Teaching, research and scholarship in different disciplines

Higher Education 19:351-375 (1990) © Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht - Printed in the Netherlands

Teaching, research and scholarship in different disciplines

INGRID MOSES Centre for Learning and Teaching, University of Technology, Sydney, NSW 2007 Australia

Abstract. Teaching and research are the primary functions of academics in all academic disciplines in all Australian universities. Scholarship is expected of all academics whether in the university or college sector. Under a new policy Australian higher education institutions have to develop 'educational profiles' that will describe their strengths in teaching and research. The federal government, and indeed, institutions, are developing and using performance indicators to distri- bute resources. Some of these, e.g. number of publications, number of research grants, and number of Ph.D. graduates are disadvantaging the Humanities. This paper addresses differences in four disciplines, Chemistry, Engineering, English and Law as they are described by other researchers and emerge from a questionnaire study at an Australian university.

The 1988 policy paper by the Australian Minister for Employment, Education

and Training, J. D. Dawkins, Higher Educat ion requested that institutions

develop 'educational profiles'; these will describe an institution's strength in teaching and research and areas for development, and will form the basis for

negotiations on funding. Performance indicators for research and teaching are

needed to gauge these strengths. Already for some years crude performance

indicators like number of publications and number of research grants have

been used in allocation of research funds in some universities. The Australian

Vice-Chancellors' Committee and College Directors and Principals (AVCC/ACDP) , partly to forestall the government's definition of perfor-

mance indicators, developed a range of indicators, building on British defini-

tions and experiences. Subsequently the Department of Employment, Edu-

cation and Training commissioned a group of academics to develop perfor-

mance indicators. The Humanities fear that Science dominated criteria will be

used to their disadvantage. It is timely, then, to remember and remind of the

diversity in disciplinary traditions, conventions and cultures. The dominant ideology in universities, and not only Australian ones

(OECD, 1981) is that in all disciplines teaching and research benefit each other;

that a competent researcher will be a competent teacher; that own research

involvement is needed for inspired teaching; that researchers benefit from the contact with students. Any attempts to separate the two functions, to create

distinct employment categories of tertiary teachers and researchers, are met

with opposition. Yet it has been done in other countries, for example in

Sweden, and is functionally done in many U.S. universities.

In Australia, too, there is a debate whether all academics need to do research

352

and teaching. The 1986 report (Hudson) Review of Efficiency and Effectiven- ess in Higher Education by the now defunct Commonwealth Tertiary Edu- cation Commission (CTEC), and the ASTEC report (1987) Improving the Research Performance of A ustralia's Universities and Other Higher Education Institutions both advocated unequal distribution of research funds with a concomitant unequal distribution of teaching and research. CTEC affirmed that teaching and research are functions of academic staff but noted:

because it is inevitable that there will be variations in an academic's time priorities at different stages of a career, the more productive or promising must be given preference in taking up research opportunities. It is not a question of an academic staff member being involved in either teaching or research (although that may occur), but what mix of teaching and research is appropriate for a given person in a given set of circumstances. (4.104)

In this paper I will argue, firstly, that without the notion of 'scholarship', the debate about research and teaching functions will cause more confusion and misconceptions than clarification of the issues; secondly, that disciplinary cultures and conventions influence the conceptions of both research and scholarship; and thirdly, that these differences need to become part of de- cision-makers' and academics' mind-set. To this end I will give a brief overview of the connection between teaching and research, present a categorization of disciplines according to various theories, and report on the data from a study of staff in four disciplines before discussing the implications of the findings in the broader context of teaching, research, scholarship and disciplinary cultures.

Teaching, research and scholarship functions

All Australian higher education institutions were until a few decades ago primarily teaching institutions, providing professional training and general education in the Arts and Sciences, and the professions. Universities have been building up their postgraduate degree programs since the fifties, and now expect their lecturing staff to conduct research throughout their academic careers. Today staff in universities need evidence of research and teaching ability, and of successful performance in both, for tenure and promotion. The Australian White Paper of 1988 signalled the end of the binary system of universities and colleges of advanced education/institutes of technology. In these latter institutions staff were primarily selected on, and expected to excel in, teaching and professional expertise. Enforced or encouraged amalgamations between colleges and universities which were happening during 1988 and 1989, make it all the more important that institutions define the expectations they have of academic staff with regard to their functions.

The German Humboldtian university of the late 19th century has become

353

the exemplar and model for a joining of research and teaching, but it operated in conditions very dissimilar to those prevailing in most modern universities.

Highly distinguished and powerful professors were able to influence the research of all other staff in a research institute - indeed they would be 'his' staff; teaching was general in early years but in the seminars the unity of teaching and research became reality for the professors. Students, too, experienced the synergy of study and research, as they were largely unguided and as all students had to do a research project. In the American graduate schools where the professions are educated and where scientific careers are established, teaching and research are fruitfully interrelated (Blau, 1973; Blackburn et al., 1978).

In the German system, it was only the professors who had responsibility for personal research and that of their research team, and for a broad coverage

of subject content; only they also had a claim to unity of research and teaching. But, as mentioned, in the Australian university system, all academic staff from the rank of lecturer up are expected to teach and to conduct research. The notion of the community of scholars embraces all academic staff and legitim-

izes academics' "demands for social recognition, autonomy, resources, and prestige" (Schwartzman, 1984, p. 206).

When research absorbs time and resources teaching becomes a secondary occupation, perhaps even a distraction; this has been the reality for many staff in Australian universities. The reverse may also be true. As Schwartzman (1984, p. 205) observed, research "is often a liability and a problem for institutions geared to professional training"; and here, again, we can see a parallel to the situation in the traditional college sector where staff received

neither research money nor research time from their institution. Trow (1984, p. 149 ff.) in his description of the "Matthew Effect" in higher

education as experienced in elite universities, describes the push from colleges

for the same privileges, a push seen in Australia as well: even before the enforced spate of amalgamations two large institutes of technology were able to be rechartered as universities, with the approval of their states. (They had to undergo a review by the AVCC to become members of this universities body; a strong basis for their claim was that considerable externally funded research was conducted by a fair percentage of their staff.)

