duquesne U.GeorgetownIdaho State U.Indiana U. at BloomingtonLehigh U.Loyola U. of ChicagoMarquette U.Miami U. at OxfordMichigan State U.Northeastern U.Northern Illinois U.Northwest= U.

Dr.-Grant. I PrivateResearch II PublicDr.-Grant I PublicDr.-Grant. II PrivateResearch I PrivateDr.-Grant. II PrivateDr.-Grant I PublicDr.-Grant. II PublicDr.-Grant. B PrivateDr.-Grant. II PrivateResearch E PrivateDr.-Grant II PublicResearch I PublicDr.-Grant. I PrivateDr.-Grant I PrivateDr.-Grant. I PrivateDr.-Grant. I PublicResearch I PublicDr.-Grant II PrivateDr.-Grant I PublicResearch I Private

Ohio State U. Research I PublicPennsylvania State U. Research I PublicRutgers, The State U. of New Jersey Research I PublicSouthern Methodist U. Dr.-Grant. II PrivateState U. of New York at Buffalo Research II PublicU. of Akron Dr.-Grant. 1 PublicU. of California at Berkeley Research I PublicU. of California at Davis Research I PublicU. of California at Irvine Research! PublicU. of Delaware Research 11 PublicU. of Hawaii at Manta Research I PublicU. of Louisville Dr.-Grant. 1 PublicU. of Maryland. Baltimore County Dr.-Grant. II PublicU. of Massachusetts at Amherst Research II PublicU. of Miami (Florida)U. of Michigan at Ann ArborU. of Missouri at ColumbiaU. of Nevada at RenoU. of New HampshireU. of North DakotaU. of Rhode IslandU. of Wisconsin at MadisonVirginia Commonwealth U.Washington State U.Wert Virginia U.Western Michigan U.

Research I PrivateResearch I PublicResearch I PublicDr.-Grant 11 PublicDr.-Grant. U PublicDr.-Grant. II PublicRaeareh II PublicResearch I PublicResearch U PublicResearch II PublicResearch II PublicDr.-Grant 1 Public

4862,0721,282

652468208414 ^635130 A351573358

1,398500519

531,0001,474

9161,3311,5743,1621,230 A

870512856

1,2531,5701.225

957957

1,3961,245

4411,275

6542,9572,231

8C6670295 A674364 A

1,817652779 A351 ^

Taal 47 46,193All surveyed except select school/colleges ^Selected sample survey

BEST COPY AVAILABLE 8

"The Lillystudy

extends theSyracuse

Universitysurvey on

research andundergraduate

teaching toforty-sevenuniversities

across thenation."


"A total of46,193

surveys weredistributed,

with theaveragenumber

distributedon eachcampus

beingslightly less

than 1,000.Overall,

50% of thesurveys were

returned,amountingto 23,302."

universities were recruited through professionalassociation contacts such as the Pi ofessionaland Organizational Development Network inHigher Education (POD) and the AmericanAssociation of Higher Education (AAHE).

A total of 46,193 surveys were distributed,with the average number distributed on eachcampus being slightly less than 1,000. Overall,

50% of the surveys were returned, amountingto 23,302.

The demographic data collected on the surveysare shown in Table 2. Faculty respondents tothe Lilly survey included 27% assistant profes-sors, 30% associate professors, and 40% fullprofessors. Three years or less is the modalresponse regarding the number of years that

Lilly survey faculty, unitheads and deans havebeen at their institution.Surprisingly, 40% of thefaculty reported spend-ing no time teaching un-dergraduates. A muchsmaller percentage (25%)spend 75% to 100% oftheir time teaching un-dergraduates. It is im-portant to keep these de-mographics in mindwhen reviewing the sur-vey results.

Table 2

Return Rates

Demographic Data

NumberSent

NumberResumed

Faculty 42,319 20,772Unit Heads 2,731 1,785Deans 744 522Administrators 399 223Taal 46,193 23.302

Faculty RankAssistant

Lecturer Professor$ % *

Faculty 379 3% 4,039 27%

ReturnRate49%65%70%56%50%

AssociateProfessor Professor* % # %

4,484 30% 6,045 40%

ProfessorEmeritus8 %

33 <1%

Number of Years at Institution3 years or

lessfrom 4 to 6

yearsfrom 7 to 10

yearsfrom 11 to 19

years20 years or

more% M % % % # %

Faculty 9,404 47% 2,048 10% 1,745 9% 2,995 15% 3,685 19%Unit Heads 526 31% 151 9% 149 9% 443 26% 448 26%Deans 160 32% 46 9% 53 10% 118 23% 129 25%Administrators 57 26% 30 14% 28 13% 41 19% 63 29%Total 10,147 45% 2,275 10% 1,975 9% 3,597 16% 4,325 19%

% of Teaching Devoted to Undergraduatesfrom front from from

0%8 %

Faculty 7,912 40%

1%to25% 26% to 50%8 %

1,515 8% 2,874 14%

51% to 75% 76% to 100%# % %

2551 13% 5.012 25%

Gender

FacultyUnit headsDeansAdministratorsTotal

Male8

12,194 75%1,250 87%

334 80%149 76%

13,927 74%

Female

4,583 25%227 13%96 20%51 24%

4,957 26%

Carnegie Classification8

Research I 10,954 47%Research II 5,222 22%Dr.-Grant I 4,218 18%Dr.-Grant II 2,908 12%

Status

Private 3,738 18%Public 17,017 81%

Institutions across allfour Carnegie classifica-tions had very good re-turn rates (see Table 3).Research II institutionshad the highest overallreturn rate with ResearchI institutions a close sec-ond, both exceeding50%.The group with the high-est return rate was deansat Doctorate-Granting IIinstitutions (80%).

