This article was downloaded by: [Uppsala universitetsbibliotek]On: 18 November 2014, At: 15:18Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Teaching in Higher EducationPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cthe20

Struggling to handle teaching andresearch: a study on academic workat select universities in the ChineseMainlandManhong Laia, Ping Dub & Linlin Lica Department of Educational Administration and Policy, Faculty ofEducation, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kongb School of Education, Beijing Normal University, Beijing, Chinac Institute of Higher Education, East China Normal University,Shanghai, ChinaPublished online: 21 Aug 2014.

To cite this article: Manhong Lai, Ping Du & Linlin Li (2014) Struggling to handle teaching andresearch: a study on academic work at select universities in the Chinese Mainland, Teaching inHigher Education, 19:8, 966-979, DOI: 10.1080/13562517.2014.945161

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2014.945161

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &

Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Upp

sala

uni

vers

itets

bibl

iote

k] a

t 15:

18 1

8 N

ovem

ber

2014

Struggling to handle teaching and research: a study on academic workat select universities in the Chinese Mainland

Manhong Laia*, Ping Dub and Linlin Lic

aDepartment of Educational Administration and Policy, Faculty of Education, The ChineseUniversity of Hong Kong, Hong Kong; bSchool of Education, Beijing Normal University, Beijing,China; cInstitute of Higher Education, East China Normal University, Shanghai, China

(Received 2 October 2013; accepted 25 June 2014)

In order to raise the international reputation and quality of higher education in China,the Ministry of Education initiated new university employment reform, which pressedacademics to produce more research. Recent employment reform has aggravated theconflict between teaching and research. This study uses mixed methods to investigatehow academics perceived the employment reform and how they employed variousstrategies to handle teaching and research. Our study indicates a trend of deprofessio-nalization in academic work and an increasing tension between teaching and research.Handling teaching and research required a strong and conscientious effort on the partof academics. Concerted efforts should be made to offer a more supportive environ-ment for academics to balance teaching and research.

Keywords: academics’ work life; employment reform; teaching and research

Introduction

In China, higher education has been viewed as the most important apparatus for nationaldevelopment. In order to raise the educational quality and academic standing of highereducation institutions, the Ministry of Education carried out a new employment reform,launching a system of employment practices based on performance and contract. It hasposed a new set of challenges for academic work, particularly with regards to handlingteaching and research.

This research is guided by three major questions:

(1) How have academics perceived the impact of recent employment reform ontheir work?

(2) How have academics viewed the relationship of research and teaching underrecent employment reform?

(3) What strategies have been used to handle teaching and research duties, and howhave these strategies been employed?

These questions are derived from the major challenges faced by academics at universitiesin China under the above new reform. Using mixed methods, and with reference to thequestions listed above, a survey with two-stage sampling on the work life of academics in

*Corresponding author. Email: mhlai@cuhk.edu.hk

Teaching in Higher Education, 2014Vol. 19, No. 8, 966–979, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2014.945161

© 2014 Taylor & Francis

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Upp

sala

uni

vers

itets

bibl

iote

k] a

t 15:

18 1

8 N

ovem

ber

2014

nine universities has been conducted. The nine sample universities consist of a first-tieruniversity, a second-tier university, and ordinary universities. In the second stage, weconducted in-depth qualitative research at three sample universities by purposivesampling from the above nine universities. The three sample universities include onefirst-tier, one second-tier, and one ordinary university. The investigation of four separatedepartments within each sample university helps to illuminate varying opinions amongdepartments. The findings show that academics at different tier universities had differentperceptions on employment reform and ways to handle teaching and research.

This paper consists of six parts. Following the introduction, the current debate onchanges to academic work life and the relationship of teaching and research are reviewed.The third section is a summary of the major higher education reforms in China. Fourth,the research method is discussed. Next is a discussion of the research findings, answeringthe three questions posed above. Finally, the conclusion offers a summary of the majorfindings of the research.

Major challenges for academics in recent years

Many countries have sought to raise the quality of their higher education systems in orderto strengthen their competitiveness in the global economy. Unfortunately, factors such ascontract employment, an increased workload, and low morale have led to crises inacademia in many countries. Deprofessionalisation, bureaucratization, and marginaliza-tion are frequently used terms to describe the negative consequences of ongoing changesto the external conditions of academics’ work (Altbach and Finkelstein 1997). Mostacademics have reported a decrease in autonomy and a deterioration of work conditions(Tierney 2003; Kolsaker 2008). A culture of auditing and managerialism has lead to amore disheartened and exploited workforce (By, Diefenbach, and Klarner 2008).