Until the amalgamations, Australian universities were, like the American research universities (Trow, 1984), characterized by (1) monopoly on research- based postgraduate degrees with a concomitant increase in research productivity, status, excellence of staff and students; (2) teachers and researchers considering themselves to be the highest authorities concerning their own subjects, and having internal autonomy in the conduct of these; (3) having to provide the resources for staff to conduct advanced research and teaching; (4) having discretionary funds from research grants and contracts, and sufficient autono-

354

my over expenditure to influence the internal climate in favour of innovation and creativity and to enable them to invite visiting scholars, thus enhancing their status and available expertise.

Ben-David (1977, p. 166) asserts, and all our experience would validate his assertion (indeed the present reforms of the Australian higher education system are based on this), that "this combination of advanced research and study has been realized only in small parts of the university, but those parts, in which teachers and students use their freedom for its original purpose of research and study, have legitimated the turning of freedom by others who do not do research or study into injustified privilege". Hence the public disil- lusionment with academics and their perceived privileges. In Australian universities, as in American ones, the fruitful relationship between teaching and research occurs mostly at graduate level, at least in the sciences. In the humanities there is also a strong relationship between research and undergrad- uate teaching (Elton, 1986). Indeed, Elton (1986, p. 300), cites Ben-David's research (1977) that " in the humanities, where originality lies mainly in creative scholarship.., a strong link with teaching was and could be established" . This division between the sciences and humanities is demonstrated in the survey data below.

Research and scholarship

The integration of college academics into the extended university system as much as the introduction of performance indicators warrants a re-examination of academic staff roles and their definitions. Key concepts are research and scholarship.

The White Paper (1988, p. 92) defined research as

systematic and rigorous investigation aimed at the discovery of previously unknown phenomena, the development of explanatory theory and its application to new situations or problems, and the construction of original works of significant intellectual merit.

Scholarship is a concept important in the description or analysis of disciplines. It is often used vaguely, but may be said to comprise a set of attitudes and practices in relation to academic activities. The White Paper (1988, p. 92) defined it as

the analysis and interpretation of existing knowledge aimed at improving, through teaching or by other means of communication, the depth of human understanding.

The government made it clear that all academic staff, clearly also college staff, are to exercise scholarship in the execution of their teaching duties; this needed no extra funding, whereas research does.

355

Categorization of disciplines

The different cultures of the Humanities and the Sciences have been explored by others (Becher, 1984, 1987; Whitley, 1984). Biglan (1973a and b) categor- ized disciplines

(a) by the development of a paradigm into hard-soft, with the sciences and engineering 'hard', i.e. having a high level of paradigm development, and the humanities 'soft';

(b) by the concern with application into pure-applied, with the physical sciences and the arts 'pure', and education and engineering, for example, 'applied';

(c) by the concern with life systems (short: life-nonlife); this pair is less useful when we talk about disciplinary cultures (Becher, 1987).

Kolb (1981) studied disciplines from the learning perspective. His learning style inventory uses two dimensions, abstract-concrete, and active-reflective. His categorization complements Biglan's. Kolb's 'abstract' is similar to Big- lan's 'hard', and his 'concrete' similar to Biglan's 'soft'. Biglan's 'applied' parallels Kolb's 'active', and Biglan's 'pure', Kolb's 'reflective'. Kolb then distinguishes four types of learning styles:

(a) Convergers are strong on abstract conceptualisation and active experimen- tation (hard-applied).

(b) Divergers' strengths lie in concrete experience and reflective observation (soft-pure).

(c) Assimilators excel in abstract conceptualization and reflective observation (hard-pure).

(d) Accomodators learn best through concrete experience and active experi- mentation (soft-applied).

Though these and Biglan's categories help in our understanding of disciplinary cultures and styles of practitioners and students, there are many variations and sub-groups.

Whitley, in his extensive exposition of the Intellectual and Social Organi- zation of Sciences (1984, pp. 126-129) distinguishes fields by the degrees of their "technical task uncertainty" and "strategic uncertainty", i.e. the degree of problem variability and instability which influence the conduct, co-ordi- nation and control of research.

In the following, four disciplines are described, a hard-pure one - Chemis- try; a soft-pure one - English; a hard-applied one - Engineering; and a soft-applied one - Law. These were the disciplines of academic staff in a study of the relationship between teaching, research and scholarship discussed later in this paper.

356

Chemistry

In hard-pure disciplines, Chemistry among them, knowledge is cumulative and atomistic; knowledge is concerned with universals, quantities and simplification; research results in discovery or explanations (Becher, 1987, p. 278). The frontiers of knowledge in these disciplines are known. Each "finding typically builds on previous ones in a linear progression. Characteristically, major problems can be subdivided into smaller segments and tackled piece- meal," (Becher, 1987, p. 280). This phenomenon can be observed in the allocation of research topics to graduate students. Research in hard-pure disciplines because of the cumulative nature of knowledge is often co-operative and graduate students therefore can be slotted into a research team. Research is competitive, the pace is rapid and communication frequent - international conferences, personal contacts, journals with quick turnover and low rejection rates facilitate rapid communication. Staff publish prolifically, often only short papers, as there is a shared background of theoretical issues and appropriate research strategies. Staff often publish joint papers with colleagues and graduate students.

Chemistry, in Whitley's schema, is characterized by low strategic and low task uncertainty. This means that there are standardized ways of producing results, and research strategies can be linked to expected outcomes. It means that theoretical goals are hierarchically ordered in their importance to the field and the results of research for theoretical issues can be evaluated by all who share in the same standardized skills. The sharing in skills, in acknowledgment of priorities of issues, and in standardized work procedures also means that there is relatively little autonomy and it is difficult to challenge thought structures and research practices.

Students and staff best matched with these approaches are Assimilators - those interested and able to create theoretical models who use inductive reasoning, and integrate disparate observations into explanations (Kolb, 1981, p. 238).

