The Teaching And Research Balancing Act: Are Universities Teetering?
Universities are places of teaching and learning, but also of knowledge creation and discovery. Most people view the distinction of college vs. university as teaching vs. research, undergraduate-only vs. undergraduate and graduate/professional, liberal arts vs. comprehensive, or even small vs. large. And while there may be truth to some of these distinctions, the simplest explanation is that a college typically stands alone, whereas a university comprises multiple colleges or schools, and includes both undergraduate and graduate programs. There are of course exceptions to this simple rule, particularly seen in older colleges that have added schools and/or graduate programs but have resisted changing their name from a college to a university in the interests of tradition, alumni affinity, or even charter.
The distinction (and the balance) between teaching and research in the context of a higher education institution often is misrepresented and misunderstood. Remember that knowledge creation, not just knowledge dissemination, is one of the fundamental roles of universities. How is knowledge created? Through any one of a number of processes of exploration. Through research. Many inside and outside the academy view research as limited to the scientific fields (medicine, basic sciences, engineering). Such views are reinforced externally by funding agencies that make the most significant funds available for (the most costly) fields of scientific research. The annual budgets for the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the National Science Foundation (NSF) are about $42B and $8B, respectively. By contrast, the annual budgets for the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) and the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH) are about $160M each. But such views are also reinforced, and propagated, internally by university leaders who refer only to “research” rather than including the broader and more inclusive term of “scholarship.” Such messages diminish the work of scholars in other fields and leave them understandable feeling undervalued or marginalized. In fact, the university’s mission is knowledge creation, discovery, and dissemination of knowledge in all fields represented at the institution. Many universities and their leadership have moved to saying “research, scholarship, and creativity” when referring to this important role of the institution and its faculty, thereby including the important work of scholars in the humanities, social sciences, and the arts.
Universities that are comprehensive in nature (e.g., excluding liberal arts colleges, technical institutes, specialty colleges, graduate/professional-only colleges, etc.) have dual missions around teaching and research. These missions are often poorly understood by those outside the university (inclined to tally hours in the classroom or dollars raised for research). They are also often spoken of (reported, evaluated) separately by those inside the university, creating confusion, resentment, and leading to a lack of clarity around university priorities. In fact, this distinction or separation is unnecessary. It is artificial. And it is most certainly counter-productive.
Research and teaching (which includes scholarship and creative works) are two sides of the same coin: knowledge creation and dissemination. Proficiency in both is needed for the university to fulfill its mission and obligations to students and to society. Universities having faculty engaged in state-of-the-art research, leading-edge discovery, and creation of new works, are able to attract students seeking access to those opportunities as part of their university experience. They are able to attract philanthropic and competitive grant support for their impactful academic programs and research. They are able to create partnerships with industry to enhance their academic and research programs. They are able to partner with healthcare institutions in providing clinical programs and patient care, as well as learning opportunities for their students. The list goes on. Students benefit from learning from (and with) faculty engaged in research and scholarship, regardless of their discipline.
Where this argument, well-framed and well-intended, breaks down is when a faculty member is more interested in their research than teaching, or is more interested in supervising graduate students than teaching undergraduate students. While not widely reported, even a few such instances write the unfavorable narrative that those in research are not effective in teaching. And of course the corollary (great teachers are not successful in research) was similarly inevitable. University leaders will assert, correctly, that both statements are false, offering up example after example of great faculty members that excel at both teaching and research. They reserve their highest university awards and recognitions for these exemplar faculty.
But this points to another issue that higher education, and in particular research universities, must address in short order, given the mounting pressures (rising expectations, rising costs, diminishing resources, diminishing public support) higher education is facing today. It is no longer sufficient to effectively articulate the value of the research enterprise, whether to the institution and its students, or to the community and society more broadly. What may be needed now is (1) re-thinking of faculty classifications and expectations, and (2) a change in institutional culture that appropriately values, supports, and enables the success of faculty contributing to any of the institution’s mission priorities.
As universities have grown in mission, scope, budget, complexity, and services provided, expectations of faculty – and in particular those on the tenure-track working toward rank promotion and being granted academic tenure – have increased. The expectation for great teaching has given way to great teaching and engagement in scholarship (again, broadly defined). This has given way to great teaching and great research (as measured by scholarly publications and graduate students supervised). This has given way to great teaching and great research and being able to attract significant extramural funding. We then added new expectations around transferring that research to the broader public (tech transfer, outreach, professional practice, community engagement, so-called ‘broader impacts’). We then added expectations around student success, and then student recruitment, and then student retention, and then student satisfaction, and then student mental health and other support services.
