editorially speaking The Compatibility of Teaching and Research The teaching and research activities expected of university faculty and some college faculty mutually re-enforce each other according to conventional wisdom. In effect, the areument is that eood researchers are good teachers because the research process allows them to bring a critical vitalitv to the classroom. But does i t really? Nearly two decades ago C. P. Snow called attention to what has since become fact, namely, that modem learning was dividing into two distinctly separate foci--one centered on arts and humanities and one on the sciences. Not only have two different cultures arisen in most modem universities, the artshumanities and the sciences also frequently have different administrations, budgets, sources of financial support, and even academic standards. .. Some would contend that universities have b e a n to divide again, this time into a part concerned with uGdergraduate education and a part devoted to full-time research and graduate education. The most obvious sign of this new division is the increasinrc amount of teaching done in all disciplines by nou-tenure-track t e a ~ h e r s ~ i n s t r u c t o r s , graduate students, and semi-permanent visiting lecturers. The signals portending this division are clear and strong in some institutions. Independent programs whose main mission is teaching have been created within universities. For example, writing programs have been created that are distinct from Enelish de~artmentsand are staffed bv non-tenure track personnef Anumber of institutions have even created remedial programs with similar characteristics. Indeed, some institutions are developing separate teaching colleges within their overall structure that employ faculty solely on tenure-track teaching appointments, even thoueh the criteria for promotion and meribbased rewards are not yet well-formuiated. Other factors have also contributed to the perception that universities are beginning to divide along teaching and research lines. For example, many of the requirements for the development of high-quality undergraduate educational programs in the sciences, whether they be for the education of scientists or nonscientists. are fundamentallv incompatible with the current expec&tions necessary foi facultv to secure tenure. Tenure decisions in the sciences are now based, for the most part, on the magnitude of exderived from ternal erant sumort. . . . . scholarlv. reputation publications, and status in the academic, research communitv. This research-oriented culture is driven primarily by t h e faculty, which controls hiring and tenure decisions. Such activities are, of course, supported and encouraged by the administration, which has bought into the prestige-oriented value system developed by the faculty. From one point of view, this situation is not only self-serving, i t is self-fulfilling. The following advice, which was recently given to eager, young, junior faculty at a national meeting by well-known senior faculty, is illustrative.
-
Don't spend too much time teaching. It is fun, but it plays a minor role in career advancement. It is also very time-consumine. Participate as little as possible in committees such as admissions and curriculum planning. Such participation plays even less of a role in career advancement than does teaching.
-
-
-
~~~~
~
-
~
Even if teaching were valued in the university, the reauirements of a research culture are basically incompatidle with the demands of undergraduate teaching.- he quantity and quality of research needed to establish and maintain a significant reputation among peers is not a part-time pursuit. The complimentary statement is also true of undergraduate teaching. Each activity requires the full-time, or essentially full-time, attention of dedicated faculty. There are few-"renaissance persons" in the academic world, and those that do exist are not necessarily idealistic enough to carry this double load given the current value system. Our rauidlv changing technological society is requiring peater !&lowledgennd-competen&among pebple 2 a time when there are persistent deficiencies in primary and semndary education. .Many undergraduates amve on campus less prepared than their immediate predecessors. The challenees uf undermaduate teachine arc manlfold and growing. Teachers must make increasing commitments to the development of more effective teaching strategies, and they must devote more time to teaching. Conditions have cons~iredto exact neater commitment and to demand more t:me from both reachers and researchers in order to he successful. Indeed, the characteristics of a good researcher in today's academic world are probably inimical to good undergraduate teaching. Research reputations are most oRen built on intensive work in a very narrow subs~ecialtv.but the needs of undermaduates are best sewed dya broad exposure and an integrated view of the knowledge imparted. Alife spent writing papers for research-oriented journals and proposals for grant support does not necessarily dispose faculty toward excellence in undergraduate teaching. Clearly, the number of individuals who are capable of ~ e r f o m i n ewell both of the activities - teach in^ undergraduates and research- currently expected of university faculties is small. Effective leadership must seek ways that will allow a department as a whoG to carry out both functions, instead of insisting that each member of the department do both and "pretending" to take both into account in individual performance evaluations. Contrihutions to a department's activities in both of these areas must be equally valued. We can no longer pit one activity against the other, even if the tension that has developed occurs within the minds of only some individuals. Somehow we must devise effective ways to make apples equivalent to oranges.
-
~~
-
-
-
JJL
Volume 69 Number 8 August 1992
603