Engineering

Technologies are classified by Biglan as hard-applied; among these is Engineer- ing. Knowledge in these fields is "purposive; pragmatic (know-how via hard knowledge); concerned with mastery of the physical environment; resulting in products/techniques" (Becher, 1987, p. 278). While applied disciplines are always concerned with the practical, hard applied ones do not depend only on cumulative knowledge and are not only quantitative (Becher, 1987, pp. 278 and 280). In applied areas research is carried out individually or in small teams.

357

Becher (1987, p. 283) in referring to Engineering, observes that "current problems are more dispersed than they are in hard-pure domains" so that " teamwork is less common and operates with relatively smaller groups". Conferences do not play the same role as for hard-pure disciplines, contact with colleagues is regular through correspondence and journals. Becher describes the culture as entrepreneurial and cosmopolitan; it is dominated by professional values, and patents as products of research and development can substitute for publications. (1987, p. 289)

Kolb's (1981, p. 238) research showed that engineers often were Convergers. Convergers' greatest strength is practical application of ideas and problem solving; they are interested in objects rather than people. They are thus less people oriented than staff in soft-applied professions, the social professions.

In Whitley's (1984, p. 127-8) categorization, Engineering is characterized by lower technical task uncertainty but relatively high strategic uncertainty. This means that results are produced with standardized techniques and rely on standardized substances. They are quite predictable, visible and reliable. Even though engineers would share in a common body of skills, there is less consensus on problems and on appropriate strategies than in the pure sciences. This means that the significance and relevance of results for overall objectives is more difficult to establish, and evaluations will differ depending on the audience.

English

Humanities and Social Sciences are the fields with the highest degree of task uncertainty and strategic uncertainty (Whitley, 1984, p. 127). Results are not linked to standardized procedures but are relatively unpredictable. Individual interpretations influence the result and they therefore cannot be reproduced with a high degree of reliability. In these fields, there is no consensus on theoretical goals, indeed the boundaries of problems are unclear, as is their hierarchy. Thus with no standardized procedures and no consensus on the priorities of theoretical goals, the relevance and significance of research results for particular theoretical goals are disputable and difficult to establish. Audiences are diffuse and can be selected. All this gives researchers more autonomy in the selection of research areas and research strategies; but it also increases the insecurity - there is no 'best' way.

Knowledge in the soft-pure disciplines in the Humanities, English among them, is, in contrast to the hard-pure sciences reiterative not cumulative; holistic not atomistic; concerned with particulars not universals, with qualities not quantities, with complication not simplification (Becher, 1987, p. 278). Researchers in these areas, as well as P h . D . students, often go over the same

358

ground as others have done. "Basic issues recur from one generation to the next: the same phenomena are examined by independent inquiries, each presenting individual findings... The problems that form the starting points for most inquiries are multifaceted and not easily sub divisible" (Becher, 1987, p. 280). The result of such inquiries is new understanding, or a different interpretation, of known phenomena. (Note the closeness of research practices in these areas to exercise of scholarship, as per White Paper definition above). Research in soft-pure disciplines is thus highly individualistic, and graduate students, for example, are seen as independent researchers with a right to their own scholarly interpretations. Kolb (1981, p. 238) found that in dominant learning style students of English are Divergers - Divergers are distinguished by their imaginative ability and the ability to see and evaluate many perspectives of any one concrete situation and to organize many relationships in a holistic way. All these are necessary for comfortable fit with, indeed for empathy with, the disciplinary culture.

In soft-pure disciplines conferences play a lesser role, colleagues read each other's work in journals. Publications are longer as are delays in publishing, and rejection rates are the highest (Becher, 1987, p. 286). Books, not journal articles, count highest as scholarly contributions within the disciplines. Thus the publication rate is lower than in the hard-pure sciences. The culture may be summarized as individualistic with a pluralistic, loosely structured and person-oriented context (Becher, 1987, p. 289).

Law

Law does not fall clearly into any category. It can be regarded as a 'sow discipline, but whether pure or applied is controversial. In soft-applied disciplines knowledge is functional and utilitarian; the know-how is via soft knowledge. Knowledge is concerned with the enhancement of (semi-) professional practice and results in protocols or procedures (Becher, 1987, p. 278). In sofi-applied disciplines teamwork is less common, similar to the practices in hard-applied disciplines. Practical expertise is often valued more highly than theoretical knowledge and is reflected in recruitment practices, when appli- cants with professional know-how but no doctorate or research may be selected. This does apply to Law.

The culture of soft-applied disciplines is summarized by Becher (1987, p. 289) as outward looking; it is uncertain in status and dominated by intellectual fashions. The publication rates are reduced by consultancies. But one of the characteristics of this culture, the uncertainty in status, does not hold true for Law; intellectual fashions, another characteristic, only seem to be touching a minority. Equally, while many of the soft-applied subjects, e.g. Education

359

and Sociology rank relatively lowly in the prestige order of disciplines, Law does not. It is also questionable whether Law staff and students will see themselves as Accommodators - strong on carrying out plans and experiments, which is typical for the social professions. Thus both by using the categorization of theorists and by using experiential knowledge, Law may be said not to be typical of a soft-applied discipline, though to have features of it.

Table 1 presents a summary of the dimensions discussed above:

Table 1. Categorization of disciplines

by Biglan (1973)." Kolb (1981)." Becher (1987): Whitley (1984): Paradigm Learning style Knowledge Organisation of development research

Chemistry Hard-pure Assimilator Cumulative Atomistic

Engineering Hard-applied Converger Purposive Pragmatic

English Soft-pure Diverger Re-iterative Holistic

Law [?] Soft-applied Accommodator Functional utilitarian

Low strategic uncertainty; Low task uncertainty

Relatively high strategic uncertainty; Low technical task uncertainty

High degree of strategic uncertainty; High degree of task uncertainty

Relatively high strategic uncertainty; Relatively high task uncertainty

The study

In February 1987 about 400 teaching-research staff at a traditional Australian university were surveyed by questionnaire. These were staff of the rank of senior tutor and above in the departments of Law, Chemistry, English and the five Engineering departments, and staff from all departments who had participated in student evaluations of teaching and for whom, therefore, some data on teaching performance was available. English, Chemistry, Law and En- gineering were chosen to represent professional departments and pure Science and Arts departments which would allow a later cross-cultural study and a comparative study between research and teaching in these disciplines at college and university level. The effective response rate was very good (81 percent); a total of 314 usable questionnaires were returned. While the focus of this paper is on the four disciplines, there will also be reference to larger subgroups, e.g. Physical Sciences and Arts.