Table 3 Return Rates By Carnegkl ClassificationResearch I Research II Doctorate-Grant I Doctorate-Grant II

Sent Returned % Sent Returned % Seat Returned % Sent Resumed %Total

Sent Returned %

Faculty 19,846 9,860 50% 8,848 4,718 53% 8,293 3,704 45% 5,332 2,490 47% 42,319 20,772 49%

Unit Heads 1,224 810 66% 581 347 60% 482 343 71% 444 285 64% 2,731 1,785 65%

Deans 349 244 64% 163 117 72% 126 96 76% 106 85 80% 744 522 70%

Administrators 111 60 54% 63 40 63% 133 75 56% 92 48 52% 399 223 56%

Total 21,530 10,954 51% 9,655 5,222 54% 9,034 14,218 47% 5,974 2,908 49% 46,193 23,302 50%

BEST COPY AVAILABLE


National ResultsThere is a clear message in the national resultsof this study: the people in the university com-munity tend to savor a balance between re-search and undergraduate teaching. This isgenerally true for the study's total sample andfor various sub-populations. In contrast, re-spendents report that the "university" placesgreater emphasis on research than on teaching.This conflict between the relative importanceof research and undergraduate teaching causestensions, which are articulately expressed inthe open-ended comments of respondents.

The national results were analyzed for the totalsample, for demographic subgroups, for theparticipa ling campu ses, and for major academicareas. The following discussion is organizedaround these four analyses.

Total SampleWhile there is much unanimity in the nationalstudy results, a close look a t the sub-populationsof the total sample reveals some interesting con-sistencies and inconsistencies. In the followingdiscussion the consistencies are considered first,followed by a review of the inconsistencies.

ConsistenciesThere is striking consistency in the responses ofthe faculty, unit heads, and deans to each of thefour items about the relative importance of re-search and undergraduate teaching (the impor-tance currently to them personally, the direc-tion they think they or their unit should go, thedirection they see the university currently isgoing, and the direction they think the univer-sity should go).

Table 4 shows mean ratings very close to 0 (equalimportance) for the nearly 20,000 faculty, 1,700unit heads, and 500 deans who responded tothree of the items (the importance currently tothem personally, the direction they think they ortheir unit should go, and the direction they thinktheir university should go). Similarly, this tableshows that there is consistency among all threegroups in their perceptions that the balance at

Table 4Means and Standard Deviation

by QuestionPeople/Units

You ShouldPersonally Go

The University

Is ShouldGoing Go

Faculty(n=19,500)

Mess: -0.1 0.2 15 0.0STD: 2.0 1.4 15

Unit Heads(n-1,700)

Mean: 0.0 0.2 1.0 0.2SW: 1.7 1.7 1.8 15

Deans(n=500)

Mean: -0 3 -0.2 1.0 0.0STD: 1.7 1.7 1.8 1.4

Administrators(n=215)

Mean: -1.1 0.5 -0.8SW: 1.6 1.9 1.4

Scale: -4 Teaching; 0 Equal; 4 Reserschvihis question was not asked o{ administrators

the university is going toward the research sideof the continuum, since all three groups havemean ratings on this item of 1 or greater towardresearch. In Table 4 and other tables where meanratings are reported, the teaching end of thecontinuum is indicated by negative numberssince they are on the left hand side of the 0 point(equal importance) and the research end of thecontinuum is indicated by positive numbers sincethey are on the right hand side of the 0 point.

The distributions of responses in Figures 2, 3, 4,and 5 show that there is a remarkable degree ofconsistency among faculty, unit heads, anddeans. Figures 2, 3, and 5 all show modal re-sponses of the faculty, unit heads, and deans atthe 0 point. These figures also show a great dealof consistency in the pattern of responses ofthese three groups (on either side of the mid-point) in terms of current and future preferencesregarding the relative importance of researchand undergraduate teaching. Figure 4 showsconsistency in the pattern of responses of thesethree groups all along the teaching-researchcontinuum in terms of the direction the univer-sity is going. However, as discussed next, thispattern contrasts with the patterns of responsesrelated to the direction the university should go.

1 tl

"There is aclear message

in thenational

results of thisstudy: the

people in theuniversity

communitytend to favor

a balancebetween

research andundergraduate

teaching."

"In contrast,respondentsreport that

the"university"

places greateremphasis on

research thanon teaching."


"There arealso some

verynoticeable

inconsistenciesin the survey

results..."

"...adminis-trators' mean

ratings arenoticeably on

the teachingside of the

continuum..."

Table 4 and Figures 2 through 5 also illustratethe key inconsistencies in the over,: results.

InconsistenciesThere are alsosome very noticeable inconsis-tencies in the survey results. These includecontrasts in perceptions within groups, con-trasts between academic administrators' per-

ceptions and the perceptions of the othergroups,contrasts between the group members' per-ceptions of themselves and the way othersperceive them, and contrasts between the per-ceptions of all groups in relation to the directionthe university is going and the direction that itshould go regarding the relative importance ofresearch and undergraduate teaching.

Perceptions Witt in GroupsGenerally speaking there is morevariability within the faculty,unit heads, and deans groupsthan there is among these groupsregarding the relative impor-tance of research and under-graduate teaching. This vari-ability is suggested by the factthat even though the mean re-sponses of the three groups arevery similar and are at or near 0,standard deviations range from1.4 to 2.1. And, while the modalresponses at 0 (equal impor-tance) account for a consider-able number of responses (over40% in some cases), the fre-quency distribution graphsshow that a nearly equal num-ber of faculty, unit heads, anddeans chose response points of1 or greater on either the teach-ing or the research side of thecontinuum. Figures 2, 3, and 5this provide a picture of the'ariability of responses within

groups.

Figure 2How important are research and undergraduate

teaching to you personally?

1(X

0%

4Teaching

Faculty (19,855)

Unit Heeds (1,711)

0Equal

Deans (505)

3 4Research

Administrators (217)

Figure 3What direction do you think you should go (faculty);

your department should go (unit heads); yourschool.should go (deans)?

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%4

Teaching2 0

Equal

Faculty (17,103) . Deans (440)

Unit Heads (1,521)

4Research

Academic Administrators andOthersInterestingly, the academic ad-ministrators' responses aresomewhat inconsistent with theresponses of the faculty, unitheads, and deans. In compari-son to these groups, administra-tors' mean ratings are notice-ably on the teaching side of thecontinuum for the items on therelative importance of researchand undergraduate teaching


currently to them personally andthe direction they think the uni-versity should go. In addition,their ratings for the item aboutthe direction the university isgoing suggest they see less of amove toward research than dothose in the other groups. De-spite this they see as much con-flict between where their uni-versity is going and where theythink it should go.