Recent research has emphasized that the new managerial reforms in higher educationhave accelerated the conflict between teaching and research. Studies conducted inWestern societies have delineated different relations between teaching and research. First,some studies have found that given academics’ limited amount of time and energy, itmakes more sense for them to focus on research instead of teaching (Lucas 2007; Young2006). Second, some studies have demonstrated that teaching is the prime commitmentfor most academics (Ramsden and Moses 1992; Hannan and Silver 2000). Third, thevarious ways of integrating teaching and research have been much discussed (Brew 2006;Griggs 2005; Robertson 2007). Some have argued that teaching and research arepositively correlated (Brew 2006; Griggs 2005). They consider the two roles to bemutually enriching, stating that in practice the two often tend to merge (Brown 2005;Hughes 2005). Therefore, they see it as a joint enterprise. Brew (1999) and Robertson andBond (2001) viewed teaching and research as a ‘symbiotic relationship.’ Furthermore,some have reported the existence of a nexus between research and teaching (Neumann1992; Gottlieb and Keith 1997), such as a teaching-led research nexus (Brew and Weir2004) or a research-led teaching nexus (Robertson 2007).

A fourth interpretation of the relationship is that the common belief that research andteaching are entwined is an enduring myth (Feldman 1987; Hattie and Marsh 2002).Barnett (1992) argued that research is an entirely different enterprise from teaching.Young (2006) and Brew (1999) found that the bureaucratic funding model helped toenlarge the distinction between teaching and research and had a negative influence on thestatus of teaching. Some research reported an increasing tension between the two

Teaching in Higher Education 967

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Upp

sala

uni

vers

itets

bibl

iote

k] a

t 15:

18 1

8 N

ovem

ber

2014

activities (Kinchin and Hay 2007; Leisyte, Enders, and Boer 2009). Given the variousinterpretations, change in policy context has given an increased urgency to questionsabout the new relationship between teaching and research (Brew 1999).

This study will put the above discussion in the specific context of the ChineseMainland, to participate in the discussion on academics’ perceptions on employmentreform, the relationship of teaching and research, and strategies to balance the two.

Recent reforms in higher education in China

The role of higher education reform in helping to raise China’s international competi-tiveness has been restated in the recent major reform policy. In order to raise theinternational reputation of Chinese higher education, the Ministry of Education initiated‘Project 211’ and ‘Project 985.’ ‘Project 211,’ which was launched in 1995, aimed tomobilize the resources of local governments to develop the best 100 universities in thenation (MOE 1995). ‘Project 985,’ which was launched in 1998, aimed to develop around30 world-class universities by subsidizing RMB 1.8 billion for the top two universitiesover three years (MOE and MOF 2004).

Higher education in China has experienced great expansion since 1999. In 2010, theenrollment rate of eligible students reached 26.5% (People’s Daily, March 29, 2011).However, this rapid expansion has generated a number of problems, most notably a rapiddrop in educational quality (Huang 2005; Yan 2006). To address the quality crisis and toraise the international reputation of higher education, the Ministry of Education initiated areform of the personnel systems in higher educational institutions, launching a newsystem of performance- and contract-based employment practices (CCP 1993). Thereform aimed to fully mobilize teacher enthusiasm by closely linking performance andincome. Faculty salaries became directly tied to research performance, which was calcu-lated by teaching hours, amount of research funding, and number of publications innational or international high-ranking journals. The findings presented in the remainder ofthis paper will discuss how academics have perceived the employment reform andhandled teaching and research under the new measures.

Research method

This project used a mixed methods approach. First, the quantitative part examinedacademics’ perceptions on work life. Second, the qualitative part revealed how academics’perceptions of work life affected their handling of teaching and research. This researchwas guided by three major research questions:

(1) How have academics perceived the impact of recent employment reform ontheir work?

(2) How have academics perceived the relationship of research and teaching underrecent employment reform?

(3) What strategies have been used to handle teaching and research duties, and howhave these strategies been employed?

The quantitative study used a two-stage sampling method. First, we chose nineuniversities, including comprehensive, science, and technology, as well as normal universities,while also covering three different levels or tiers. The first level consisted of ‘985’ universities

968 M. Lai et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Upp

sala

uni

vers

itets

bibl

iote

k] a

t 15:

18 1

8 N

ovem

ber

2014

directly operated by Ministry of Education. The second level was the ‘211’ universitiesoperated by the local government. The third level consisted of ordinary universities operatedby the local government. The nine universities reflect the major types of Chinese university.Second, in the survey, professors were selected from four major fields: humanities and socialsciences, sciences, engineering, and business. Each school was stratified, sampling for 50% ofprofessors engaged in teaching and research, and 1770 valid questionnaires were collected.