360

Respondents to this survey were distributed over the ranks of Senior Tutor, Lecturer, Senior Lecturer, Reader and Professor. The distribution across departments was quite unequal, with the majority of English respondents, for example, of Lecturer or Senior Tutor rank, while in Chemistry the majority were Professors or Readers. These differences may be expected to affect the response patterns.

The pattern of qualifications among staff in these departments differed greatly. In Engineering, 96% of respondents had a Ph.D. or other doctorate, in Law only 47 %. Indeed, four of its 15 respondents had only a bachelor degree (but two of these were Senior Tutors). This fits in well with Becher's description of disciplinary cultures (1987, p. 283). Staff when appointed to University positions normally are expected to have finished their professional and research training. Thus, in disciplines where Ph.D.s are valued and are regarded as a prerequisite, one would expect staff at lecturer level and above to have these qualifications. Clearly in other departments, like Law, professional qualifications seem to count more. This also used to apply to En- gineering. However, in the University the expected minimum qualification for positions has risen, and thus the high proportion of Ph.D.s in Engineering versus Law staff, for example, may be due to the Engineering staff's relatively newness to the institution. Staff in disciplines, then, which still value professional qualifications over academic ones may be disadvantaged initially in their university career when striving for tenure and promotion. The university system is expecting all staff to perform against the same 'performance indicators', including doctorates and publication records, but in these, Law academics tend to lag behind their colleagues in pure disciplines because of their interlude in the external world, and behind professional colleagues in hard- applied fields because of the different conventions regarding higher degrees and publications.

Engineering staff on probation or contract were new to fulltime tertiary teaching; indeed, more than half of the Engineering respondents had taught fourteen years or less, the 'youngest' group in terms of teaching experience. This is an indication of the greater mobility in and out of the tertiary sector which professional staff in this area enjoy. In Law, however, also a professional school, and in Chemistry and English the majority of respondents had been teaching fifteen years or more; indeed, in Chemistry 65% of respondents had been in fulltime tertiary teaching for over 20 years.

Table 2. Respondents in departments

Engineering Law Chemistry English

Number of respondents 48 15 20 22 % of departmental staff 75 47 87 85

361

Academic orientation

Staff were asked to indicate their academic orientation on a five point scale, i.e. whether they were primarily teaching oriented, teaching-and-research or predominantly research oriented. Engineering had the highest proport ion of staff with research orientation, and English the smallest. Law had the highest proport ion of staff with teaching orientation, followed by English, with Chemistry the smallest.

Table 3. Percentage of staff with each academic orientation

Teaching Teaching-Research Research

Engineering 8 48 44 Law 33 27 33 Chemistry 5 65 30 English 23 55 18

In a University which stresses above all commitment to research, such results may be alarming. However, they should not be - they are typical for their disciplines. Biglan (1973b, p. 208) found that scholars in hard areas (here Engineering and Chemistry) showed significantly greater preference for research than their colleagues in soft areas (English and Law), whereas academ-

ics in soft areas indicated a significantly greater preference for teaching. Thus in terms of self definition Engineering and Chemistry academics would stress 'research' more than those in English and Law - with all groups defining themselves as academics and scholars. In English and Law, however, 'scholarship' which is bridging teaching and research is more intimately part of teaching.

Teaching

The majority of academics in all four departments, then, included teaching in their orientation. Larger majorities than the above figures would indicate agreed with the statement " I enjoy teaching", ranging from 95 %o of Chemistry respondents down to 77% of Engineering staff. Table 4 presents some of the data on teaching:

There was a strong consensus among staff that their teaching was enhanced by research. Indeed, 90% of all respondents across the University agreed to the relevant statement. That research enhances teaching is, as mentioned before, one of the beliefs on which academics' right, not just obligation, to do research is founded. It is one of the values and attitudes, perhaps even

362

experiences, entrenched in our university system and influencing the work

pattern of academic staff.

Scrutiny of the real overlap of teaching and research revealed that most s taff

did teach subjects in their own research area, though in Law 20% did not. English staff had the highest number of courses where teaching and research

overlapped - possible reasons for this will be explored below. Asked whether

they would prefer to teach only in their area of research interest, a majori ty

only of English said 'yes ' . Chemistry had the largest proport ion of respondents who strongly disagreed with the proposition.

The majori ty of staff in all these departments agreed with the s t a t e m e n t " M y research is enhanced by my teaching" (Table 4), though in Engineering about

a third of respondents disagreed with this, an indication that teaching and

research activities do not overlap for a significant group of Engineering academics. Chemistry had the smallest proport ion of staff who believed that one can be an excellent teacher without actively doing research, and all but

5% felt that their research was enhanced by their teaching.

For many staff in all departments teaching in areas in which they are not

specialists is a welcome challenge (Table 4). The majori ty of staff in all the departments but English disagreed with the s t a t emen t" Staff should teach only

in their special f ield". In Chemistry, 75% disagreed with the statement, in English, however, only 27% of respondents. In Law, English and Engineering

individual respondents differed widely in their reactions. One can see how this

could lead to difficulties in workload allocation. It is clear f rom the above that s taff see their teaching role differently, and

the relationship between teaching and research. More reference is made to this

later in the paper.

Staff were asked to assess their own teaching performance on a 1-7 scale, with 1 = very poor, and 7 = outstanding. Of all respondents, 34% rated them-

Table 4. Percentage of staff agreeing and strongly agreeing

Chemistry Engineering English Law

My teaching is enhanced by my research 95 94 96 80 My research is enhanced by my teaching 75 52 82 60 Staff should only teach in their special field 5 33 36 20 Teaching in areas in which I am not a specialist is a welcome challenge 65 58 36 87 For my teaching my professional experience is important 90 92 64 87 One can be an excellent teacher without doing actively research 30 48 46 40

363

selves as 6 or higher. Staff in Law saw themselves most often as very good teachers (53%), in Engineering least often (23%). This parallels their avowed orientation to teaching and research. However, in terms of student evaluations actually received, English staff, on the whole fared best. (The cells are very small indeed and caution needs to be exercised in the interpretation of the data.)

