Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=vjeb20
Journal of Education for Business
ISSN: 0883-2323 (Print) 1940-3356 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vjeb20
The Effects of Different Teaching, Research,
and Service Emphases on Individual and
Organizational Outcomes in Higher Education
Institutions
David E. Terpstra & Andre L. Honoree
To cite this article: David E. Terpstra & Andre L. Honoree (2009) The Effects of Different Teaching, Research, and Service Emphases on Individual and Organizational Outcomes in Higher Education Institutions, Journal of Education for Business, 84:3, 169-176, DOI: 10.3200/ JOEB.84.3.169-176
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.3200/JOEB.84.3.169-176
Published online: 07 Aug 2010.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 57
View related articles
aculty at 4-year colleges and uni-versities typically engage in work activities related to teaching, research, andservice.Therelativeemphasisgiven tothesethreeareaslikelyvariesbyinsti- tution.Inthepresentstudy,weinvesti-gated the relative emphasis given to teaching, research, and service at U.S. collegesanduniversities.Moresignifi-cantly, we investigated the effects of different activity emphases on individ-ual and institutional outcomes such as faculty teaching effectiveness, research performance,servicelevels,jobandpay satisfaction, attraction (recruitment), andretention.
LiteratureReview
DifferingFacultyActivityEmphases AcrossInstitutions
Some colleges and universities are knownprimarilyasteachinginstitutions, whereas others are known as research institutions. For example,U.S. News andWorldReportdistinguishesbetween research and teaching institutions in its annual ranking of colleges and univer-sities (Guliuzza, 1992). The Carnegie Foundation (2005) also classifies U.S. colleges and universities into different categoriesonthebasisofsuchfactorsas thetypeofacademicmissionandamount offederalresearchmoneyreceived.
History,tradition,andpoliticalinflu-ences may explain some of the
differ-ences in the faculty activity emphases acrossinstitutionsintheUnitedStates. The varying institutional emphases on teachingandresearchmayalsobepar-tiallybecauseofdifferingstatemandates and missions. Recently, several U.S. state legislatures have become more involved in influencing faculty activi-ties by requiring professors to spend moretimeonteachingandlesstimeon pursuingresearch(Cage,1995;Milem, Berger,&Dey,2000).Differingfaculty activityemphasesmayalsobebecause of different types of marketing strate-gies designed to appeal to and attract students.Forexample,someprivatecol- legesanduniversitiesprominentlypub-licizethattheyareteaching(ratherthan research) institutions in their market-ing literature. Even in a single institu-tion,thefacultyactivityemphasismay varybyacademicdiscipline(Bowen& Schuster, 1986; Leslie, 2002).To date, little empirical data has been gathered regarding possible differences in activ-ityemphasesasafunctionofdiscipline type. It seems likely, for example, that the typical emphasis found in business schoolsdiffersfromthatfoundinliberal artsorscienceschools.
An institution’s formal or pub-lic statement regarding the relative emphasis to be given to teaching ver-susresearchmaydiffermarkedlyfrom theactualrelativeemphasis.Theactual emphasis may be better assessed by
TheEffectsofDifferentTeaching,
Research,andServiceEmphaseson
IndividualandOrganizationalOutcomesin
HigherEducationInstitutions
DAVIDE.TERPSTRA ANDREL.HONOREE
EASTERNWASHINGTONUNIVERSITY SOUTHEASTERNLOUISIANAUNIVERSITY
CHENEY,WASHINGTON HAMMOND,LOUISIANA
F
ABSTRACT.Theauthorsinvestigated therelativeemphasisthateducatorsgive toteaching,research,andserviceinthe businessdisciplineand4otheracademic disciplines.Theauthorsalsoinvestigated theeffectsofdifferentfacultyactivity emphasesonfacultyteachingeffectiveness, researchperformance,servicelevels,job andpaysatisfaction,attraction,andreten-tion.Thesamplecomprisedapproximately 500facultymembersfromU.S.colleges anduniversities.