The difference in the perceptionsof the academic administratorsis also evident in the pattern ofresponses. Regarding the im-portance of teaching and re-search to them personally, 54%chose points from 1 to 4 on theteaching side of the teachingresearch continuum and 35%chose the 0 point (equal impor-tance) (see Figure 2). In addi-tion, in regard to the directiontheir university should go, 40%

of them chose the midpoint and45% chose points on the teach-ing side of the continuum (seeFigure 5). It may well be thatcentral administrators reallyvalue teaching. It also may bethat these administrators havebeen influenced by the attitudesexpressed in the national mediaand the various na tional reports,as well as by pressure from stu-dents and their parents, whichcall for a renewed emphasis onundergraduate teaching inAmerica's research universities.

How People See Themselvesand How Others See ThemThere also are differences between the waypeople see themselves and the way others seethorn. Relatively speaking, there is consistencybetween faculty perceptions of themselves andhow others see them in regard to the relativeimportance of research and undergraduate

Figure 4

50%

4CP/.

30%

20%

la%

What direction do you thinkthe university is going?

0%4

Teaching

Faculty (19,569)

Unit Heads (1,700)

0Equal

Deans (500)

2


4Research

Figure 5

50%

40%

30%

2U%

10%

What direction do you thinkthe university should go?

0%4

Teaching3 2

Faculty (19,844)

Unit Heads (1,706)

0Equal

=I

2

Deans (506)


3 4

Research

teaching. This is indicated by the fact that rat-ings of other fa-rity by faculty themselves andratings of faculty by the other groups are at ornear the 0 point (see Figure 6). However, there isa perception of greater and greater bias towardresearch as faculty view others more and moreremoved from teaching responsibility.

12

"...they[academic

administrators]see less of a

movetoward

researchthan do

those in theother groups.Despite this

they see asmuch

conflictbetween

where theiruniversity is

going andwhere they

think itshould go."

"There alsoare

differencesbetween theway people

seethemselves

and the wayothers see

them."


"Insummary, the

closer one isto the centraladministration,or the fartherremoved one

is from directinstructional

responsibilities,the more thatindividual or

office isperceived asbeing biased

towardresearch."

"From thepoint of view

of faculty,unit heads,and deans

there isconsiderable

inconsistencybetween the

direction theuniversity is

going and thedirection

they think itshould go."

Figure 6How important are research and undergraduate

teaching to others at your university?Research 4

Equal 0

Teaching 4

Faculty Academic Unit Heads Deans

arm Faculty (n= 17.184 +)

I Unit Heads (n=1,520+)

The Office ofAcademic Affairs

Deans (n =423 +)

Administrators (n=203+)

Faculty, as well as deans and administrators,see unit heads as placing more emphasis onresearch than unit heads themselves report.This is illustrated by nearly a 1 point gap shownin Figure 6 between unit heads' self-perceptionsand the way they are perceived by faculty. Inother words, faculty feel that unit heads viewresearch as somewhat more important thanteaching while unit heads indicate that researchand teaching are of equal importance.

Discrepancies are even greater when deans'perceptions of themselves are compared withthe perception of deans by faculty, unit heads,and administrators. The most extreme case isthe 1.6 point gap between faculty perceptionsof the deans and the deans' perceptions ofthemselves. That is, on average, faculty per-ceive deans as favoring research (1.3 on theresearch side of the continuum) while, on aver-age, deans view themselves as favoring teach-ing (0.3 on the teaching side).

Faculty and central administrators have verydifferent views of the Office of Academic Af-fairs on their campuses. That is, on average,faculty perceive the Office of Academic Affairsas favoring research (1.4 on the research side ofthe continuum) while, on average, central ad-

ministrators (most of whom arewithin the Office of AcademicAffairs) view this office as fa-voring more of a balance be-tween teaching and research.

In summary, the closer one is tothe central administration, orthe farther removed one is fromdirect instructional responsibili-ties, the more that individual oroffice is perceived as being bi-ased toward research. Such asituation can cause considera blefrustration and tension. For ex-ample, faculty may feel that oth-ers do not value teaching to theextent that they do and that thisbias is reflected in the rewardsystem, which emphasizes re-search over teaching. Deans

and central administrators may feel faculty donot appreciate the extent to which they valueteaching. Unit heads are caught in the middleof such tensions. These themes are clearlyarticulated in the responses to the open-endeditem on the survey.

The Direction the University Is Going and theDirection it Should GoFrom the point of view of faculty, unit heads,and deans there is considerable inconsistencybetween the direction the university is goingand the direction they think it should go. Theresponses in Figure 4 suggest that the respon-dents perceive the direction their university isgoing is not toward teaching, but either towarda balance or toward research.

While faculty data show the greatest contrast,as indicated in Table 4 by the 1.5 gap betweenthe faculty mean ratings on these two items (isgoing and should go), all groups perceived theuniversity as going mu ch more toward researchthan they would like it to go. In fact, 69% offaculty, 61% of unit heads, 59% of deans, and51% of central administrators chose responsepoints on the research side of the continuum toindicate the direction their university is going.Twenty percent or fewer of the respondents


chose the response point 0 (equal importance)to indicate that they thought their university isgoing toward a balance between research andundergraduate teaching. This inconsistency isgraphically illustrated in the visual differencesbetween the frequency distribution of re-sponses in Figure 4 (What direction do youthink the university is going?) and the fre-quency distributions in Figures 2, 3, and 5,which concern current and future preferencesof respondents. Such inconsistency can proveto be very stressful.

The differences in the way respondents per-ceive the university is going and the way itshould go suggest that there is a serious con-flict between the culture of the university andthe values of individuals. The implications ofthe inconsistency between where the univer-sity is going and where respondents think itshould go will be discussed more fully inrelation to the different types of universitiesthat participated in this study and in relationto the different major academic areas and dis-ciplines represented by the respondents. Theseimplications are clearly articulated in respon-dents' open-ended comments, which are sum-marized at the end of this report.