It is arguable whether supervision of research students should be discussed under 'Teaching' or 'Research'. In the Arts where students tend to work in the general area of their supervisor, but where there is rarely co-operation or joint publications, supervision is more of a teaching function. In the hard areas, Chemistry and Engineering among them, students often are part of a larger research team and the training of graduate students, of research co- workers is essential for the joint research effort. Thus supervision affects the research output. Biglan (1973b, p. 209) found that in hard-pure areas like Chemistry staff liked working with people and sponsored more dissertations. Staff in this survey confirmed his finding: 45% of Chemistry respondents had supervised three or more Ph.D. students in the past two years, followed by 31% in Engineering and 18% in English. Among Law respondents only 7% had supervised that many students. Equally, Chemistry and Engineering had the smallest proportions of staff who had not supervised anyone at Ph.D. level. At the Research Master level the situation is different - many English staff are supervising several Master students, whereas half of the Chemistry staff have no Master students at all.

Research

Just as most respondents claimed to enjoy teaching, so most said they enjoyed research, with only in English 5% admitting that they did not. "I enjoy writing for publication", on the other hand, had a more mixed reaction: 36% of Engineering respondents were 'not sure' or disagreed, whereas in English only 18% responded in this way. Clearly the writing skills of staff are relevant here, with English staff more at home in scholarly writing - in English the highest proportion of staff (82%) enjoyed writing.

Chemistry staff, as may be expected, published most; half of the respondents had published 11 or more papers in the time 1982-86; no-one had not published. The majority of respondents in Engineering, Law and English had published 3-10 publications in that time. There were only 2% in Engineering who had not published at all, and 40% of Engineering respondents had published 11 or more articles/books/chapters. On the other hand of Law respondents 20%, and of English staff 14% had not published in that period, and only 7% of Law respondents had published prolifically (11 or more publications).

364

Publications and professional status are connected. Overall, Professors, followed by Readers and Senior Lecturers published most. Thus it is to be expected that the departments with the larger number of senior staff (e.g.

Chemistry) have better publication records. However, overall, probationary lecturers are closer in their publication rate to senior lecturers than to tenured lecturers - a clear indication that institutional expectations are heeded.

With regard to non-departmental research grants, many staff in Law and English had not received a grant in the previous two years (73°7o and 45%), whereas in Chemistry 80°7o had received a grant; indeed 35°7o of Chemistry respondents had received 3 or more grants. Despite the young teaching age of Engineering staff, 37°70 had received three or more grants in the time under review, and indeed the proportion of staff having received five or more grants is highest - 12°70. These figures are not surprising considering that a lot of Humanities research does not need outside funding. The data on research grants and publications confirm other studies which point to the different publication patterns and different research styles in different disciplines.

In Australia, ARC - the Australian Research Council, the main competitive general research grant body - only exceptionally now allows staff to buy their own time. But main needs of staff in English and Law tend to be time and library access. For those, staff may not be able or need not apply to outside granting bodies.

Being asked to review proposals for a funding agency is a recognition of one's own scholarly standing. In Chemistry, more than half the respondents had acted as referee and in Engineering nearly half, while in Law only one respondent had done so, and in English only a few. Clearly the status of respondents as well as their record in attracting research grants influence their perceived suitability as referees. But equally clearly the low proportion of English and Law respondents who had refereed grant applications is a function of fewer grants to be reviewed.

Similarly, being asked to act as a referee for a journal article is an indication of colleagues' trust in one's knowledge and critical abilities. Again, in Chemis- try 85°70 have done so, and 65°7o repeatedly, followed by Engineering. In English and Law over half of the respondents have not acted as referee, again partly as a function of less emphasis on journal publishing in these disciplines. The survey did not distinguish between types of publication, a serious omission in view of the known differences between disciplines in publication patterns.

Scholarship analysis

As asserted above, the notion of scholarship in the different disciplines varies and needs examining. Scholarship overlaps with both teaching and research,

365

and for a disciplinary comparison, sixteen variables were chosen, based on previous studies. The scholarship variables predict Arts, Physical Sciences and Law respondents, indeed they predict 89 percent of Law respondents correctly. Lowest prediction was for Engineering staff, followed by Social Sciences staff.

The following table shows these sixteen scholarly activities and attitudes and

Table 5. Scholarship analysis

Chemistry Engineering English Law

Occurrence: Scholarly activities Informal discussion with colleagues in

the depar tment about common research interests +

Joint research projects with colleagues in the depar tment

Reviewed articles for a professional journal +

Participated in s taf f /pos tgrad seminars + Developed a new way of dealing with a

problem + Engaged in systematic study to gain

new knowledge or acquire a new research technique

Developed a new course (subject) Served as a guest lecturer in a

colleague's class Delivered conference paper +

Agreement with statement: I frequently discuss my teaching with

collegeagues in my depar tment When I revise a course I do library

research to make the content up-to-date

I keep up-to-date with the developments in the subject area I teach

When I revise a course I examine teaching and assessment matters to see whether they are appropriate

I have a scholarly approach to my work

I maintain professional contact with colleagues met at professional meetings

I maintain professional contact with colleagues interstate and overseas

+ +

+ +

m

+

+ +

+ +

+ +

+ = significantly higher occurrence of activity - = significantly lower occurrence of activity

+ + = significantly higher proport ion of staff strongly agreed with statement - - = significantly higher proport ion of s taf f strongly disagreed with statement

366

indicates how staff in the four disciplines saw them as characterizing them. The first section looks at the occurrence of scholarly activities, respondents had to indicate whether they had done these in the previous two years. A plus ( + ) indicates a significantly higher occurrence of the activity in that discipline, a minus ( - ) a significantly lower occurrence. The second part looks at statements with which respondents agreed or disagreed. The notation + + indicates that a significantly higher proportion of staff agreed strongly with the statement, the notation - - indicates that a significantly higher proportion of staff strongly disagreed with the statement.

