January.28.2019

Universities are investing in teaching at the expense of research. Here’s why we should fight it

By Lew Zipin and Marie Brennan

The will and vital capacity of Australian universities to support academics to combine teaching and research is under grave threat. Intensifying workloads—much of it kept invisible in workload models—short-change time and opportunity for research. And governing forces—within and beyond universities—have been moving to restructure investment in university labours towards teaching at the expense of research.

The Australian Government and university governing bodies are introducing policies to split research from teaching and expand teaching-only academic positions. If this trend persists, it won’t just be careers of younger academics that suffer. Disconnecting research from teaching, we argue, severely challenges how universities can contribute to sustainable social futures for Australian communities and globally.

We see need for collective political response to this crisis. In this post we diagnose what is happening and consider ways to fight back.

What is happening

The role of the current government

Federal Government policy is forcing this cultural change in our universities. Along with freezing funding to universities overall—pressuring university budgets and leading to fewer funded places for students—it has reduced funding for research by moving some of those funds to pay for additional student places in regional universities.

At the same time the Federal Government has introduced measures that rank each university’s scholarly outputs, fostering an environment of hyper-competition, and fateful choices, based on rankings. Universities are induced to strategize options for sustaining their reputations within tight budgets. Decisions are being made on where to direct reduced research funding: whether to employ fewer but ‘higher-producing’ researchers; and whether to cut down on domains of research focus: in effect, shifting some universities towards ‘teaching institution’ status.

Government typically justifies pressures towards teaching focus with simplistic rhetoric that student fees fund the lion’s share of university budgets, and ‘students need training in skills for knowledge economies’. We argue that our universities are, and need to be, much more than training centres for job seekers. Nor should universities be political footballs that governments kick, ideologically, at students facing insecure work futures: a problem that deserves complex and substantive policy and cross-sector efforts.

The role of consultancy firms

External consultancy firms currently play a political role in generating rationales for university Councils and Managements to invest more in teaching and less in research. Thus KPMG’s Reimagining Tertiary Education report, led by Stephen Parker, former University of Canberra Vice Chancellor, argues that, since the late 1980s Dawkins reform that created greater numbers of universities, not all have shown they can shine in both teaching and a range of research, and therefore some should focus more on ‘teaching excellence’. Similarly, a paper from the Nous Group proclaims:

Sooner or later we will need to face the issue of separating the cost of research from the funding of teaching places … [to] reduce the cost of teaching at bachelor level … [while] valuing great teachers within universities … The contemporary challenge is to provide great training, credentialing and educational service at an affordable price to the great middle of the post-school education population. The current system [provides to]… most of its participants based on the needs of the outlying 15 per cent and the experiences of their parents.

Such whistling-up of class distinction between a ‘great middle’ versus an elite ‘15 per cent’ fails to recognise that all university students, across their diversities, need researchful capacities to engage meaningfully with work and life challenges for their, and their communities’, futures in a precariously changing world.

The role of University Councils and Managements

There is no doubt universities feel the budget–pinch imposed by government policies. However, this does not justify how university Councils and Managements redistribute funds, labour and other resources away from the core university work of academic teaching, research and service, and into HR, Marketing, Legal and other offices.

They then try to turn ‘budget necessity’ into ‘pedagogic virtue’, as did the Vice Chancellor of Flinders University, Colin Stirling, in a radio interview by proclaiming:

Teaching specialists are a marvellous new opportunity for the very best educators to be in front of our students in our classrooms ensuring our students get the very best education possible.

Stirling gave no rationale for why teaching-only means ‘very best’ teaching, compared to academics whose teaching is informed by deep research/scholarship in disciplinary areas. Similar flimsy rhetoric has been reported from senior managers at Murdoch, Curtin and Victoria universities where restructures to replace many teaching-and-research academics with teaching-only staff have already taken place.

Why splitting research and teaching is a bad idea

We suggest that all university students need to graduate with researchful capacities to analyse and act in relation to emergent-future challenges that they, with others, face in spaces of work and wider community life. Indeed, many professions now require student research projects in order to accredit relevant university programs. Students thus need teachers who themselves engage in research.

Removal of researchers to isolated havens, away from teaching-only staff, debilitates both the research and teaching cultures of universities. Academics need healthy communities of teaching informed by research/scholarship, in which they partake, in order to model and impart the knowledge capacities and passions that university graduates need for navigating work and social futures.

This is what has, and should, distinguish university culture: a teaching-research nexus, embodied in a goodly number of teaching-and-research academics.

If the portion of university academics who combine teaching with research continues to shrink, this threatens futures of younger-generation academics who want research as part of their careers, which in turn threatens re-generation of the university sector. We already see numbers of promising academics who quit universities due to pressures, in early years, either to produce at ‘alpha’ research rates while handling large teaching workloads, or face relegation to non-research and insecure employment categories.