Demographic Sub-groupsGenerally, the analysis of the survey resultsrelative to other demographic data (i.e., gen-der, faculty rank, years teaching at institution,percent of teaching devoted to undergradu-ates, and public/private institution) showsfew noticeable differences in item means orfrequency distributions.

Those differences that do occur are predict-able, such as lecturers and others who spendmost of their time teaching being more favor-able toward teaching. Interestingly enough,emeritus professors also favored teaching overresearch. Faculty who spend most of theirteaching time devoted to undergraduates tendto rate teaching as more important to them-selves personally, while the average responseof those who report devoting no time to teach-ing undergraduates is slightly on the researchside of the continuum.

For faculty and unit heads, the longer theyhave been at the university the more likely theyare to choose points on the teaching side of thecontinuum. This is true for faculty and unitheads personally and in relation to the direc-tion they feel the university should go. That is,average ratings by those at the university 20years or more emphasize teaching, while aver-age ratings of new faculty and unit heads em-phasize research.

Deans generally followed this same pattern,although all dean groups, regardless of howlong they have been at the university, typicallyfeel that to them personally undergraduateteaching is more important than research orthat teaching and research are of equal impor-tance.

For administrators there was no clear relation-ship between how long they have been at theuniversity and the relative importance of re-search and undergraduate teaching. How-ever, as noted before, the means and frequencydistributions for administrators are consistentlyon the teaching side of the continuum for thempersonally and regarding the direction the uni-versity should go.

CampusesThe total sample was also analyzed with re-spect to individual campuses. Further analy-sis compared and contrasted the campuses inthe four Carnegie classifications.

Individual CampusesCampuses varied considerably in the extent towhich their respondent groups favored re-search, teaching, or a balance, and in the consis-tency or inconsistency among these groups.The mean responses to the item, "How impor-tant are research and undergraduate teachingto you personally?" by different groups on sixcampuses illustrate these variations (see Fig-ure 7). For example, campus 14, campus 7, andcampus 43 represent campuses that are quitedifferent in their view of the relative impor-tance of research and teaching. Clearly, oncampus 41, and to some extent on other cam-


"As onemoves from

Research I toDoctorate-Granting II

institutions,mean ratings

typicallyshift towardthe teaching

end of thecontinuum

regarding therelative

importanceof research

andundergraduate

teaching tofaculty

personally."

"...faculty atthe

Doctorate-Granting

institutions(both I and

II) generallyfeel that the

relativeimportanceof research

andundergraduate

teachingshould favor

teaching inthe future."

puses, there is one group that is noticeablydifferent in its views. In the cases of campuses42 and 5 there are noticeable variations amongseveral groups.

A follow-up case study project also funded bythe Lilly Endowment will investigate the localcampus cultures that form the context for theseconsistencies and inconsistencies.

Figure 7

How important are research and undergraduateteaching to you personally?

Research 4

3

2

1

Equal 0

1

2

3

Teaching 4

14

08

42

0 Faculty

A Unit Heads

41 5Institutions

0 Deans

Admin

43

Table 5All University Faculty MeansBy Carnegie Classification

CarnegieClassification

UniversityYou Is Should

Personally Going Go

Research I15 Institutions(n- 9,300+)

Mean:Range:Spread:

0.3-0.9 to -0.3

1.2

1.52.1 to 0.7

1.4

0.30.9 to -0.4

1.3

Research II9 Institutions(n-4,4001-)

Mean: 0.0 1.6 0.2Range: .5 to -.3 2.5 to .8 .8 to -.2Spread: 0.8 1.7 1.0

Dr.-Grant. I11 Institutions(nw3,400+)

Mean: -0.6 1.5 -0.2Range: 0.0 to -1.4 2.4 to 0.8 0.2 to -1.1Spread: 1.4 1.6 1.3

Dr.-Grant. II12 Institutions(n-1,200+)

Mean: -0.6 0.9 -0.4Range: 0.1 to -1.6 23 to -0.4 0.1 to -1.1Spread: 1.7 2.7 1.2

StressIndex*

1.32.3 to 0.4

1.9

1.42.1 to 0.3

1.8

1.72.8 to 0.9

1.9

1.32.2 to 0.7

1.5

Scale: .4 Teaching; 0 Equal; 4 ResearchStress Index -Is Going - Should Go

Carnegie ClassificationsAs one moves from Research Ito Doctorate Granting II insti-tutions, mean ratings typicallyshift toward the teaching endof the continuum regarding therelative importance of researchand undergraduate teaching tofaculty personally (see Table5). However, in each categorythere is a range of institutionalmeans, with the largest spreadoccuring among the Doctorate -Granting II institutions (1.7points). It is interesting to notethat the overall means of all theDoctorate-Granting I and II in-stitutions are the same on thisitem even though the rangesare different.

There is no noticeable difference in the mean orthe range of faculty ratings regarding the direc-tion the university is going among the first threeCarnegie classification groups of institutions(Research I and II, and Docto- 4te-Granting I).However, noticeably different from the others,the average mean ratings of the Doctorate-Granting II institutions are much less towardthe research end of the continuum for this item(the direction the university is going). But therealso is a greater range of means among theinstitutions in this group.

In comparison to Research I and II institutions,faculty at the Doctorate-Granting institutions(both I and II) generally feel that the relativeimportance of research and undergraduateteaching should favor teaching in the future.This is suggested by the fact that both the rangeof mean ratings and the average of these meansunder the should go column in Table 5 shifttoward the teaching end of the continuum forthe Doctorate-Granting institutions.


In all cases, institutions are perceived as goingmore toward research than respondents thinkthey should be going. For example, the data inTable 5 show that the relative importance ofresearch ai. -I undergraduate teaching in termsof faculty perceptions of the direction the insti-tution is going places greater emphasis onresearch than faculty indicate is their prefer-ence regarding the direction the institutionshould go. An index of the discrepancy be-tween perceptions of the direction the institu-tion is going and the direction it should go canbe obtained by subtracting the two means. Inessence, this index represents the tension thatexists between perceptions of future realities(the direction the university is going) and fu-ture preferences (the direction the universityshould go).