Chem&try

Chemistry staff clearly are scholarly within their research context. As is typical in hard-pure areas they frequently communicate with colleagues and graduate students through personal interaction, seminars and conferences, and by participating in the validation of research problems and strategies by reviewing articles. Are they typical of the Physical Sciences to which they belong for resource allocation and for promotion? Data for the comparisons with the larger area of cognate disciplines is taken from the 314 questionnaires from all departments of the university.

A comparison of staff in Chemistry with those in the Physical Sciences Group, of which it is a department, show that Chemistry staff significantly more often participated in staff/postgrad seminars; delivered conference papers; reviewed articles in professional journals; engaged in systematic study to gain new knowledge or acquire a new research technique. Chemistry staff significantly less often developed a new course; developed a new way of dealing with a problem (though only slightly less often).

Thus the characteristic conventions and work approaches in pure-hard areas is more pronounced in Chemistry than in the Physical Sciences overall.

Engineering

When Engineering is compared with other departments on the scholarship variables no activities or attitudes are found that distinguish it. To what extent do staff in Engineering differ from those in the Physical Sciences, the hard- pure areas instead of the hard-applied? Engineering staff less often had informal discussions with colleagues in the department about common research interests; participated in staff/postgrad seminars; reviewed articles for professional journals; developed a new way of dealing with a problem. And fewer o f them agreed with "I frequently discuss my teaching with colleagues

367

in my department", "I maintain professional contact with colleagues inters-

tate and overseas". Engineering staff more often than those in the Physical Sciences engaged

in systematic study to gain new knowledge or acquire a new research technique; and they agreed more with "I keep up-to-date with developments in the subject areas I am teaching", "When I revise a course I examine teaching and

assessment matters to see whether they are appropriate". These results are consistent with the literature. Considering the characteris-

tics of hard-pure areas and hard-applied areas it may be expected that En- gineering staff communicate less often (but still frequently) and score high on scholarship variables related to problem solving.

Engineering staff did not differ significantly from Biological and Medical Sciences staff. A post hoc test showed no significant difference between staff in Engineering and in Social Sciences, both applied areas, either.

English

Arts staff in comparison to staff in the Social Sciences, Biological Sciences,

Medical Sciences, Engineering, Physical Sciences and Law less often held informal discussions with colleagues in the department about common research interests; delivered conference papers; reviewed articles for a professional journal - except for Law staff which did it slightly less frequently.

Scholarship in Arts is mainly the reinterpretation of existing data; our understanding, our knowledge, our views are expanded by the way scholars have evaluated and analyzed primary sources. Humanities scholars do write articles, there are many journals, there are discipline organisations - but there is little urgency to communicate frequently through journals. Many a scholar waits until the thesis is so complete that the work of years warrants a book.

Although English is generally seen as a pure-soft area, it is diverse and also has applied components, e.g. socio-linguistics. English staff, as part of Arts staff, had a higher average of informal discussions with colleagues about research than Arts staff in general, but slightly lower than in the other departments examined here.

Incidence of conference papers and reviews of articles was lower than Engineering and Chemistry staff, but slightly higher than Law staff's. The direct discriminant functional analysis was computed using the scholarship variables in a discrimination of the four departments, Chemistry, English, Engineering and Law. The whole group of scholarship variables does not separate English from Chemistry, the other pure area, but three variables do: English staff hold significantly fewer informal discussions with colleagues; maintain significantly less professional contact with colleagues met at prof-

368

essional meetings; maintain significantly less professional contact with colleagues interstate and overseas. This confirms the individualistic approach of academics in soft areas.

English was separated from the other three departments by one variable - English staff maintained less professional contact with colleagues interstate and overseas.

The two Arts (soft) groups, English and Law were separated by two scholarship variables: English staff significantly more often participated in staff /postgrad seminars; and English staff expressed significantly less agreement with the statement " I keep up-to-date with developments in the subject areas that I am teaching".

For a pure-soft area being up-to-date is not an issue; it is not necessary that students are up-to-date in subject content, there are often 'schools' of thought and the necessary skills are taught by evaluating within these contexts or by comparison of different contexts.

Law

The scholarship variables which identify Law staff seem to be mainly interact- ing with the teaching function. But this teaching is done largely in isolation. Those variables relating to research also show Law staff as working in isolation. This is quite typical for soft fields but not necessarily so for soft-applied fields.

A post hoc test Law versus Engineering showed that the two professional groups were separated by two scholarship variables - participated in staff /postgrad seminars; developed as new course, both done by Engineering staff significantly more often than by Law respondents. Keeping up with developments in the subject areas taught also is described by Law respondents more often as an activity characterizing them. This reflects the individualistic approach to work of Law academics with relatively little interaction, and as Law is a professional course, the necessity to provide students with up-to-date subject matter.

It is not surprising that participation in staff/postgrad seminars played such a lowly role for Law s t a f f - as seen above many staff did not supervise at all and there seemed little interaction on either teaching or research. The rapidly expanding knowledge in Engineering fields also demands development of new courses. On the other hand, changes in laws seem to prompt changes in existing courses, not development of new courses. There was a significant difference in the response to the statement "When I revise a course I do library research to make the content up-to-date" - Law staff agreed to a significantly stronger extent with the statement.

369

Vignettes of four disciplines

We can see that when we look at the differences in academic activities, and particularly when we consider how scholarship or scholarly behaviour mani- fests itself we have to take cognizance of the different conventions and of the different ways of knowledge production and dissemination in different disciplines. Short vignettes bring together the features of the disciplines we looked

at here.

Chemistry

Staff in the Chemistry department exhibited many of the characteristics which other researchers have found to be typical in sciences. Staff were more senior than in the Humanities, and all were male (see Wanner et al., 1981). Staff were more research than teaching oriented, were active in research, often group research, attracted grants, supervised Ph.D. students, published prolifically; they communicated frequently with colleagues face-to-face and in writing and participated in the maintenance of scholarly standards and conventions through reviewing articles for journals.

