The Incompatibility of Research & Teaching Page  컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴 Introduction There has been some lively debate recently concerning research and teaching activities in the university context. While some people have argued for the coexistence of teaching and research activities within the university (McCaughey, 1992), others have suggested that these activities, by virtue of their defining characteristics, are 'inescapably incompatible' (Barnett, 1992). Various opinions influencing the current debate include the claims that academics cannot undertake reputable peer recognised research as a part-time pursuit and that research skills and teaching skills are essentially mutually exclusive (Barnett, 1992; cf. Allen, 1988: 108-110). However, despite the effect of the defining characteristics pertaining to each activity, other factors govern the amount of research and teaching activity that can realistically be undertaken by an academic in a university environment. As Charles Belanger (1990) indicated, faculty performance and workload inequity can also determine the amount of research and teaching that occurs across a university. It is the contention here that while teaching and research are not necessarily incompatible, and that they should ideally coexist, the staffing formula utilised by some schools and departments within certain universities effectively renders research and teaching disparate activities. Such incompatibility is accentuated in the post-1987 universities for several reasons. This paper outlines these reasons and suggests that given the legitimate range of academic pursuits the notion of equitable workloads is deceptive. Types of Academic Pursuits The literature is reasonably consistent on the point that research, scholarship, teaching and service are legitimate academic pursuits (Ladd & Lipsett, 1972, 1976, 1976; Belanger, 1990). As a consequence of this, any assessment of an academic's overall performance should logically take into account the level of achievement across these areas. Arguably, all can be measured, and in terms of the categories of research and scholarship, a senior university manager recently suggested to me that 'if it didn't appear in the university's research report, it doesn't count'. Activity in the service category can also be verified, while teaching time is generally the driving force behind many departmental or school staffing formulas. The quality of academic pursuits, of course, varies, although research, scholarship, service and teaching pursuits have performance indicators. Teaching is subject to peer review and student feedback while the output and quality of research and scholarly activity each have their measures. With regard to research and scholarship, one candid measure of output requires no more than to count the number of quality publications (Jaunck & Glueck, 1975). The nature of academic endeavour is not exact, although interpretations of figures contained in a substantial survey of the workloads of North American academics (The Chronicle of Higher Education Almanac, 26 August, 1992: 16) has some relevance to Australian higher education. It could be argued that academic pursuits in the course of a working week are currently conceived of in terms of the time expended on various activities as follows: teaching related activities for between 40-55% of the time; researching and engaging in scholarly activities for between 25-35% of the time; and, undertaking service activities for between 15-30% of the time. This breakdown of academic pursuits seems to be consistent with previously suggested topologies of academic activity (cf. Belanger, 1990: 116). While academics ideally divide their time between these activities, the assigned or recognised workload of individual staff is generally determined by 'teaching time' and time off given to individual staff periodically in order for them to pursue duties above and beyond their normal service functions. In the School of Education at the University of Southern Queensland (USQ), for example, a quantitative approach is applied to determinations about workload allocation in which an academic's assigned workload is based on the notion of 1200 hours of teaching-related work each year. This figure includes preparation time, face-to-face time, marking time and time for coordinating a single subject. There is also an allowance for coordinating a course (e.g., a M Ed course). Nevertheless, several inequalities result when the formula is applied across the school because it is applied as if all staff performed similar teaching tasks. The formula is equally applied to determine assigned workloads regardless of the distinct differences between marking at the graduate and undergraduate level, the amount of assessment in a subject and the significant differences between teaching by internal and external mode. This assigned component is also applied equally, regardless of the productivity of staff in other areas. Nevertheless, given the actual workload an academic is required to undertake according to the position description of a Level B Academic [1], for example, the unapportioned component of the workload, which constitutes all those activities that go to make the university a place of higher learning, is not generally addressed when staffing formulas are applied. In the context of a position description, academics were once described by Clark Kerr (1973) as entrepreneurs held together by a common grievance over parking (in Allen, 1988). Despite its humorous overtones, the passage highlighted the entrepreneurial nature of many aspects of an academic's pursuits. It is at the level of this unapportioned activity that the academic can be seen as being an entrepreneur (cf. Belanger, 1990). The result of this entrepreneurial unassigned workload creates anomalies, and as a consequence of this, some staff can be seen to be disadvantaged. Belanger (1990) surmised that academics who were productive in their unassigned workload would be no less productive in their assigned workloads. From Belanger's study, it could be said that in the context of the overall performance of a university, one reading of the total indicators of productivity is that the few carry the many, although the benefits are shared equally. Method The conjecture that staff inequality results from the effects of the unapportioned workload was tested in a preliminary study of the output of the School of Education at USQ during the period 1990-1991. This was achieved adopting a simplified criteria for indicating academic performance which consisted of teaching, research, scholarship and service. These basic categories were further sub-divided in order to provide a more realistic indication of research and scholarly output across a range of activities in a post-1987 university as follows: (i) teaching; (ii) recognised publications; (iii) specialised international conference papers and/or conference papers converted to recognised publications; (iv) national and local conference papers; (v) external competitive grants or contracts; (vi) internal university wide competitive grants or contracts; (vii) internal school/departmental competitive grants; (viii) international and national high profile consultancies; (ix) service; and (x) supervision of completed masters and doctoral theses. In terms of the latter sub-division, however, given the developmental stage of many post-1987 institutions, this was not seen as a realistic indicator of performance. Assuming that teaching time would be in theory equal for all staff and that service to the community and university can be quantified, these categories were excluded from the study presented in this paper. During the two year period 1990-1991, the School of Education had approximately the equivalent of 44 full-time staff and several tutor supervisors in the practicum who could logically be expected to have engaged in a range of academic pursuits. Of course, determinations concerning the quality and relevance of this output must be considered problematic (cf. Moed et al., 1989). Nevertheless, these activities appear in the University Research Report, and as such, they are the official record of staff activity. The study was intended to reveal the level of individual staff input into securing recognised outcomes as well as indicate the total number of staff who were engaged in the pursuit of scholarship and research. This stands in contrast to approaches which seek to either rank research according to funding sources and amounts of money attracted to an institution or scholarly pursuits in terms of the stature of a journal in which an article was published. A recognised outcome was deemed to be a tangible result of research and scholarly activity. Such concrete examples included research reports, papers at seminars, refereed journal articles, books, edited books, other published material and conference papers. The identification of individual involvement can be an important process in an emerging research culture of a post-1987 university for several reasons. This process assists with the identification of neophyte researchers and scholars and provides a basis for providing encouragement and support. In the present harsh climate in terms of human, financial and physical resources, the process clearly identifies those members of staff who have demonstrated their productivity and capacity in the areas of research and scholarship. In estimating the levels of activity and productivity, in those case where three staff co-authored a conference paper, this was interpreted as the involvement of three staff in that activity. If a weighting is placed on the contributions of individual staff to a particular outcome, another set of figures emerged. Given that each recognised outcome is equal to one point, the level of individual involvement can be estimated by determining an individual's contribution to either a discrete project or the total productivity of the School of Education. For example, in the case where a staff member was a joint researcher with one other member of staff, each member was deemed to have contributed .5 of a point to the outcome [2]. In this sense, although one staff member may have been involved in several activities with no recognised outcome, an academic who was involved in only one activity and produced two recognised outcomes was interpreted as being far more productive. While this is, of course, a relatively unsophisticated and imperfect method, and takes no account of the quality or impact of the outcome, the source and amount of funds or whether the person actually contributed according to the weighting based on the information conveyed in the relevant research report, it nevertheless provides an indication of overall levels of staff involvement in certain types of academic pursuits [3]. This is an meaningful indicator in the developing research atmosphere of the post-1987 university. Results The information in Table 1 provides an overview of the specific outcomes in the light of the performance indicators of scholarship and research [4]. This information was ameliorated by a subjective interpretation and an informed reading [5] of the information contained in the University College of Southern Queensland's Annual and Research Reports (1990, 1991). Table 1 Output Indicators & Staff Involved in Pursuit 컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴 1990 % staff 1991 % staff involved involved in activity in activity 컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴 scholarship books 0 3 chapters in books 2 3 edited books 1 0 other published 0 1 refereed journal 3 9 other refereed 1 1 sub total 7 34% 16 34% conference papers international 2 2 national/local 31 21 sub total 33 29% 23 36% competitive research external fund 5 2 internal uni fund 1 0 school fund 1 1 non-competitive external fund 4 4 internal (in kind) 3 5 sub total 14 36% 12 34% consultancies 2 7% 1 2% The levels of overall staff involvement in the pursuit of research and scholarship was not high considering that the requirements set out in the position description for a Level B Academic include among other things, the pursuit of research and scholarly activities. Table 2 indicates the level of individual staff involvement in terms of that individual's contribution to the total outcomes in each of the areas of research, publications and the production of scholarly papers. Table 2 Productivity in Research & Scholarship 1990-1991 컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴컴 staff member(s) % of total involved School output (cumulative total) 1990 1991 Research 1 most productive 16% 19% 2 most productive 31% 32% 3 most productive 40% 43% 4 most productive 49% 52% 5 most productive 56% 60% 8 most productive 71% 81% Publications 1 most productive 29% 29% 2 most productive 54% 46% 3 most productive 69% 57% 4 most productive 76% 66% 5 most productive 83% 72% Papers 1 most productive 18% 23% 2 most productive 33% 36% 3 most productive 43% 44% 4 most productive 52% 53% 5 most productive 60% 61% 6 most productive 65% 66% In terms of research productivity in 1991, 8 individuals (or 18% of staff) accounted for 81% of total output. In the pursuit of recognised publications in the same year, 5 individuals (11% of staff) produced 72% of the output, while in the pursuit of producing and presenting scholarly papers, 6 individuals (13% of staff) accounted for 66% of the output. However, a closer analysis of the most productive in each of the areas of publications, research and papers in the period 1990-1991 reveals an identifiable section as opposed to a broad cross-section of staff who engaged in these academic pursuits. Discussion This comparison of productivity figures clearly indicates that in terms of research and scholarship, a relatively low percentage of staff account for the majority of output although all staff carried a similar assigned load, generally based on teaching and selected administrative duties. In this light, it would appear that the notion of an equitable distribution of workload seems misguided and must be of concern in post-1987 universities that have been forced to come to terms with revised mission statements which now include a research responsibility. Workloads are inequitable when viewed in the totality of academic pursuits, and this may lend some support to the claim that teaching and research are 'inescapably incompatible' activities even if similar skills and dispositions were required to successfully perform each activity, which itself is a dubious proposition. It may also be the case that those staff who have only been only marginally engaged in the range of non-teaching activities are also disadvantaged by the existing workload distribution. For example, a staff member who teaches by distance as opposed to internal mode may be unable to realistically engage in a range of academic pursuits even within the assigned workload due to differences in teaching by internal or external modes. Moreover, the level of information technology resources available to individual staff members will also impact on the assigned workload. Further investigation of these issues would be prudent. The idea of mentoring is also relevant in the context of post-1987 universities. However, it is very often the case that while staff who are experienced in research and scholarly activities are committed to the idea, assigned workloads do not take into account the significant time required to execute the additional tasks associated with being a mentor. Consequently, many staff simply do not have the time to engage in this extra level of activity under the present inequitable arrangements. In the post-1987 universities, the number of doctorates within a department or school as well as the number of those engaged in higher education studies will also influence the range and productivity associated with academic pursuits. It can therefore be expected that the more staff engaged in higher degree studies, the more productivity there would be in non-teaching pursuits such as the production of conference and seminar papers. Situations which produce inequitable workloads must be addressed in the light of models of university funding which allocate resources based on research performance (cf. Fransson, 1989). If funding is related to research output, then in the reality of the economics of the post-1987 university system, decision makers in universities, schools and departments may have no choice but to support those members of staff who have demonstrated a willingness to become involved in research and produced several recognised outcomes. It can be argued that this group deserve a measure of positive discrimination. Conclusions The effect of the unassigned workload creates inequality when the range of academic pursuits are taken into account and it is likely that this inequality factor will be accentuated in post-1987 universities. While the case study presented in this paper is of a limited scope, some preliminary conclusions can be made with regard to the post-1987 university environment. It is obvious from this study that some staff members are far more productive than others, with a minority of staff accounting for a majority