This index has been designated as the StressIndex. Stress Indexes calculated for Table 4would produce differences of 1.5 for faculty,0.8 for unit heads, 1.0 for deans, and 1.3 foracademic administrators. Overall, Doctorate-Granting I institutions have the highest StressIndexes as shown by the means and ranges inthe last column of Table 5.

Stress Indexes are calculated using mean rat-ings. These mean ratings typically have stan-dard deviations between 1.5 and 2.0. Theretore, Stress Indexes below 1.5 may suggest littlestress; those that fall between 1.5 and 2.0 mayindicate a modest amount of stress; and thoseover 2.0 may well suggest considerable conflictbetween the culture of the university and aparticular group of individuals. For example,the modest amount of stress suggested by theindex of 1.7 for Doctorate-Granting I institu-tions may be stimulated by the position of thesecampuses at the border between research (Re-search II) and teaching (Doctorate-Granting II)focused institutions. The Stress Index data willbe a factor in selecting institutions for follow -up case studies.

Major Academic AreasThe national data were analyzed according to15 major academic areas and then, for the largerareas, by sub-disciplines. As might be ex-pected, departments with similar names were

organized within different administrativestructures on various campuses. For example,speech pathology and audiology departmentswere found in schools of medicine, education,arts and sciences, or communication. For dataanalysis and reporting purposes, the structurewith the greatest number of respondents wasused as the default location for such depart-ments.

Not surprisingly, there were noticeable differ-ences in responses among people in the variousacademic areas and disciplines. The range ofmean ratings is from 1.1 toward research to 1.5toward teaching regarding the relative impor-tance of teaching and research to faculty per-sonally (see Table 6).

By using 1.0 toward research or toward teach-ing as a cut-off point, it is possible to identifydisciplines whose members on average favorone or the other rather than an equal balance.Those favoring research include microbiologyand immunology, physiology and anatomy,and economics. Those disciplines favoringteaching include accounting; journalism; el-ementary and secondary education; health,physical education, and sports science; specialeducation; music; theater arts; and dentistry.

It should be noted that there is considerablevariation in faculty mean ratings regarding therelative importance of research and under-graduate teaching to them personally in thedisciplines under several major academic ar-eas. In fact, faculty mean ratings for this itemdiffer by more than 1.0 among disciplines un-der eight of the ten major academic areas withsub-disciplines.

Unit Heads' and Deans' means, by and large,were consistent with faculty. However, deansshowed considerably morebias toward researchthan other respondents in two major academicareas. In communication, the faculty's meanwas 0.7 toward teaching, the unit heads' meanwas 0.6 toward teaching, and the deans' meanwas 1.0 toward research. In computer sciencethe faculty's mean was 0.8 toward research, theunit heads' mean was a t0.2 toward teaching,andthe deans' mean was at 2.0 toward research.

16


"In everymajor

academicarea and forevery group(except the

deans ofschools of

ncommunicatio)respondents

felt thatthere shouldbe a greater

emphasis onteaching

"Knowingthe biases of

peopletoward

research andteaching

...can hetidenti

whereintrinsic

rewards areoperatingand howextrinsic

rewards maybest be

targeted toaccomplish

institutionalaoals."

Table 6Major Academic Areas and

Departments Faculty Means

You is ShouldPersonally Going Go

StressIndex*

Agriculture & Env. Sci. (n=846) 0.1 1.5 -0.2 1.7Agriculture (n=149) al 1.7 .0.2 1.9

Basic Science (n=41) 0.6 0.3 0.3 0.0Botany & Plant Pathology (n=63) 0.3 1.8 -0.1 1.9Entomology (n=49) 0.7 1.4 0.1 1.3

Food Sci.& Human Nutm. (n=56) -0.2 0.8 -0.2 1.0

Res.Dcv.,En.Sc. &Reg.Pl. (n=154) -0.4 1.4 -0.4 1.8

Soil Science (n=70) 0.5 1.8 -act 2.2Veterinary & Animal Sci. (0=108) -0.1 1.5 0.1 1.4

Architecture (n=104) -0.6 1.1 -0.3 1.4Business/Management (n=1,153) -0.2 1.4 0.0 1.4

Accounting (n=185) -1.0 1.8 -0.6 2.413us.Cotnp.&1nfo.Systems (n=60) -0.5 0.9 -0.7 1.6Business Economics (n=118) 0.3 0.9 0.5 0.4Finance (n=118) 0.1 1.3 0.3 1.0Marketing & Transport. (n=118) 0.2 1.1 0.5 0.6Mngmnt. & Organization (n=349) -0.3 1.5 -0.1 1.6

Communication (n=297) -0.7 1.4 -0.5 1.9Journalism (n=65) -1.5 1.2 -1.1 2.3Mass.Comm.&Elec.Media (n=182)-0.5 1.8 -0.3 2.1

Computer Science (n=92) 0.8 0.7 0.5 0.2Education (n=886) -0.8 1.9 -0.6 2.5

Counseling & Ed. Psych. (n=114) -0.4 1.6 -0.4 2.0Ed. Admin. & Supervision (n=167)-0.3 1.6 -0.3 1.9

Elern. & Secondary Ed. (n=148) -1.3 2.2 -0.7 2.9Health,Ph.Ed.&Sport.Sci (n=190) -1.4 1.8 -0.8 2.6Special Education (n=47) -1.3 2.0 -0.6 2.6

Engineering (n=1,364) 0.1 1.5 0.2 1.3Chemical Engineering (n=113) 0.2 1.4 G.4 1.0

Civil Engineering (n=292) 0.1 1.3 0.2 1.1

Elec. & Comp.Engincering (n=348) 0.2 1.5 0.3 1.2

Industrial Engineering (n=76) 0.3 1.4 0.4 1.0

Mechanical Engineering (n=332) 0.2 1.6 0.2 1.4Fine & Performing Arts (n=979) -0.8 1.2 -0.6 1.8

Art (n=220) -0.1 0.9 -0.1 1.0Music (n=287) -1.1 1.2 -0.7 1.9

Speech (n=41) -0.7 1.8 -0.2 2.0Theater Arts (n=140) -1.2 1.4 -0.9 2.3

Home Econ./Hum. Dev. (n=176) -0.7 1.6 -0.2 1.8Child & Family Studies (n=69) -0.6 2.0 0.0 2.0