For the qualitative part of the study, we used purposive sampling, with threeuniversities chosen as the sites of investigation: a first-tier university operated by theMinistry of Education and a participant in Project ‘985’; a second-tier university thattakes part in Project ‘211’ (which is mainly sponsored by the local government); and anordinary university operated by the local government. In China, a university’s rankingdetermines how much it receives in financial resources. Within each university, fourdepartments – Business and Management, Information Technology, Education, andPhysics – have been selected. The resources of different departments affect academicautonomy and response to the employment reform. Our past research (Lo, Li, and Lai2011; Li, Lo, and Lai 2012; Lu et al. 2010) also found that the time academics devoted toteaching and research differed according to academic ranking. In this study, fiveacademics in each department were interviewed for a total of 60 interviewees. Amongthe five informants, two professors, two associate professors, and one lecturer wereselected.

Findings

Informants perceived that the new employment reform placed pressure on academicwork. Academics highlighted the conflict between teaching and research. Mostinformants chose to conform and spend their time on research. They reflected thatteaching and research could only be balanced by individual commitment.

A trend of deprofessionalization of academic work

In recent years, many Chinese universities have launched employment reform, leading toa trend of academic deprofessionalization. Deprofessionalization refers to reducing aprofessional’s autonomy and control over his or her work (Hoyle 2006). In our survey atnine universities, scholars indicated that their greatest pressure came from the need toreceive research funding and publish papers in international journals. Academics reportedthey had no choice but to comply. Using a 5-point scale (with 1 = strongly disagreeand 5 = strongly agree), academics surveyed on their university’s promotion processindicated an explicit emphasis on receiving research funding (N = 1556, Mean 4.05) andon research output (N = 1512, Mean 3.79). Teaching quality received less attention(N = 1502, Mean 3.51), and social service was ranked as least important in the appraisalsystem (N = 1483, Mean 2.92) (please refer to Table 1). The qualitative part of our studyfound similar observations. An associate professor in the Department of Business at thefirst-tier university perceived that the new employment reform, by emphasizing researchperformance, forced all colleagues to go in the same direction.

At the first-tier university, one department laid off about 20–30 more senior colleaguesand then hired younger scholars with degrees from overseas universities (and a greaterability to publish international journal articles) in their place. Many scholars in the first-tieruniversity found it very difficult to publish in international journals and obtain national

Teaching in Higher Education 969

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Upp

sala

uni

vers

itets

bibl

iote

k] a

t 15:

18 1

8 N

ovem

ber

2014

research projects. A lecturer at the first-tier university described the pressure from the newemployment system as ‘horrible.’ Many informants reflected that they had to neglectteaching to focus on producing research.

The increasing pressure on academic work life suppressed academic autonomy.Because most academics from all tiers had previously concentrated on teaching, theyfound it very difficult to shift to the role of researcher. An associate professor in theDepartment of Management at the second-tier university shared that:

a side effect of (the employment reform) has been an overload of work pressure … you feel acertain lack of freedom. Being in this situation … induces … instrumentalism … I writepapers just for the sake of producing more papers.

Table 1. Academics’ perceptions on the recent employment reform.

N MeanStd.

deviation

The pressure to receive more research funding has Professor 236.00 4.07 0.91increased recently Associate

professor535.00 4.11 0.87

Lecturer 582.00 4.04 0.88Teachingassistant

203.00 3.91 0.93

Total 1556.00 4.05 0.89

There is concern over research quantity and quality in Professor 224.00 3.90 0.95teacher appraisal and promotional exercises. Associate

professor514.00 3.69 1.06

Lecturer 569.00 3.88 1.00Teachingassistant

205.00 3.69 1.00

Total 1512.00 3.79 1.02

There is concern over teaching quality in teacher Professor 223.00 3.62 0.96appraisal and promotional exercises. Associate

professor511.00 3.38 1.06

Lecturers 564.00 3.50 1.02Teachingassistants

204.00 3.72 0.95

Total 1502.00 3.51 1.02

There is concern over participation in social services in Professor 218.00 2.89 1.11teacher appraisal and promotional exercises. Associate

professor504.00 2.92 1.04

Lecturers 558.00 2.88 1.01Teachingassistants

203.00 3.07 1.04

Total 1483.00 2.92 1.04

970 M. Lai et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Upp

sala

uni

vers

itets

bibl

iote

k] a

t 15:

18 1

8 N

ovem

ber

2014

Another associate professor in the Department of Information Technology at the first-tieruniversity described how colleagues worked like machines, controlled by the newemployment system to increase research productivity. He said that:

it’s just like living in a machine, a high-speed moving machine and you are a screw within it.When the machine runs you have to work according to the rhythm of the machine andcannot stop.

The unnecessary tension caused by employment reform distorted academic culture andharmed academics’ confidence. An associate professor in the Department of Business atthe first-tier university said that:

I think that as an ordinary teacher … you cannot change this environment and can only tryyour best to adapt. It means that people (the university) use certain indicators to evaluate you… You can only do your best to … reach the (requirements of these) indicators.