Although staff leaned more towards research than towards teaching, Chem- istry staff enjoyed teaching. They seemed more content than process oriented, as may be expected in a science. Two thirds did not want to teach only in the area of their research interest - the highest proportion among the four fields discussed here, and an equal proportion considered it a welcome challenge to teach in areas in which they are not a specialist. Yet most respondents in Chemistry believe in the interrelationship of teaching and research. All believed that their teaching is enhanced by their research, and most that research is enhanced by teaching. And less than a third thought that one can be an excellent teacher without being active in research. Nearly everyone

actually taught subjects in their research area. In hard-pure fields in particular, academics tend to work in a collaborative

context and the high level of interaction has been demonstrated for staff in this department, too. Thus the departmental context becomes very important. Asked whether the department affected the amount of research they do, three quarters of Chemistry staff mentioned high teaching loads which restricted the available time for research.

Staff themselves strongly felt that they had a scholarly approach to their work. Scholarship for Chemistry staff was closely interwoven with research activities and manifested itself in a high level of interaction with graduate students and with colleagues in the department and the discipline nationally and internationally.

370

Engineering

Engineering appears to be a very dynamic field with a lot of new highly qualified staff, getting promoted quickly, engaged in research, publications, reviewing and assessing, but also in course design. Developing new courses is a major and important activity in fields where new developments and technologies need to be monitored and covered. Most of the staff believe that their teaching is enhanced by research; but less than half would prefer to teach only in the area of their research interest. Only about half believe that their research is enhanced by their teaching and nearly half believe that one can be an excellent teacher without being an active researcher.

They do their teaching competently, fewer than in the other disciplines actually enjoy it very much, but, then, the thrust of their activity seems to be in research. Research is seen here more as a separate activity than for Chemistry and English staff, possibly because Engineering staff develop research projects through interaction with the profession rather than from personal interest or theoretical demands. More than two thirds of staff feel that the department affects the amount of research they do, the same proportion as in Chemistry, mainly by the general workload. Nearly half feel that the department affected also the direction of their research, mainly through resources available or attainable. But a few saw bias against their research in the department - if their research was not in an area favoured by the department they were disadvantaged in obtaining resources for it.

Engineers, pragmatists, were critical of the University in its focus on research only. Several commented that academics contributed to the Universi- ty in their roles as teachers, researchers, consultants, administrators, and that all of these roles were necessary; but that only the researchers were rewarded in promotion.

In Chemistry we saw that the scholarship variables were closely allied to the research functions. In Engineering staff performed scholarly activities, but their involvement was less marked than of staff in Chemistry. As one engineer commented "Scholarship is not a concept readily discussed in Engineering".

English

Academics in English were fairly junior and had the largest number of women among them, typical for Humanities areas (Wanner et al., 1981). They liked teaching, most saw it as part of their role, if not their only role; the emphasis on teaching is typical for pure-soft areas. The majority wanted to teach only in their area of research interest and indeed for many it was possible to teach

371

several courses in this field. Only a minority saw teaching in an area in which

one was not a specialist as a welcome challenge. Why do English staff differ f rom staff in the other disciplines? In terms of

Whitley's categorization mentioned above, teaching in English is not a conveying of factual information or explanation of shared theoretical frameworks and research strategies. But because of the individualistic nature of knowledge, because staff have to model to students how one evaluates evidence, theories, interpretations, so they might derive a new understanding or interpretation, any new subject matter taught requires staff to research this area. In addition, English staff feel very much under pressure from heavy teaching commit- ments. In response to the question "Does the department influence (a) the direction, (b) the amount of research you do?" , English staff most often mentioned the necessity of gearing their research to their teaching - it was impossible to separate them - as scholarly occupation with too many diverse subject matters was not possible. All English staff with an interest in teaching, like most Chemistry staff, also strongly felt that the high teaching loads and the large number of students (undergraduates in English, quite apart from graduate students, get more individual feedback than students in many other

fields) constrained research time. However, Wanner et aL (1981, p. 246) found that in the Humanities, and

only in the Humanities, there is a positive relationship between time spent on teaching and productivity, and equally between commitment to teaching and article count. This is due, no doubt to scholarship which makes teaching not a conveying of information but a scholarly activity in which staff use, and for which they draw on, their research skills. Thus the stronger preference for teaching found among the Humanities, and here in English, is not counterproductive to research/scholarship as may be feared. Indeed, one may say that scholarship is an integral component of both teaching and research in the Humanities. What is experienced as counterproductive, however, is the large number of different courses staff have to teach and the assessment burden.

Law

Law staff were the most distinct group. A third of the respondents were teaching oriented. The Law Department is a professional department teaching a degree that provides the basis of professional accreditation for practising lawyers. Staff saw themselves most often as very good teachers, but actually sought least feedback from colleagues or students. On many practices and attitudes there was a division among staff. But most Law respondents felt strongly that they had a scholarly approach to their work; here it meant to teaching. They most often claimed that they kept up-to-date with

372

developments in the subjects they were teaching; that when revising a course they examined teaching and assessment matters to see whether they are appropriate; and that when revising a course they did library research to make the content up-to-date. It is clear that the content of what is taught is more important than the process, hence the emphasis on keeping up-to-date.

As in the other soft area discussed here, English, scholarship means for Law staff scholarly attention to teaching. As one Law lecturer wrote on the questionnaire: "The department influences the direction of my research through the allocation of teaching duties. It would be very difficult for me to maintain my teaching standards by keeping abreast of current developments in my teaching standards by keeping abreast of current developments in my teaching subjects and at the same time to sustain significant research activity in a different area". But Law staff experience the department as influencing the amount and direction of research least often among the departments. Indeed, they seem to work in isolation on both teaching and research tasks.

Several respondents commented on the role of professional practice which is as important for soft-applied areas as for hard-applied ones like Engineer- ing, and found that the survey had not addressed the involvement in professional practice in the discipline as a factor in the development of scholarship and teaching. This has been only implicitly established through the scholarship variables which distinguish Law, and two questions in the survey. Indeed, four fifth of Law respondents had strongly agreed with the statement "For my teaching my professional experience is important"; this was stronger agreement than in Engineering. But Law staff felt less strongly that professional experience was important for research, though still a larger proportion (60°70) strongly agreed with this statement than did staff in Engineering.