Humanities (n=2,425) -9.2 1.6 -0.1 1 7Art History (o=51) 0.? 1.4 0.2 1.2Classics & Archeology (n=51) 0.1 1.4 0.1 1.3East Asian Lang. & Lit. (n=73) -0.6 1.7 -0.3 2.0Eng./Eng. Lit. & Writing (n=731) -0.5 1.8 -0.3 2.1

German (n=49) -0.1 0.8 0.2 0.6History (n=415) 0.1 1.4 0.1 1.3

Italian & French (n=77) -0.1 1.6 0.1 1.5

Modem Lang. & Lit.-all (n=550) -0.3 1.5 -0.1 1.6Modem Lang.&Lat. (n=284) -0.5 1.5 -0.3 1.8

Philosophy (n=193) 0.4 1.4 0.3 1.1

Religion (n=123) -0.3 1.1 -0.3 1.4

Spanish & Portuguese (n=51) 0.3 2.1 0.2 1.9Into & Library Science (n=39) -0.9 1.7 -0.5 2.2Law (n=95) -0.2 1.5 -0.1 1.6

Med./Health Relat. Stud. (n=2,022) 0.0 1.4 0.0 1.4Dentistry (n=49) -1.2 7 -0.5 2.6Internal Medicine (n=80) 0.6 1.9 0.1 1.8Medicine (n=121) -0.2 1.2 0.1 1.1

Microbiology & Immun. (n=140) 1.0 1.0 0.6 0.4Nursing (n=173) -0.9 1.6 -0.3 1.9Obstetrics & Gynecology (n=52) 0 1 0 9 -0.1 1.0Pathology (n67) -0.2 1.6 0.0 1.6Pediatrics (n=84) 0.2 0.7 0.3 0.4Physical Therapy (n=63) -0.3 1 7 0.2 1.5

Table 6 (continued)

You Is ShouldPersonally Going Go

StressIndex

Physiology & Anatomy (n=127) 1.0 1.2 0.5 0.7

Psychiatry (n=103) 0.0 1.1 0.1 1.0

Public Health (n=101) -0.1 1.5 -0.1 1.6

Speech Path. & Audiology (n=97) -0.4 1.6 0.0 1.6

Surgery (n=93) 0.3 1.2 0.0 1.2

Science & Mathematics (n=2,294) 0.3 1.0 0.4 0.6

Biology (n=441) 0.3 1.0 0.4 0.6Botany (n5) 0.3 1.4 G.1 1.3

Chemistry (n=407) 0.6 0.9 0.6 0.3

Geology (n=40) 0.1 1.3 0.0 1.3

Mathematics & Statistics (n=596) 0.0 1.1 0.4 0.7

Physics (n=408) 0.6 0.9 0.6 0.3

Zoology (n=91) 0.5 0.9 0.6 0.3

Social Science (n=1,839) 0.6 1.4 0.5 0.9

Anthropology (n=165) 0.4 l.5 0.5 1.0

Criminology (n=46) -0.1 1.5 0.3 1.2

Economics (n=226) 1.1 1.5 0.9 0.6

Geography (n=94) 0.4 1.8 0.2 1.6

Political Science (n=268; 0.3 1.5 0.4 1.1

Psychology (n=530) 0.9 1.1 0.8 0.3Social Work (n=49) -0.1 1.6 -0.3 1.9

Sociology (n=336) 0.5 1.3 0.5 0.8

Scale: -4 Teaching; 0 Equal; 4 Research'Stress index =Is Going - Should Go

In every major academic area and for everygroup (except the five deans of schools of com-munication) respondents felt that there shouldbe a greater emphasis on teaching in relation tothe direction that things are perceived to begoing.

This conclusion was reached by reviewing themajor academic area and discipline data re-garding the Stress Index, that is, the differencebetween respondents' perceptions of the direc-tion the institution is going and the direction itshould go. The faculty Stress Index was 1.3 orgreater for 12 of the 15 major academic areas.The various education-related disciplines hadthe greatest concentration of high Stress In-dexes. Elementary and secondary educationhad the highest Stress Index, 2.9. The commu-nication deans were the only ones with a nega-tive index (-0.6), since collectively they per-ceived their schools are going less toward re-search (0.4) than they think they should go(1.0).

Knowing the biases of people toward researchand teaching across and within academic areasand disciplines can help identify where intrin-sic rewards are operating and how extrinsicrewards may best be targeted to accomplish



institutional goals. Such information can beused to design flexible promotion, tenure, meritpay, and other reward systems, which are re-sponsive to the cultures that exist in diverseareas and disciplines. A number of profes-sional organizations have requested detailedreports of the data for their disciplines, whichthey intend to use to stimulate the discussion ofpolicies and procedures related to reward sys-tems. Participating institutions have used thesedata to better understand the diversity thatexists on their campus-,s and to consider waysto create flexible reward systems. Furtherfunding from the Lilly Endowment has beenprovided to support the initial phase of theseefforts.

Open-ended CommentsOver 8,000 respondents took the time to re-spond to the open-ended items asking them todiscuss their ratings, resulting in over 1,000pages of single-spaced comments. Theyprovide a fascinating picture of respondents'views about research and undergraduateteaching and about the culture of their institu-tions.

A careful review was conducted of over 2,000comments from 12 of the 47 campuses, chosento represent both public and private institu-tions in each of the four Carnegie classificationssurveyed in this study. The comments areoften long and complex and they typicallytouch on many different topics, however, fivemain themes are evident.

Reward SystemThe predominant theme has to do with campusreward systems, the distribution of resources,and the campus culture, which are seen as plac-ing great emphasis on research (particularlyresearch that leads to publications and grantdollars). On some campuses over 50% of thecomments are related to this theme in one wayor another. A strong sub-theme is that an em-phasis on research implicitly or explicitly deniesproper rewards and recognition for teaching, aswell as for service. As is exemplified by thefollowing illustrative examples, the undercur-rent of emotion in these comments is one offrustration, if not anger over wide-spread in-

consistency between what is said about the bal-ance between research and undergraduateteaching and the reality of the reward system.