The combination of research and teaching is a unique way that universities contribute to social advancements. Research is an invaluable connector between academics, students, and local-global communities, which need sustaining so that all can benefit.

The way our universities work matters to all of us

We do not argue for a romanticised ‘collegial university of the past’. We want academics, students and communities, in connection, to imagine and create universities that best serve local and planetary futures. We believe splitting research from teaching does not advance university contributions to social futures, but is a backward step, breaking connections at a time when building them is vital to futures.

Social futures currently face many broad-based crises including un(der)employment, environmental damage, refugees fleeing chronic wars, governments losing purpose and effectiveness, and more. Universities, in mutually informing dialogue with students and communities, can play crucial roles in helping all to understand and pro-act as citizens able to address big-picture crises and associated local-life problems.

To do this, universities need to foster methodological approaches that connect research, teaching and community service, so as to expand the abilities of diverse social groups to work with an informative range of knowledge in defining and pursuing their needs and aspirations. Robust teaching-and-research academic cultures are needed to fit this purpose.

What can we do about it?

This is a critical historical juncture for university futures. We suggest four fronts for academic political action.

First is research-and-teaching practice in which academics collaborate with students and their communities on projects that matter to all involved. In this process, we can consult widely about what kinds of universities diverse Australians need and desire for their futures.

Second, in connection with the first, is to mobilise students and communities to join us in challenging governance constraints on how universities can inform and serve their best interests. We should work with our constituencies to recognise undue political machinations and communicate to wider publics how the quality of both research and teaching in Australian universities is under threat.

We need to encourage informed publics that join us in defining social purposes for Australian universities. These purposes are too important to be steered by politicians for political gain, or university Managements caught up in saving budget or competing for advantage in unfortunate market-competition with other universities.

Third is to pursue an inter-generational politics of academic bodies, with especial care for early-career academics who embody the future of university disciplines, institutions and the sector. Those of us who have had research opportunity need to stretch beyond small-scale things we do for younger colleagues, such as taking a few ‘promising’ early scholars under our wings in research projects. We need to challenge governance across the sector to expand early-career research time and opportunity within fair workloads. Older academics need to learn from younger colleagues about how they experience changing university cultures, so that, from multi-generational standpoints, we can build stronger analyses and answers to shifts in academic work and governance.

Fourth is to spur our research organisations, in this case AARE, to help us take action. Within universities, academics are at significant risk of reprisals if vocally critical of workforce restructures. We need support from organisations of mass membership, such as the AARE, which are not subject to control by university Councils, Managements or party politics.

We are heartened that, at an AGM at the 2017 AARE annual conference, those attending overwhelmingly endorsed a motion for the AARE to become politically active about threats to futures in education research per se, and reaching out to organisations representing other academic research fields. The AARE followed up by supporting a working party that organised a special session at the 2018 AARE conference, where participating members discussed ideas for next steps. The working party will report to AARE members about this session, and a survey stemming from it, in the near future.

We encourage AARE submission to the current Review of the Higher Education Provider Category Standards, led by Peter Coaldrake (former Vice Chancellor at Queensland University of Technology), articulating membership concerns about university research futures. Submissions to the Review are due by 5.00pm on 8 March 2019.

Finally, we encourage greater media savvy, and stronger academic connections with students and wider publics, towards making an effective case for expanding rather than contracting research, and the teaching-research nexus, in Australian universities.

Lew Zipin is Adjunct Senior Research Fellow in the School of Education at the University of South Australia, and Extraordinary Professor in the Department of Educational Policy Studies at Stellenbosch University, South Africa. Lew’s research focuses on developing curriculum that ‘does justice’ by engaging the knowledge, intelligence, and future-oriented aspirations of students from power-marginalised communities. He is also a critical analyst of university governance in relation to democratic ethics. Across three Australian universities, Lew has been an activist for academic workload models that measure work honestly, sustain work-life balance and extend research opportunity to more staff.

Marie Brennan is an Honorary Life Member of AARE, Adjunct Professor at the University of South Australia and Extraordinary Professor at Stellenbosch University, South Africa. She worked as a humanities teacher, curriculum researcher and senior administrator in the Victorian Department of Education in the 1970s and 1980s. After gaining her PhD, she moved to the university sector in 1991, with stints at Deakin, Central Queensland, Canberra, University of South Australia (where she had a five-year term as Dean of Education) and Victoria University, Melbourne. Now ‘retired’, she remains active in research, covering all sectors of education, with particular emphasis on questions of injustice.