Some informants felt that the pressure discouraged the pursuit of more long-term, seriousresearch, and that unnecessary tension pushed colleagues to fulfill the requirements butdid not allow sufficient space for academics to reach their full research potential. Theystressed that the overemphasis on quantitative research output would lead to negativeeffects on academic culture, such as plagiarism, instrumentalism, and a shortsighted workhabit. An associate department head of the Department of Information Technology at thefirst-tier university perceived that many low-quality, useless papers had been produced inrecent years.

The reform was particularly difficult for some of the older colleagues who had been atthe university for many years but had not previously faced any research requirements.A professor in the Department of Information Technology at the second-tier universitysaid that:

now these (older) teachers feel very uncomfortable … We work at the same researchinstitute. Say one person got rank A (the highest rank) … but you got rank C … the key postshould be rank C (those who focus on teaching) … they also work very hard … particularlyon teaching students … (the frustration of colleagues who focus on teaching) will bereflected in (the quality of) the lecture.

Many informants warned that the new employment system hurt the confidence of devotedacademics and affected the university’s quality of teaching, which they considered thecore mission of the university.

Increasing tension between the areas of teaching and research

Under the new employment reform, academics had several perceptions on the relationshipbetween teaching and research. First, there was a clear differentiation of emphasis onteaching and research among the three university tiers. Academics at the third-tieruniversity emphasized teaching, with 31.32% of participants indicating that their workwas focused ‘mainly on teaching,’ compared to 18.18% at the first-tier university and20.6% at the second-tier university. Asked if ‘teaching is of more importance thanresearch’ or ‘research is of more importance than teaching,’ academics at the first-tieruniversity were quite balanced (30% and 30.91%, respectively). In the second-tier

Teaching in Higher Education 971

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Upp

sala

uni

vers

itets

bibl

iote

k] a

t 15:

18 1

8 N

ovem

ber

2014

university, more academics chose ‘teaching is of more importance than research’ (32.01%and 22.83%). Academics in the third-tier university stressed the importance of teachingeven more (35.49% and 20.06%; please refer to Table 2).

Even when academics in the first- and second-tier universities weighed teaching lessthan research, they insisted on the important role of teaching. As an associate professor inthe Department of Education at the third-tier university stated, ‘it would be meaninglessas a professor … if you lose recognition from students.’ When we asked about majorsources of job satisfaction, an associate professor in the Department of Business at thefirst-tier university thought that it first came from teaching. He said that:

giving lectures provides a sense of achievement … You can guide them to someenlightenment. Students respond actively, which is quite nice.

Some informants at the second-tier university also stated that they enjoyed the perform-ance aspect of giving lectures on stage and perceived teaching as the authentic process ofeducation.

Second, scholars reflected on the neglect of teaching under the new employmentreform. An associate dean of the Department of Information Technology at the first-tieruniversity stated that some colleagues felt spending time on research allowed for less timeto concentrate on teaching. Many of his colleagues blamed employment reform for theneglect of teaching:

Table 2. Academic work interests.

University ranking Academic work interests Percentage

First-tier ‘Project 985’ university Mainly on teaching 18.18Mainly on research 18.41Mainly on administrative work 1.36Teaching is prior to research 30Research is prior to teaching 30.91Administration is prior to teaching and research 1.14Total 100

Second-tier ‘Project 211’ university Mainly on teaching 20.6Mainly on research 20.1Mainly on administration 2.23Teaching is prior to research 32.01Research is prior to teaching 22.83Administration is prior to teaching and research 2.23Total 100

Ordinary university Mainly on teaching 31.32Mainly on research 9.2Mainly on administration 2.87Teaching is prior to research 35.49Research is prior to teaching 20.26Administration is prior to teaching and research 0.86Total 100

972 M. Lai et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Upp

sala

uni

vers

itets

bibl

iote

k] a

t 15:

18 1

8 N

ovem

ber

2014

On the whole, the result of (employment reform) in these past few years is that whileacademic publications have increased, there has been a significant impact on teaching …teachers often say that ‘you (the university) don’t pay attention to teaching’.

An associate professor in the department of Physics at the first-tier universitycommented that:

to an extent … (teaching) is more important than receiving certain national awards, since thecore (responsibility) of the university should be teaching students … particularly for the gooduniversities.

Because the professor considered teaching to be the most valuable part of his work, hefelt greatly dissatisfied with the reform’s neglect of teaching. However, many scholars atall three university tiers expressed the belief that focusing on teaching was useless underthe new employment system.

In recent years, the third-tier university has intended to change from a teaching-research university to a research-teaching university, which would give them a higherstatus and more resources from the provincial government. The recent employmentreform was in line with the above intention to stress research output. Some informantsestimated that under the employment reform, the overwhelming majority of their collea-gues now concentrated on research. An associate professor in the Department ofEducation at the third-tier university perceived that ‘(an over-emphasis on research)definitely has had a negative effect on upgrading teaching quality and the ability todevelop talent.’