Nothing substitutes for a journal article in a peerreviewed journal. An outstanding publicationaward will get you promoted; an outstandingteaching award won't! Sorry, but that's the wayit is.

As a new junior professor I have come into theprofession with a strong interest in research, butan equally strong interest in serving students byhelping them to learn both in and outside of theclassroom. The attitude I'm receiving from alllevels ... is that research is what counts. If theother areas of service and teaching are lacking,but research is strong then promotions will fol-low. Unfortunately I think this is the wrongmessage to be sending faculty.

Research performance is rewarded, teachingperformance is not. Monetary support is avail-able to initiate research; no monetary support isavailable to improve teaching.

The University pays lip service to teaching buthas structured the incentiv. es that really matter soas to favor not just research but sponsored re-search. It is not scholarship but dollars; teachingis seen as consuming resources while researchproduces resources. Knowledge or scholarshipis not the issue.

There is big talk around here about the impor-tance of teaching. but no reward for it!

Teaching counts for less than nothing.

No one on my campus believes our administra-tors when they tell us that our teaching is asimportant as our research. Their actions speaklouder than their words.

Mostly lip service to teaching - research is allimportant to the campus. But the undergradu-ates, who have little voice in the matter, are theones who suffer from the unspoken but definiteemphasis on research.

The difference fin the survey item ratings) isbased on what the university says vs. what isdone. Teaching is supposed to be almost ar, im-portant or as important as research. In reality,teaching is worth 5% and research 95%. Researchis most important for untenured faculty. With-out x number of journal publications you will notget tenure even if you walk on water in theclassroom. On the other hand, you can be anabsolute disaster in the classroom if your re-search publications are numerous.

I think our attitude toward teaching is a scandal.It is not rewarded, and good teaching is oftenpunished in that people assume your scholar-ship must be suffering if you're working so hardon your courses. Prestige is the only thing thatmatters to administrators ... and to most facultyas well, and you don't get it by teaching.

18 BEST COPY MAMIE


"I find thetwo are

symbiotic,each

nourishingthe other."

"Goodteaching

takes time!Good

researchtakes time!"

"Foo muchemphasis on

numbers ofpublicationsrather than

quality."

The Relationship Between Research andTeachingThe second most prevalent theme concerns therelationship between research and teaching. Asub-theme of many comments is the conflictthat exists when one tries to do both well.

I find the two are symbiotic, each nourishing theother.

Research and teaching are integral parts of auniversity. Increasing or decreasing one compo-nent at the expense of another would be detri-mental to the university as a whole.

I feel that we are here as both teachers andresearchers and that effor ti in each of these areasare and should be inter'elated. I want to try tobring my research intc my teaching to make myteaching more stimulating and exciting. I al-ready do this on tie graduate level and wouldlike to do more of it on the undergraduate level.

I believe they are complementary, or should be.The best researchers are often those who canintegrate me terial and demonstrate a passion fortheir research area in the classroom.

Lower division teaching requires people whospecialize in teaching: the great researcher who isalso a great teacher is a myth, at the lower divi-sion level. Of course researchers should teach,but chiefly at the graduate or upper divisionlevel.

I enjoy both my teaching and my research. Of thetwo, however, I think that the teaching is morevaluable in terms of social /intellectual contribu-tion. My research and publication always relatesbasically to my teaching, but much of it is toospecialized to be of genuine interest to under-graduates. I am alarmed at how decidedly theemphasis in our department in the past fifteenyears has shifted away from the importance ofteaching to the importance (rewards and recog-nition) of publishing. We used to talk in the hallsabout our classes and teaching ideas. Now all Iseem to hear is, "How's your work coming?""Work" always refers to writing for publication.We talk about grants, not students. We talkabout "release" time as if the really importantactivity is publishing; we need to be releasedfrom teaching or that which sidetracks our timefrom academic conferences and publication. Tnependulum has swung too far away from the reallife and work of a liberal arts program - teachingand being taught, the classroom, not just thecarrel. We need to find our "center of balance"again.

Good teaching takes time! Good research takestime! I work so hard now, I need institutionalsupport if I am going to significantly improveeither.

Very conflicting. I am expected to teach well inthe two heaviest and most important courses a'the undergraduate level and they have the least

BEST COPY AVAILABILE

relation to my research. 1 may end up compro-mising research or teaching, a decision I do notwant to make.

Improve the Evaluation of Research andTeachingAnother recurrent theme among the commentsis that both research and teachilg need to beevaluated in a more realistic and fair manner.These comments express concern that thequantity of research seems to count more thanits quality; that the pressure to publish resultsin much low-quality research; that the defini-tion of research is too narrow; and that teachingis ineffectively evaluated. For example,

Too much emphasis on numbers of publicationsrather than quality. This forces people to beprolific writers at the expense of quality writingand teaching.

Regrettably, it is very difficult to judge teaching.Thus, it is usually possible to identify an excep-tionally fine teacher and an exceptionally poorone but the 80% - 89% in the middle are hard todistinguish from one another.

Research is Primary FocusSince 40% of the respondents indicated thatthey spend no time teaching undergraduates itis understandable that comments were alsomade about the primacy of research.

I am principally employed in a research unit ...hence my activities are dominated by research,including direction of graduate students.

My commitment to research is based less on myperception of what is necessary to get promotedat the university than on the intrinsic enjoymentthat I get in doing research. Also, the effectiveconduct of experimental research is much morechallenging than effective instruction of under-graduates.

The SurveyThe last theme concerned the survey itself. Anumber of respondents felt that the surveypresented a false dichotomy between researchand undergraduate teaching or felt i t suggestedthat research and undergraduate teaching weremutually exclusive or part of a zero-sum game.Others were concerned about the use of theword "important" in the stem of the surveyitems and about being asked not only how


imp' rtant research and undergraduate teach-ing is to them personally, but to others at theiruniversity, too.