of the research and scholarly output within the School of Education at USQ. However, as a cautionary note, further work would be required to determine whether the levels of productivity accomplished by some individuals in the areas of scholarship and research were achieved at the expense of other pursuits such as service and teaching related activities. While the assumption driving this study was that academics who were productive in their unassigned workload would be equally productive in their assigned workload, this assumption needs to be tested. Furthermore, there is a clear correlation between research and scholarly output and academic qualifications; of the eight most productive academics, six hold a PhD degree. There is another, perhaps less clear correlation between research output and experience in the wider university context; those staff members who are the most productive researchers and producers of scholarship have had experience at more established universities, even if it was only in the context of obtaining their PhD degrees. Despite the higher research and scholarly output of a minority of staff, in terms of the apportioning of workloads within the School, all staff are treated as equals. This factor alone would provide support for the claim that teaching and research activities should be separated. There would also appear to be a case for introducing more organised mentoring systems within the university, especially in the formative stages of creating a research environment. Needless to say, far more extensive research on the topic needs to be done in order to fully legitimate the speculation offered in this preliminary paper. A good starting point would be a wider study of current research output in the post-1987 universities, followed by some comparative work incorporating examples from the more established universities. Such a study should include all disciplines, in order to determine if significant differences exist in disciplines outside that of education. It might also be prudent to take into account the perceptions of both productive and relatively non-productive members of staff with regard to the apportioning of workloads. Finally, in the light of academic workloads, department and faculty heads need to be more fully conversant with the effects of the unassigned workload on individual members of staff, and develop staffing formulas which are genuinely equitable. These staffing formulas should take into account productivity factors over the range of academic pursuits. In terms of the issue of equity, there does seems to be a case for the separation of research and teaching activities within university departments and faculties based on relative performance indicators. This might be achieved by establishing a graduate school of research within faculties in a post-1987 university context to which staff could be attached from time to time on a competitive basis. NOTES [1] The position description for a Level B Academic indicates that the position involves pursuits that include teaching, service, research and scholarship, among other things (Position Description: Level B Academic, University of Southern Queensland, 11/91). [2] There was also the contribution of people external to the School or university to the outcomes in 1990-1991. This factor has been taken into account in determining the percentage of staff involvement in the activities. [3] The figures in Table 2 indicate a shift in academic pursuits in 1991 from producing conference papers to producing other forms of research and scholarship. [4] Of the remaining pursuits, 'research' has been interpreted in this paper in its broadest possible terms in the context of a post-1987 university. I have tended to favour a far less restrictive definition of research than the one contained in Allen (1988: 10). [5] In some university research reports, given the intricate nature of the communication process, the level of an individual's involvement and activity in a project may be either understated, overstated or even omitted. In some cases, a project may have been discontinued for any number of reasons. It would, therefore, appear expedient for academics to report only completed projects with recognised outcomes and list others as work in progress in department or school based reports. It could be argued that tighter controls are required in compiling university wide research reports. BIBLIOGRAPHY Allen, M. (1988). The Goals of Universities. Milton Keynes: Open University Press. Barnett, B. (1992). Teaching and Research are Inescapably Incompatible. The Chronicle of Higher Education. XXXVIII(39), 3 June, p. A40. Belanger, C. (1990). Faculty Performance and Workload Inequality. Higher Education Management. 2(2), pp. 115-123. Fransson, R. (1989). Resource Allocation Based on Evaluation of Research. In M. Kogan (Ed.). Evaluating Higher Education, London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers. Kogan, M. (Ed.). (1989). Evaluating Higher Education. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers. McCaughey, R. (1992). Why Research and Teaching can Coexist. The Chronicle of Higher Education. XXXVIII(48), 5 August p. A36. Moed, H., Burger, W., Frankfort, J. & van Raan, A. (1989). The Use of Bibliometric Data as Tools for University Research Policy. In M. Kogan (Ed.). Evaluating Higher Education, London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers. The Chronicle of Higher Education. (1992). Almanac. XXXIX(1), 26 August. University College of Southern Queensland. (1990). Annual and Research Report. UCSQ: Toowoomba. University College of Southern Queensland. (1991). Annual and Research Report. UCSQ: Toowoomba. University of Southern Queensland. (1990, 1992). Handbook. Toowoomba: USQ.