This path is not sustainable. Faculty burnout and turnover will continue to increase as demands and expectations pile up. Ever increasing expectations for research throughput have left many faculty without time or energy to devote to being the best teachers they can be. And current faculty classifications and workloads have created a “class system” that divides faculty, creates conflict, and decreases productivity. This is neither efficient nor necessary.
Given that there is not likely to be a rollback to fewer and more focused expectations around teaching, research (and scholarship and creative works), and outreach (the third pillar of many academic institutions’ missions, especially public and religiously-affiliated universities) for faculty in the current system of faculty classifications, perhaps it’s time for the system to change.
Universities could create teaching-focused faculty, research-focused faculty, and even outreach-focused faculty. All could have expectations beyond their primary focus, but none would be expected to excel in all three. (Experience suggests universities will, in fact, see faculty excel in all three. But this will not be the expectation, removing pressures that lead to ineffective use of time, capacity, and expertise.) Faculty would be hired specifically into one of these categories, would be evaluated against an appropriate and clearly articulated set of criteria, and would have the opportunity to change categories if and when their interests or focus change. Advancement, promotion, other recognition opportunities must be equivalent across categories. The percentage of tenure-track vs. non-tenure track appointments, however, could vary by category. Professional development opportunities and other benefits must be equally available and faculty in all categories must be eligible for participation in governance and committee work at the department, college, and university levels. This creates the parity needed optimize both morale and effectiveness.
While some universities have moved to such a model (e.g., a teaching faculty track), few have maintained true parity/equity across tracks. In cases where universities employ (teaching-only) lecturers or instructors, there is evidence these faculty members do not enjoy the full benefits and privileges of their tenure-track colleagues. Such systems were responses to increased teaching loads resulting from decreasing state support, higher costs of instruction, and reduction in teaching loads for the most research-active faculty. They were not built strategically, but started with the (assumed immutable) existence of a tenure-track faculty, often teaching fewer classes.
Academic tenure grew out of a movement to ensure protections for faculty who may be working in fields or taking positions that were out of favor with the government or even popular opinion of the time. It became synonymous with academic freedom. Today it is meted out through a process of peer-assessment, both at the faculty member’s institution and at peer and often aspirant institutions. While expectations are typically conveyed for teaching excellence, research (scholarship) excellence, and “service” (a poorly defined catch-all category that includes department, college, and university-level service and even ‘citizenship’ as well as professional society/community service), most universities will place emphasis on teaching and research when evaluating tenure-track faculty for promotion and/or tenure. And most research universities will place the greatest emphasis on research input (grant proposals awarded, total grant dollars, PhD students and visiting scholars attracted) and output (publications, PhD students advised, national awards, grant proposals submitted).
Creating parallel tracks for faculty, with clear and reasonable expectations, each having ladder-promotion possibilities and comparable reward and recognition mechanisms, would benefit the university and the faculty members. It would tap into expertise where it resides, without forcing all faculty to excel against the same metrics in all areas, and would allow faculty to focus their energies into areas for which they have the greatest passion/interest. This would lead to greater success, more efficient use of talent, and improvement in morale as well as productivity.
Research and scholarship are elements of any university’s mission, for the right and enduring reasons. Dissemination of knowledge and instilling in students a passion for learning and discovery must also remain as priorities. Teaching and research must go hand-in-hand, and there are good reasons for service/outreach to be part of a university’s mission (serving the public or greater good). But we must not continue to expect each faculty member to excel in all areas at all times throughout their careers. This is inefficient, ineffective, breeds resentment and frustration, and can disenfranchise the very people universities count upon to fulfill their mission.
Serving the greater good requires individuals and organizations to be the best they can be. Long-standing systems such as faculty classifications, tenure, university structure, and even degrees and degree requirements can all benefit from periodic review and re-fresh. These must not hold universities back, but rather must be thoughtfully structured and optimized to enable the greatest success of individuals and the institution. Times change monotonically. There are few examples of reverting to previous conditions, in higher education or any other space. Universities often are tagged as being slow to respond, resistant to change, and having faculty loath to adapt or evolve. This is not universally true. There are more and more examples of universities pursuing innovative initiatives and adapting their structure and processes to accommodate change. Other universities must follow suit. This will require changing culture, reviewing and reaffirming mission, aligning expectations with expertise, developing people and talent, and changing the systems of recognition and reward.
To view article, please visit: https://apple.news/A6IfuYrUXQ-af8XsKxV8QUg