While teaching quality was ignored by the new employment system, the threeuniversities maintained a well-established system to evaluate teaching. The teachingevaluation system involved teaching supervision by retired professors, senior academics,administrative staff members of the academic department, as well as informal studentobserver reports and student evaluations. However, in our sample universities, scholarsonly needed to receive 75 out of 100 marks from student evaluations to pass the teachingassessment. Academics at all three sample universities clearly understood that they onlyneeded to fulfill minimal teaching requirements and should instead spend most of theirtime on research.

Third, some scholars felt that a mutually beneficial relationship between teaching andresearch was an unattainable ideal. An informant in the first-tier university stated theimportance of thinking about how to integrate teaching and research. Most informantsfrom all three tiers expressed that ideally, teaching and research would be balanced. Thepolitical secretary of the Department of Management at the third-tier universityconsidered that ‘the two aspects cannot be abandoned or unbalanced … it should be amutual accelerated effect.’ However, he also stressed that most colleagues chose toabandon this quest for balance and instead spent most of their time increasingresearch output.

Fourth, most informants felt that good research could have a positive impact onteaching. Only a few mentioned the impact of teaching on their research. A number ofscholars in the first-tier university stressed that colleagues who were strong in researchalso performed very well in teaching. An associate professor in the Department ofInformation Technology at the second-tier university thought that ‘If a teacher in atechnological field does not have research … I would be doubtful of his teaching results.’

Teaching in Higher Education 973

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Upp

sala

uni

vers

itets

bibl

iote

k] a

t 15:

18 1

8 N

ovem

ber

2014

Only a few scholars whose work concentrated on teaching mentioned the impact ofteaching on their research. At all three tiers, junior lecturers (whose work focused onteaching) thought that new research ideas came from the process of giving lectures andinteracting with students. As most of the scholars identified their major role asresearchers in accordance with the new employment reform, they were mainly concernedwith the contributions of research to teaching.

Strategies to handle teaching and research

Under the new employment system, scholars had difficulty balancing teaching andresearch. Most academics chose to conform to the new system by concentrating onresearch. As discussed in the previous section, many universities developed a system toassess teaching quality. Junior lecturers in the first-tier university encountered teachingsupervision and development exercises. Faculty members gave model public lectures forcolleagues. Despite these measures, informants reported that their colleagues were notvery involved, with one informant saying, ‘it seems that (colleagues) are more concernedwith writing papers … now that the pressure to publish is enormous.’ He described atypical concern among colleagues as ‘my paper hasn’t been published yet, I might getfired.’ Under these circumstances, scholars were forced to put the ideal of integratingteaching and research aside. An associate professor in the Department of InformationTechnology at the second-tier university indicated that ‘you have to change … otherwise,you will have no position in the department.’

The third-tier university Physics Department head, who was responsible for teaching,clearly indicated that most colleagues concentrated on research. An associate professor inthe Department of Information Technology at the first-tier university said that:

our university is a research university, therefore … from my point of view, I give littleattention to teaching … I don’t want to lecture too much … since it is useless to give toomany lectures … We only need to reach the basic requirements, since for performanceappraisal, teaching is not the key (indicator) … your research … is the core aspect.

A lecturer in the Department of Management at the third-tier university reflected that‘some teachers are very clear. After teaching the foundation courses, they will never teacha bit more. They focus all their attention on research. Once their research outputincreases, they get everything.’

As a result of the focus on research, teaching quality was sacrificed. The associatedean of the Faculty of Science, who was responsible for teaching at the second-tieruniversity, said that ‘under this system … he/she (a colleague) will spend more energy onresearch, and the energy he/she gives to (teaching) will be insufficient.’ An associateprofessor in the Department of Physics at the second-tier university told us that ‘Franklyspeaking, I don’t spend too much time on teaching … I can’t have both the fish and thebear’s paw (have one’s cake and eat it too) … my ratio of research to teaching is about7:3.’ The associate department head of the Department of Information Technology at thesecond-tier university mentioned that:

most colleagues do not want to teach. This gives us a big headache … Students oftencomplain that teachers … are not quite responsible … Students clearly see through(the situation) … In fact, students are disgusted with this phenomenon … The currentsituation … is a problem that is really hard to solve.

974 M. Lai et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Upp

sala

uni

vers

itets

bibl

iote

k] a

t 15:

18 1

8 N

ovem

ber

2014

Although some scholars loved teaching, by failing to receive promotions, they learned acostly lesson. A professor in the Department of Management at the second-tier universityworried about the negative impact on teaching in the employment system:

you have clear indicators in the appraisal system, so I just fulfill them but have noresponsibility to other duties (such as teaching). Under such a system in Chinese universities,fewer people will think about how to teach … A university is a place to nurture talent. Wheneverybody spends time on research … who is responsible for teaching students … If I spendtime on teaching, then I have no time for research … In the long run, if we keep up thisattitude, I think it will have a significantly negative impact on university development.