ConclusionsPerhaps one of the best kept secrets in highereducation is that many faculty, unit heads,deans, and academic administrators at researchuniversi ties be lieve that an appropria te ba la ncebetween research and undergraduate teachingdoes not now exist at their institutions, but thatsuch a balance should exist. Contrary to popu-lar opinion, faculty and professional staff docare about undergraduate education. This isnot to suggest that research universities shouldabandon their research mission, but rather thatthe relative importance of research and under-graduate teaching should be closer to equal.

Faculty are especially concerned about themessages that unit heads, deans, and academicadministrators give through campus rewardsystems. This message clearly over-empha-sizes research, in many cases to the detrimentof teaching. Most disturbing is the fact that

while "lip service" is often given to teaching,the policies and procedures of the universityrelated to hiring practices, the allocation ofrewards and resources, the granting of promo-tion and tenure, and the distribution of meritpay, almost always favors research.

The results obtained via the survey's scaledand open-ended items suggest that faculty,unit heads, deans, and academic administra-tors at research universities strive for a balancebetween research and undergraduate teachingfor both intrinsic and extrinsic reasons. Thebalance may occur over time in a facultymember's career, among a number of faculty ina department or college, or across the univer-sity given the different missions of variousunits. This suggests that the intrinsic and ex-trinsic reward systems of the university shouldbe flexible. That is, they should recognize awide variety and constantly changing set ofinterests and needs in order to promote anoverall balance in the relative importance ofresearch and undergraduate teaching.

"Perhapsone of thebest keptsecrets in

highereducation is

that manyfaculty, unit

heads, deans,and

academicadministrators

at researchuniversitiesbelieve that

anappropriate

balancebetween

research andundergraduateteaching doesnot now exist

at theirinstitutions,

but that sucha balance

shouldexist."


REFERENCESAssociation of American Colleges. (1985). Integrity in the college curriculum: A report to the academic

community. The findings and recommendations of the project in redefining the meaning andpurpose of the baccalaureate degree. Washington, DC: Author.

Bennett, W. J. (1984). To reclaim a legacy. Based on the findings of the study group on the state oflearning in the humanities in higher education. Washington, DC: National Endowment for theHumanities.

Blackburn, R. T. (1985). Faculty vitality and institutional productivity. In S. Clark and D. Lewis (Eds.),Faculty career development: Theory and practice. New York: Teachers College Press.

Blackburn, R. T., & Havighurst, R. J. (1979). Career patterns of U.S. male academic social scientists.Higher Education, 8, 553-572.

Boyer, E. (1987). College: The undergraduate experience in America. New York: Harper & Row.

Cameron, S. W., & Blackburn, R. T. (1981). Sponsorship and academic career success. Journal ofHigher Education, 52, 369-377.

Center for Instructional Development. (January 1991). The Syracuse University focus on teachingproject, a progress report: The first two years. Syracuse, NY: Author.

Center for Instructional Development. (April 1991). The Syracuse University focus on teaching project,the third year: School and college plans for improving teaching. Syracuse, NY: Author.

Clark, M. J., & Centra, J. A. (1982). Conditions influencing the career accomplishments of Ph.D.'s. (GREBoard Research Report BREB No. 76-2R ETS Research Report 82-18). Princeton, NJ: Educa-tional Testing Service.

Clemente, F. (1973). Early determinants of research productivity. American Journal of Sociology, 79,409-419.

Cochran, L. H. (1989). Administrative commitment to teaching. Unpublished manuscript, SoutheastMissouri State, Missouri.

Cole, S., & Cole, J. R. (1967). Scientific output recognition: A study in the operation of the rewardsystem in science. American Sociological Review, 32, 377-390.

Hogan, T. D. (1981). Faculty research activity and the quality of graduate training. Journal of HumanResources, 16, 400-415.

In Box (1991, May 8). The Chronicle of Higher Education, p. A15.

Mooney, C. J. (1991, May 8). Professors feel conflict between roles in teaching and research. TheChronicle of Higher Education, p. A15.

National Institute of Education. (October 1984). Involvement in learning: Realizing the potential ofAmerican higher education. Report of the study group on the conditions of excellence inAmerican higher education. Washington, DC: Author.

Reskin, B. (1977). Scientific productivity and the reward structure of science. American SociologicalReview, 42, 491-504.

Samson, G. E. (1984). Academic and occupational performance: A quantitative synthesis. AmericanEducational Research Journal, 21, 311-321.

The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. (1987). A classification of institutions ofhigher education. Princeton, NJ: Author.


To assist you in the interpretation of the graphs, we are also providing youwith the following data on which they were based.

The Authors

Figure 2: How important are research and undergraduate teaching to you personally? (in %)

Teaching Researchn 4 L 3 2 1 0

1 I 23 4

Faculty 19,855 6 10 11 6 29 9 14 8 3

Unit Heads 1,711 2 7 11 7 37 11 15 6 1

Deans 505 2 10 11 9 42 9 9 3 1

Administrators 217 5 15 24 10 35 5 2 0 1

Figure 4: What direction do you think the University is going? (in%)

Teaching Researchn 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4

Faculty 19,569 1 2 5 6 13 13 23 19 14

Unit Heads 1,700 0 3 7 8 17 18 23 14 6

Deans 500 0 2 6 10 20 18 21 13 7

Administrators 215 1 5 9 10 20 19 19 12 1

Figure 5: What direction do you think the University should go? (in %)

n

Teaching0

Research4 3 2 1 1 2 3 4

Faculty 19,844 2 5 9 8 42 12 12 4 1

Unit Heads 1,706 0 3 9 8 42 16 13 4 1

Deans 506 1 3 11 9 44 15 10 2 0

Administrators 219 1 13 18 13 40 8 3 0 0

Figure 6: How important are research and undergraduate teaching to others at your University?(Means)

rt Faculty Unit Heads Deans Admin.===.12mmazic.

Faculty 17,184+ I Research (0.9) Research (1.3) Research (1.4)

Unit Heads 1,520+ Research (0.1) Research (0.7) Research (0.6)

Deans 423+ Equal Research (0.4) Research (0.5)

Administrators 203+ Teaching (0.1) Research (0.6) Research (0.9)

0 = balanced

PC'

IIISBN 0-87411-557-4

MT COPY AVAILABLE

document resume fd 350 967 author title teaching ...the goal of the sears project was to enhance...

Documents