Law staff published somewhat more than English staff, and most of them researched without grants. This, of course, is quite usual in the soft disciplines.

Conclusions

A survey with limited number of respondents only gives limited information. But the data obtained confirm many of the differences found in the literature on disciplinary differences. These differences extend to teaching and research and involve different concepts of scholarship. The White Paper had defined it as we have seen above as "the analysis and interpretation of existing knowledge aimed at improving, though teaching or by other means of communication, the depth of human understanding." But scholarly activities go beyond this and include attitudes to teaching and research tasks as well as pattern of communication which we have seen, differ in different disciplines.

373

Differences have been found, despite the many variables which were not controlled, which confirm results of studies undertaken in Britain and the US. Teaching is experienced differently in the different disciplines; in some it may be largely divorced from own research and teaching is enjoyed as such. In others, like English and Law, there is a necessity to align teaching and research interests. Here scholarship provides the bridge between both, and, particularly for English, the boundary between research and scholarship is fluid. It is important that these differences are acknowledged in workload allocation, staff-student ratios, in funds for research. A university definition of research has to include 'scholarship' components, e.g. "the analysis and interpretation of existing knowledge" so that research done in the Humanities is not disquali- fied.

This is all the more important as the amalgamations of colleges and universities in train in Australia at present, and the 'upgrading' of colleges to universities, will bring into the university system many academic staff without a tradition of research in its narrow, science-based meaning. But there are many academic staff in the college sector who are scholarly in their approach to their academic work. In order to engage in scholarly behaviour staff need to have time and resources, much the same as staff in the Humanities have enjoyed in the past. This means for Chemistry and Engineering academics in the college sector, for example, that conference and travel money is available, that postgraduate programs are established, staff-student seminars initiated. For the Humanities and Social Sciences it means adequate and expanding library resources.

Performance indicators which measure the performance of one department/discipline against others, are defensible when used with care and in context. But performance indicators which are used within an institution across the disciplines, are biased against the Humanities, and favour the Physical and Applied Sciences. By definition, performance indicators measure only quantifiable outputs or processes: number of postgraduate students, number and amount of research grants received, number of publications, number of conferences attended, number of keynote addresses, number of consultancies, number of manuscripts reviewed, and number or research grant applications reviewed. All of these, as previous research has shown, and our data confirm, are based on the conventions within one group of disciplines only.

While it is true that Humanities people in general publish less, but publish longer works, there are Humanities people who publish prolifically, as there are Science people who do not publish. Neither the quality of the staff members nor the departmental climate are the same in all departments. Staff in all departments recognize that there are high performers in their midst and low performers, and that high performance of all staff needs to be encouraged.

374

What they do not understand is when the standards of one discipline are taken and applied to all in promotion and tenure decisions. When we compare Engineering and English, we are comparing apples and oranges. As long as apples and oranges of the same quality are compared the buyer can choose according to taste. No one would expect apples to taste like oranges. We know they need different climates, have a different growth rate, have a different freshness period. Providing the climates and the conditions where each kind

can flourish best ensures quality products.

Acknowledgement

Some of the data in this paper are also reported in the author's article, 'Academic W o r k - Research, Scholarship and Teaching', Research and Devel- opment in Higher Education, vol. 10, Sydney, 1989.

Barbara Rigsby and Peter Nelson worked as research assistants on this

project. Both their help is gratefully acknowledged.

References

Australian Science and Technology Council (ASTEC) (1987). Improving the Research Perfor- mance of Australia's Universities and Other Higher Education Institutions. Canberra, CGP.

Becher, T. (1984). 'The Cultural View', in B.R. Clark (ed.), Perspectives on Higher Education, Berkeley, University of California Press, pp. 165-198.

Becher, T. (1987). 'The Disciplinary Shaping of the Profession', in B.R. Clark (ed.), The Academic Profession, Berkeley, University of California Press, pp. 271-303.

Ben-David, J. (1977). Centres of Learning, New York, McGraw Hill. Biglan, A. (1973a). 'The Characteristics of Subject Matter in Different Academic Areas'. Journal

of Applied Psychology 57 (3), 195-203. Biglan, A. (1973b). 'Relationships between Subject Matter Characteristics and the Structure and

Output of University Departments'. Journal of Applied Psychology 57 (3), 204-213. Blackburn, R. T., Behymer, C. E. and Hall, D. E. (1978). Research Note: Correlates of Faculty

Publications. Sociology of Education 51, 132-141. Blau, P. M. (1973). The Organization of Academic Work. New York, John Wiley & Sons. CTEC (1986). Review of Efficiency and Effectiveness in Higher Education. Canberra, AGPS. Commonwealth of Australia (Dawkins Report) (1987), Higher Education. A policy discussion

paper. Canberra, Commonwealth Department of Employment, Education and Training. Elton, L. (1986). 'Research and Teaching: Symbiosis or Conflict?'. Higher Education 15,299-304. Kolb, D. A. (1981). 'Learning Styles and Disciplinary Differences'. In: A.W. Chickering and

Associates, The Modern American College, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 232-255. Moses, I. (1986). 'Promotion of Academic Staff - Reward and Incentive'. Higher Education 15

(1 &2), 135-149. OECD (1981). The Future of University Research. Paris, OECD. Schwartzman, S. (1984). 'The Focus on Scientific Activity'. In B.R. Clark (ed.), Perspectives on

Higher Education, Berkeley, University of California Press, pp. 199-232. Trow, M. S. (1984). 'The Analysis of Status'. In B.R. Clark (ed.), Perspectives on Higher

Education, Berkeley, University of California Press, pp. 132-164.

375

Wanner, R. A., Lewis, L. S. and Gregorio, D. I. (1981). 'Research Productivity in Academia: A comparative study of the sciences, social sciences and humanities'. Sociology of Education 54 (October), 238-253.

Whitley, R. (1984). The Intellectual and Social Organization of the Sciences. Oxford, Clarendon Press.

Documents

Teaching, research and scholarship in different disciplines