He shared with us that he had no choice left after his last promotion exercise:

In 2006, I wasn’t aware of the key areas (of the promotion exercise) … and instead spent alot of time interacting with students … Then the time for appraisal came … some teachershad awareness and had published papers … You then look at me. That was the last year forme (to apply for a promotion). I was terribly worried because I didn’t have enough papers …I learnt the lesson after I encountered failure. Since then … in teaching, I have adjusted … Itdoesn’t mean that I don’t want to pay attention to (teaching), but it has been impossible (forme to spend time on it) … It is really very annoying. We often say that we work like the(legendary) money king, controlled by a tight headband [that he was tricked into wearing andcould not remove] … Even though you have the ability, your ideal (of balancing teachingand research) can never be actualized.

He thought that the employment system placed too great an amount of pressure oncolleagues who had previously focused on teaching and were very good at it, forcingthem instead to produce mass quantities of low-value academic work. Although hebelieved that good teaching and research could be integrated, he found himself forced toabandon that ideal.

Some academics insisted on teaching and thus sacrificed career opportunities. Severalassociate professors shared that they were not overly concerned with promotion and spenttheir time teaching instead, even though they clearly understood that most of theircolleagues would not agree with their choices. Particularly at the second- and third-tieruniversities, academics saw teaching as their major source of job satisfaction. Anassociate professor in the Department of Management at the second-tier universitysaid that:

(If) you want to be a qualified university teacher, first, you should firmly stand at theclassroom podium … This (teaching) should be a very important way to gain (a sense offortune).

However, a professor in the same department shared with us the story of his colleague:

His teaching is better than mine, and he has a good reputation (for teaching) … Last time, helost out on a promotion … I can feel the heavy blow he received physically andpsychologically

A lecturer in the Department of Education at the second-tier university described howhe previously spent most of his time teaching and had competed for teaching awards.Now, he felt he had no choice, stating ‘(teaching) must now make way (for research).’

Teaching in Higher Education 975

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Upp

sala

uni

vers

itets

bibl

iote

k] a

t 15:

18 1

8 N

ovem

ber

2014

When we discussed how the university could offer a better environment for youngerteachers, he stressed that ‘the university should place serious emphasis on teaching.’

Some informants reflected that the balance between teaching and research required aconscientious effort on the part of the individual. An associate professor in the Departmentof Information Technology at the second-tier university found his in-depth researchprovided an empirical base for teaching. Research experience enriched his teaching andhelped him to develop students’ problem-solving abilities. A number of academics at thefirst-tier university shared similar opinions. An associate professor in the Department ofPhysics at the second-tier university perceived that the balance was mainly based oninternal incentives:

as a teacher, you should perform well … your basic work is teaching … this should beself-disciplined … Good teaching can only be ensured by the personal commitment of theteacher and his or her own expectations of teaching performance.

Some informants described teaching as ‘a conscientious effort’ (liangxinhuo). To them,the de-emphasis on teaching performance under the new employment system meant that ascholar’s teaching efforts and his/her unique approach to handling teaching and researchcould only be constructed and valued within the scholar’s own mind. Academics whochose to concentrate on teaching needed to carefully weigh what was at stake for theircareers. Given the reform’s neglect of teaching, university students could only hope tohave teachers who insisted on the importance of teaching due to their own consciences.

Conclusion

According to the observations of our research, we can draw four concluding points. First,a trend of deprofessionalization of academic work clearly emerged in our sampleuniversities. Our observations were similar to other findings on the deprofessionalizationof academic work, including a decrease in autonomy and deterioration of work conditions(Altbach and Finkelstein 1997; Tierney 2003; Kolsaker 2008). The new employmentreform in China pressured academics to obtain more research funding and publishfrequently. The unnecessary tensions caused by the reform distorted academic culture andharmed academic commitment. Academic freedom was repressed by the reform’squantitative research requirements.

Second, there is increasing tension between the areas of teaching and research. Theemphasis placed on teaching and research differed among the three university tiers. Dueto Projects 985 and 211, the first- and second-tier universities stressed research, while thethird-tier stressed teaching. Regardless, most informants from all three tiers highlightedthe increasing tension between research and teaching (Kinchin and Hay 2007; Leisyte,Enders, and Boer 2009). As a research university, the first-tier university required itsacademics to concentrate on research. The second-tier university tried to upgrade from aresearch-teaching university to a research university. The third-tier university struggled toupgrade from a teaching-research university to a research-teaching university. Suchupgrades were initiated because they provided a higher academic status and greaterfinancial resources. They required scholars in the second- and third-tier universities toproduce significant research. Academics agreed that given their limited time, they hadno choice but to focus on research (Lucas 2007; Young 2006). Most thought thatthe symbiotic relationship between teaching and research was an unattainable ideal

976 M. Lai et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Upp

sala

uni

vers

itets

bibl

iote

k] a

t 15:

18 1

8 N

ovem

ber

2014

(Brew 1999; Robertson and Bond 2001). As for the existence of research-led teaching(Robertson 2007) or teaching-led research (Neumann 1992; Gottlieb and Keith 1997),because most academics identified ‘researcher’ as their major role, they emphasized goodresearch over quality teaching. Only a few scholars who concentrated on teachingmentioned the impact of teaching on research.

