We are probably all familiar with the phrase ‘publish or perish’ as a way of describing the pressure in academia for proliferous publication. Being published offers tangible evidence of a scholar’s academic prowess, bringing attention (and, perhaps more importantly, funding) not only to them but to their academic institution.
Amongst academic circles it is generally perceived that concentrating on teaching usually results in fewer publications, thus risking being looked over when it comes to securing a promotion or permanent contract.[1] This is to say that it is often the case that teaching is seen as a hindrance to career progression in Higher Education. This is hardly surprising given the greater prestige awarded to research-lead institutions, as opposed to teaching-focused universities.
One of the roots of the problem seems to be that whereas research output is easily quantifiable (i.e. you can count how many papers are published per person per year), the quality of an individual’s teaching is much more subjective and dependent on a large number of variables:
it seems easier to judge individuals on the basis of papers they turn out than to judge them on the basis of their interaction with other people. A graduate student’s performance in comprehensive examinations is said to provide ‘hard’ evidence of his competence, while visits to his classes provide only ‘soft’ evidence. A professor’s book can be evaluated in ‘objective’ terms, whereas his courses, syllabi, lectures, and examination questions can be valued only ‘subjectively’.[2]
It has been argued that a department’s or university’s research publications are the most valuable commodity they have.[3] The REF in particular quantifies an institution’s research outputs, the results of which are used as a basis for allocating funding. Thus, academics who are widely published secure greater professional advantages than those whose focus is on teaching.[4] This is not to say that assessments of research quality are not in their own way subjective but only that one’s perceived success in this field, or lack thereof, can be more easily assessed than one’s abilities as an educator.
Assessments of teaching are, by their very nature, highly subjective. Its outputs are less tangible and much more difficult to quantify. Of course, we have methods by which we can attempt to measure teaching quality, e.g. student attendance, student grade performance, student evaluation forms etc., these methods of assessment are in many ways problematic. Student attendance and performance are affected by a number of variables, not just the quality of the person leading the class. Even student evaluation forms are not guaranteed routes to objective appraisal. A study by Lilian MacNell, Adam Driscoll and Andrea N. Hunt (2014) indicated that undergraduates taking online courses often gave better evaluations of tutors they believed to be male, even when they are female.
What, then, is the effect of all this on teaching in Higher Education? Does the pressure to publish de-incentivise academics from spending more time teaching students? What can we do to change this? Although I do not have any definitive answers, I would like to suggest that HE institutions should try ensure that the rewards for outstanding teachers are on a par with their research counterparts, both monetarily and in terms of professional status. This would incentivise those who would normally focus on their research to take some time out to share their expertise with the next generation of learners. Of course, this would involve a massive change in university culture as a whole; however, it is my argument that until an academic’s contribution to teaching is given equal status to their research output, this untenable imbalance will continue.
Bibliography
Diamond, R. M. 1999. Aligning Faculty Awards with Institutional Mission: Statements, Policies and Guidelines. Boston: Anker Publishing.
Finkelstein, M. J., R.K. Seal and J. Schuster. 1998. The New Academic Generation: A Profession in Transition. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.
MacNell, L., A. Driscoll and A.N. Hunt. 2014. ‘What’s in a Name: Exposing Gender Bias in Student Ratings of Teaching’ Innovative Higher Education (Online First Article) [Available via http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10755-014-9313-4]
Jencks, C. and D. Riesman. 1968. The Academic Revolution. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
Schuster, J. H. and M.J. Finkelstein. 2006. The American Faculty: The Restructuring of Academic Work and Careers. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.
Slaughter, S., and L.L. Leslie. 1997. Academic Capitalism: Politics, Policies and the Entrepreneurial University. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.
[1] Schuster and Finkelstein 2006; Finkelstein, Seal and Schuster 1998. [2] Jencks and Riesman 1986: 531. [3] Diamond 1999. [4] Slaughter and Leslie 1997.
Amongst academic circles it is generally perceived that concentrating on teaching usually results in fewer publications, thus risking being looked over when it comes to securing a promotion or permanent contract.[1] This is to say that it is often the case that teaching is seen as a hindrance to career progression in Higher Education. This is hardly surprising given the greater prestige awarded to research-lead institutions, as opposed to teaching-focused universities.
One of the roots of the problem seems to be that whereas research output is easily quantifiable (i.e. you can count how many papers are published per person per year), the quality of an individual’s teaching is much more subjective and dependent on a large number of variables:
it seems easier to judge individuals on the basis of papers they turn out than to judge them on the basis of their interaction with other people. A graduate student’s performance in comprehensive examinations is said to provide ‘hard’ evidence of his competence, while visits to his classes provide only ‘soft’ evidence. A professor’s book can be evaluated in ‘objective’ terms, whereas his courses, syllabi, lectures, and examination questions can be valued only ‘subjectively’.[2]
It has been argued that a department’s or university’s research publications are the most valuable commodity they have.[3] The REF in particular quantifies an institution’s research outputs, the results of which are used as a basis for allocating funding. Thus, academics who are widely published secure greater professional advantages than those whose focus is on teaching.[4] This is not to say that assessments of research quality are not in their own way subjective but only that one’s perceived success in this field, or lack thereof, can be more easily assessed than one’s abilities as an educator.
Assessments of teaching are, by their very nature, highly subjective. Its outputs are less tangible and much more difficult to quantify. Of course, we have methods by which we can attempt to measure teaching quality, e.g. student attendance, student grade performance, student evaluation forms etc., these methods of assessment are in many ways problematic. Student attendance and performance are affected by a number of variables, not just the quality of the person leading the class. Even student evaluation forms are not guaranteed routes to objective appraisal. A study by Lilian MacNell, Adam Driscoll and Andrea N. Hunt (2014) indicated that undergraduates taking online courses often gave better evaluations of tutors they believed to be male, even when they are female.
What, then, is the effect of all this on teaching in Higher Education? Does the pressure to publish de-incentivise academics from spending more time teaching students? What can we do to change this? Although I do not have any definitive answers, I would like to suggest that HE institutions should try ensure that the rewards for outstanding teachers are on a par with their research counterparts, both monetarily and in terms of professional status. This would incentivise those who would normally focus on their research to take some time out to share their expertise with the next generation of learners. Of course, this would involve a massive change in university culture as a whole; however, it is my argument that until an academic’s contribution to teaching is given equal status to their research output, this untenable imbalance will continue.
Bibliography
Diamond, R. M. 1999. Aligning Faculty Awards with Institutional Mission: Statements, Policies and Guidelines. Boston: Anker Publishing.
Finkelstein, M. J., R.K. Seal and J. Schuster. 1998. The New Academic Generation: A Profession in Transition. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.
MacNell, L., A. Driscoll and A.N. Hunt. 2014. ‘What’s in a Name: Exposing Gender Bias in Student Ratings of Teaching’ Innovative Higher Education (Online First Article) [Available via http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10755-014-9313-4]
Jencks, C. and D. Riesman. 1968. The Academic Revolution. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
Schuster, J. H. and M.J. Finkelstein. 2006. The American Faculty: The Restructuring of Academic Work and Careers. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.
Slaughter, S., and L.L. Leslie. 1997. Academic Capitalism: Politics, Policies and the Entrepreneurial University. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.
[1] Schuster and Finkelstein 2006; Finkelstein, Seal and Schuster 1998.
[2] Jencks and Riesman 1986: 531.
[3] Diamond 1999.
[4] Slaughter and Leslie 1997.