In my short time studying higher education, I have heard the importance and place of research in academic circles (and the time devoted to it) argued many times. I have heard the issue argued from both sides as well. Some believe that too much time is devoted to research while others say it is not emphasized enough. Whatever the opinion, it is an inescapable part of the teaching profession for those in higher education. It is the standard by which reputations are made and promotions are granted; but, what effect does it have on higher education costs? Many believe, as Massey and Zemsky (1994) explain, the importance placed on research in higher education is a sign of low productivity or “output creep.” The authors state, “To the extent which those who pay for education (especially students, parents, and those responsible for state government) place less value on these alternative activities that do faculty, they see ‘output creep’ as a decline in productivity” (p. 3). I must admit, even though I will one day be doing this research myself, I can understand this assumption. After all, it is logical to assume that the more time an instructor dedicates to research, the less time he or she will have to devote to teaching, grading papers, and advising. Further, if an instructor’s classroom time goes down, fewer students will have the privilege of their instruction. This lack of classroom time could lead to higher costs. As a matter of fact, Lewis and Dundar (2001) tell us that increases in the amount of time that instructors devote to research is considered one of the most significant factors in increased higher education cost in twenty years. So, according to the “output creep” theory, colleges are charging more and providing less to students due to the increasing amount of time that faculty spend on research (Massey & Wilger, 1992).
The way the problem is discussed makes the issue of solving it seem quite easy. Cut out the research and watch productivity go up. Right? Some believe so. Fried (2011) bluntly suggests that the most obvious cut that can be made to a college budget is the money spent on service and research for the simple fact that those activities “add little, if any, to undergraduate education” (p. 9). This would not only save money but it would also help to appease the students and parents paying the ever-rising costs of higher education. However, eliminating research would also eliminate a very important element of the missions held by many institutions (Massey & Wilger, 1992). It would also all but prevent instructors from moving up the faculty ladder because so much emphasis is placed on research in that process. Perhaps the tenure and promotion process should be altered to give more consideration to teaching achievement and production. This would ensure that students are getting more instruction time, and it would also allow instructors to focus more of their time and energy on instructing (it would benefit both the instructor and the student body at that point). The only problem with this would be that the institutions that have begun to place more emphasis on teaching would more than likely lose much of the public acclaim and prestige that they receive through faculty research and publications. In other words, a gap would further open between highly-endowed, prestigious institutions that can afford to let instructors do research and those depending more on public funding.
As I close, I must mention that Lewis and Dundar (2001) do explain that a joint production of teaching and research can result in economies of scope, but proving to those paying the bills (parents, students, and taxpayers) that these economies exist will be quite tricky.
References
Fried, V.H. (2011). Opportunities for Efficiency and Innovation: A Primer on How to Cut College Costs (Working Paper No. 2011-02). Retrieved from http://www.aei.org/docLib/ Opportunities-for-Efficiency-and-Innovation-Fried-FINAL.pdf
Lewis, D.R., & Dundar, H. (2001). Costs and productivity in higher education: Theory evidence and policy implications. In M.B. Paulsen & J.C. Smart (Eds.), The Finance of Higher Education: Theory, Research, Policy & Practice (pp. 133-188). New York: Agathon.
Massey, W.F., & Wilger, A. K. (1992). Productivity in postsecondary education: A new approach. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 14(4), 361-376.
Massey, W.F., & Zemsky, R. (1994). Faculty discretionary time: Departments and the academic ratchet. Journal Higher Education, 65(1), 1-22. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/ stable/2943874?seq=2
William,
ReplyDeleteI like your discussion above. I wish states would restrict research at some state institutions such as community colleges and some other colleges. If the standard teaching load was a mandated 4/4 at many state institutions, but not all, then costs would come down dramatically. Let the doctoral level institutions be research oriented, and the rest be teaching oriented. The problem is that all institutions want the prestige associated with research and want to perform less teaching so as to do more research!
Paul