Third, the balance between teaching and research had to be conscientiously (liangxin)insisted upon by the individual academic. In our study, most academics from all threetiers chose to conform to the research output requirements. They clearly indicated thattheir teaching efforts were insufficient, resulting in serious effects on the quality ofteaching. Students also clearly understood this phenomenon and strongly expresseddissatisfaction. Some scholars loved teaching but were forced to make more time forresearch after failing to achieve promotion. Those who insisted on a teaching focus faceddisagreement from colleagues and had to sacrifice career opportunities. Ultimately,academics perceived that the balance between teaching and research could only beachieved through their own strong, self-initiated efforts. They viewed teaching as a‘conscientious effort’ (liangxinhuo).

Fourth, further refinement of employment reform and enhancement of the scholarshipof learning and teaching should be provided by the university. Academics felt that theappraisal system should not use one uniform measure for all. Instead, they felt that theuniversity should fully respect colleagues who focused on and excelled at teaching.Teaching and research can only be balanced when the university sincerely emphasizes thescholarship of learning and teaching. Academics of different rank and levels of seniorityshould be allowed to genuinely participate in the decision-making process whenreforming the appraisal system. Doing so is crucial for ensuring that their voices areheard and respected. As one informant shared, ‘Returning to a concentration on theuniversity’s basic mission of teaching’ should be an issue given serious furtherconsideration in higher education.

ReferencesAltbach, Philip G., and Martin J. Finkelstein. 1997. The Academic Profession: The Professoriate inCrisis. New York: Garland.

Barnett, Bryan. 1992. “Teaching and Research Are Inescapably Incompatible.” Chronicle of HigherEducation, June 3, A40.

Brew, A. 1999. “Research and Teaching: Changing Relationships in a Changing Context.” Studiesin Higher Education 24 (3): 291–301. doi:10.1080/03075079912331379905.

Brew, A. 2006. Research and Teaching: Beyond the Divide. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Brew, A., and J. Weir. 2004. Teaching-research Nexus Benchmarking Project: The University ofSydney and Monash University. Sydney and Melbourne: Institute for Teaching and Learning,University of Sydney/Centre for Higher Education Quality, Monash University.

Brown, R. B. 2005. “Why Link Person Research and Teaching?” Education and Training 47 (6):393–407. doi:10.1108/00400910510617024.

By, R. T., T. Diefenbach, and P. Klarner. 2008. “Getting Organizational Change Right inPublic Services: The Case of European Higher Education.” Journal of Change Management8 (1): 21–35. doi:10.1080/14697010801937457.

CCP (Chinese Communist Party). 1993. Zhongguo Jiaoyu Gaige He Fazhan Gangyiao [Guidelinefor Reform and Development in Chinese Education]. Beijing: Chinese Communist Party.

Feldman, K. 1987. “Research Productivity and Scholarly Accomplishment of College Teachersas Related to Their Instructional Effectiveness.” Research in Higher Education 26: 227–298.doi:10.1007/BF00992241.

Gottlieb, E. E., and B. Keith. 1997. “The Academic Research-teaching Nexus in Eight Advanced-industrialized Countries.” Higher Education 34: 397–420. doi:10.1023/A:1003028023964.

Teaching in Higher Education 977

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Upp

sala

uni

vers

itets

bibl

iote

k] a

t 15:

18 1

8 N

ovem

ber

2014

Griggs, L. 2005. “Comment: The Integration of Teaching and Research in Higher Education.”HERDSA News 25 (3): 1–3.

Hannan, Andrew, and Harold S. Silver. 2000. Innovating in Higher Education: Learning, Teachingand Institutional Cultures. Buckingham: Open University Press.

Hattie, J., and W. Marsh. 2002. “The Relationship between Research Productivity and TeachingEffectiveness: Complementary, Antagonistic, or Independent Constructs?” The Journal of HigherEducation 73 (5): 603–641. doi:10.1353/jhe.2002.0047.

Hoyle, E. 2006. “Professionalization and Deprofessionalization in Education.” In World Yearbookof Education: Professional Development of Teachers, edited by Eric Hoyle and JacquettaMegarry, 42–56. Oxon: Routledge.

Huang, C. H. 2005. “Woguo gaodeng xuexiao jiaoxue zhiliang xiahua de yuanyin fenxi[The Analysis of Declining Teaching Quality of Higher Institutes in China].” Zhongguo DianziJiaoyu [China Electronics Education] 3: 6–8.