5 thoughts on “Universities are investing in teaching at the expense of research. Here’s why we should fight it

  1. Jane kenway says:

    Important intervention. Take heed all,particularly the suggestions for action.

  2. Janine T says:

    The Productivity Commission 2017 report (referenced in the PCS discussion paper) notes that “there is limited evidence that teaching quality is improved by universities jointly undertaking research and teaching (the ‘teaching research nexus’)”. This post reflects that, failing to demonstrate through research that students at universities, taught by researchers, receive a better quality education and better outcomes. There is also no evidence provided on why academics who research are better teachers, or how having researchers who teach benefits society. Surely this should be provided as a basis for the call to arms?

  3. Lew Zipin & Marie Brennan says:

    Hi Janine. We have indeed searched for empirical scholarship on the teaching-research nexus. Our searches show varied ‘evidence’, both ‘for’ and ‘against’. The Productivity Commission report is one take on ‘evidence’, proceeding from what we would call ‘governing’ assumptions about purposes for university research and teaching, and also assumptions about what constitutes ’empirical evidence’ for judging ‘effective’ connection. This can become prophecy-fulfilling. For example, if universities are in a condition where staff must publish at a very high rate, while handling heavy teaching workloads, in order to be selected as ‘research academics’, then of course the few who ‘succeed’ in these terms are not likely to have time to teach well and satisfy students. If the ‘effectiveness’ of a teaching-research nexus is then measured by correlating academic output and student satisfaction, it fulfils the prophecy. Nor, for that matter, will staff made teaching-only, but given acute workloads (including much that is invisible in models governing workload allocation), correlate well with student satisfaction. As we argued in our posting, much depends on fair workloads that enable good teaching-and-research in a healthy balance.

    We also argued in our posting that much depends on a university’s institutional-cultural orientation to how ‘research’ and ‘teaching’ connect. As we said, we do not argue for a traditional orientation to research, or teaching, disconnected from needs and aspirations for futures among students and their communities. A university’s cultural-institutional orientation, in terms of academic labours, involves crucial questions of how staff teaching-and-research ought to connect with student and community priorities. There are studies that give evidence of greater satisfaction when such connection is strong. (EduResearch Matters is not an ‘academic’ blog; i.e. it is not appropriate here to list such studies; but they are readily found through well-termed searches in Google Scholar or other such websites.)

    We would add that, currently, there are not a lot of university spaces where workload and orientation support a good teaching-research balance; so it is important to keep in mind that big reports giving ‘evidence’, especially generated from governing bodies, do not give evidence of how things could work under better conditions (work conditions are often ignored in the reports). In the meantime, the current pace of university contraction of research overall, and of the proportion of academic staff who get to do any research at all, need study in terms of effects on staff, student and community satisfaction. We suggest that these contractions are not motivated by ‘evidence’ but by governing pressures of budget constraint, performance criteria, market-competition and so on.

  4. Andrew Miller says:

    University cultures are under threat as more punitive managements are clawing control away from staff and students and locating all power in over-paid VCs and senior executives. Universities used to be communities of scholars, students, and staff, all dynamically invested in the governance and health of democratic and participatory cultures. The damaging ways university managements today are severing teaching/research academics away from undertaking both research and teaching, and forcing many into teaching-only roles (or be made redundant) is poisoning those once dynamic and democratic cultures. Most staff are forced into teaching-only roles as they have little option but accept their fate (or else risk losing their jobs). The Flinders University restructure has been deeply damaging to the living culture of that community. Make no mistake: these management-led restructures are about seizing control of universities and stealing from the common good. Universities must serve the public interest, not the private interests of VC and Councils. We need to a detailed and robust conversation about what will be lost once the teaching/research nexus is broken and once senior management take complete control of our beloved universities. The question is: ‘Whose universities are they?’ Theirs or ours?

  5. Lew Zipin & Marie Brennan says:

    Hi Andrew. Thanks for highlighting the focal problem of institutional governance. It is the case that governance in universities has shifted towards over-control. Management virtually silences staff through highly top-down and regulated ‘consultation’ processes about strategic plans and restructures, while marketing its plans at students and communities rather than informing, hearing and learning from them. The result is a lack of combined and mutually corrective wisdoms. Simplistic strategies are then thrown down into the complex grounds of university core work – teaching, research and community service – with a multiplying of unintended and mostly negative consequences. A ground-upward politics that pursues well-resourced and well-integrated teaching, research and community service does need to address the problem of this unwise mode of Council-Management governance. We need to work towards democratic modes in which those in institutional leadership positions listen and learn from across the range of staff, students and publics for whom universities matter. Recent workforce restructuring at Flinders certainly does illustrate the problem of governance that imposes change, while foreclosing informed democratic dialogue.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.