Hughes, M. 2005. “The Mythology of Research and Teaching Relationships in Universities.”In Reshaping the University: New Relationships between Research, Scholarship and Teaching,edited by Ronald Barnett, 14–26. Berkshire: Open University Press.

Kinchin, I., and D. Hay. 2007. “The Myth of the Research-led Teacher.” Teachers and Teaching:Theory and Practice 13 (1): 43–61. doi:10.1080/13540600601106054.

Kolsaker, A. 2008. “Academic Professionalism in the Managerialist Era: A Study of EnglishUniversities.” Studies in Higher Education 33 (5): 513–525. doi:10.1080/03075070802372885.

Leisyte, L., J. Enders, and H. de Boer. 2009. “The Balance between Teaching and Research inDutch and English Universities in the Context of University Governance Reforms.” HigherEducation 58: 619–635. doi:10.1007/s10734-009-9213-1.

Li, L. L., N. K. Lo, and M. H. Lai. 2012. “Xingonggongguanli dui zhongguo gaodengjiaoyuzhengce ji xueshu gongzuo de yingxiang [The Impact of New Public Management on HigherEducation Policies and Academic Work in China].” Gaodeng Jiaoyu Yanjiu [Journal of HigherEducation] 2: 15–26.

Lo, N. K., L. L. Li, and M. H. Lai. 2011. “Gaoxiao jiaoshi pingrenzhi gaige beijingxia xueshugongzuo de fenceng yu fenge [Stratification and Segmentation of Academic Work under theEmployment Reform in Chinese Higher Education].” Gaodeng Jiaoyu Yanjiu [Journal of HigherEducation] 32 (7): 56–62.

Lu, G. S., M. H. Lai, Q. Y. Zhang, P. Du, and N. K. Lo. 2010. “Daxue jiaoshi de xueshu gongzuo:leixing, tezhen ji yingxiang yinsu fenxi [An Analysis of the Types and Characteristics ofAcademic Work at the University Level].” Fudan Jiaoyu Luntan [Fudan Education Forum] 8 (6):38–50.

Lucas, L. 2007. “Research and Teaching Work within University Education Departments:Fragmentation or Integration?” Journal of Further and Higher Education 31 (1): 17–29.doi:10.1080/03098770601167849.

MOE (Ministry of Education). 1995. “211 gongcheng jianjie [Brief Introduction on 211 Project].”Ministry of Education. Accessed August 6, 2014. http://www.moe.edu.cn.

MOE (Ministry of Education) and MOF (Ministry of Finance). 2004. Guanyu jixu shishi jiubawugongcheng jianshe xiangmu de yijian [The Opinion on Implementing 985 Project DevelopmentContinuously]. Beijing: Chinese Government.

Neumann, R. 1992. “Perceptions of the Teaching-research Nexus: A Framework for Analysis.”Higher Education 23 (2): 159–171. doi:10.1007/BF00143643.

People Daily. 2011. “Jiaoyubu: zhongguo gaodengjiaoyu maoruxuelu da 26.5% [Ministry ofEducation: The Gross Enrollment Rate of Higher Education in China is 26.5%].” People Daily,March 29.

Ramsden, P., and I. Moses. 1992. “Association between Research and Teaching in AustralianHigher Education.” Higher Education 23: 273–295. doi:10.1007/BF00145017.

Robertson, J. 2007. “Beyond the ‘Research/Teaching Nexus’: Exploring the Complexity ofAcademic Experience.” Studies in Higher Education 32 (5): 541–556. doi:10.1080/03075070701476043.

Robertson, J., and C. Bond. 2001. “Experience of the Relation between Teaching and Research:What Do Academics Value?” Higher Education Research & Development 20 (1): 5–19.doi:10.1080/07924360120043612.

978 M. Lai et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Upp

sala

uni

vers

itets

bibl

iote

k] a

t 15:

18 1

8 N

ovem

ber

2014

Tierney, G. W. 2003. “Cultural Disintegration and the Decline of the Engaged Intellectual: TheTransformation of Academic Work.” Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education24 (3): 371–383. doi:10.1080/0159630032000172542.

Yan, Y. J. 2006. “Woguo gaodeng jiaoyu dazhonghua jinchengzhong de zhuyao wenti ji jiejue silu[On the Main Problem and Countermeasure of Higher Education Popularization].” Hubei JiaoyuXueyuan Xuebao [Journal of Hubei Institute of Education] 23 (1): 85–87.

Young, P. 2006. “Out of Balance: Lecturers’ Perceptions of Differential Status and Rewardsin Relation to Teaching and Research.” Teaching in Higher Education 11 (2): 191–202.doi:10.1080/13562510500527727.

Teaching in Higher Education 979

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Upp

sala

uni

vers

itets

bibl

iote

k] a

t 15:

18 1

8 N

ovem

ber

2014