Keywords:activityemphases,faculty, university
Copyright©2008HeldrefPublications
the nature of the reward structure in place. For example, an institution may formally state that good teaching is of the utmost importance, yet the organi-zational rewards (e.g., merit pay, ten-ure,promotion)maybebasedprimarily on research accomplishments. In other words,lipservicemaybegiventogood outcomes, thereis a good dealof con-jecture about the best mix of teach-ingandresearch.Someresearchersfeel thatastrongemphasisonresearchmay detractfromfacultyteachingeffective-ness. If the reward structure is based primarilyonresearchandpublications, it is possible that faculty may devote less time and energy to their teach-ing responsibilities (Blackburn, 1974; Marsh, 1987). Other researchers feel thatastrongemphasisonresearchmay contribute to teaching effectiveness. For example, faculty who are active researchers are more likely to be well awareofthelatestdevelopmentsintheir fields, and they may be better teachers because they are more likely to pass along valid and up-to-date information totheirstudents(Guliuzza,1992;Marsh &Hattie,2002).
In addition to outcomes related to teachingeffectiveness,differentempha-satisfaction, attraction (recruitment), andretention.
PurposeandObjectives
Thereislittleempiricaldataregarding therelativeemphasisgiventoteaching, research, and service at U.S. colleges and universities; and there is a similar lack of empirical data regarding the effectsofdifferentactivityemphaseson important individual and organization-al outcomes. In the present study, we sought to address these informational deficiencies. One specific objective of
ourstudywastodeterminetherelative emphasis given to teaching, research, and service activities at U.S. colleges anduniversities.Weassessedtheactual emphasis given to teaching, research, and service by the extent to which rewards were based on the different faculty activities. We also investigated differences in activity emphases as a functionofinstitutionalsize,publicsta-tus versus private status, and academic discipline. For example, it is possible thatthetypicalfacultyactivityemphasis found in the business discipline dif-fersfromthetypicalemphasisfoundin disciplinessuchasliberalarts,science, education,orsocialscience.
A second, more important objec-tiveofourstudywastoinvestigatethe effects of different types of activity emphases on important individual and organizationaloutcomes.Theoutcomes we investigated were faculty teaching effectiveness(includingstudentknowl-edge or competency and student satis-factionwithteaching),facultyresearch performance (research quality and quantity), service levels, job and pay satisfaction, attraction (recruitment), andretention.
METHOD
SampleandDataCollection
Wedevelopedalistof1,400colleges anduniversitiesintheUnitedStatesand drew a random sample of 600 institu-tions from that list. We contacted the administrators of these institutions in 2005, asking them if they would par-ticipateinourstudy,and219ofthe600 agreedtoparticipate(foraresponserate of37%atthisstage).Ofthe219institu-tions,135(62%)usedmeritsystemsfor their faculty. Only the 135 institutions thatusedmeritplansprovideddatafor faculty participation and completion of the survey. We assured the faculty of the anonymity of their responses.
Ofthefacultycontacted,490individu-als eventually returned our survey. We developedthesurveyinstrumentonthe basisofareviewoftherelevantlitera-ture. We pilot-tested the questionnaire by giving it to 20 faculty members at ourtwoinstitutionspriortoadminister-ing it. We made minor changes to the surveyinstrumentonthebasisofcom-ments from those participating in the pilottest.
Measures
FacultyActivityEmphases
We assessed the teaching, research, and service emphases by asking the respondents the following question: “What is/are the primary criterion/ criteriathatyourrewards(e.g.,pay,pro-motion, tenure) are based upon?” The response categories were (a) research, (b) teaching; (c) service; (d) teach-ing and research (equal weight); (e) teachingandservice(equalweight);(f) researchandservice(equalweight);(g) teaching, research, and service (equal weight);and(h)don’tknow.
IndividualandOrganizational Outcomes
We used three measures of faculty teachingeffectiveness.Therespondents wereaskedtoratetheinfluenceoftheir merit plan (reward system) on (a) the teaching effectiveness of faculty, (b) student knowledge or competency, and (c)studentsatisfaction.Weused5-point Likert-typescalesrangingfrom1(very positive)to5(very negative).Thefirst measureaskedtherespondentstoassess the influence of their merit plan on the teaching effectiveness of the fac-ultyingeneral,ratherthanontheirown individual teaching effectiveness. This indirect, other-oriented measure was designed to reduce social desirability bias (Jurgensen, 1978; Opsahl & Dun-nette,1966).
We used two measures of faculty research performance. The respon-dents were asked to rate the influence of their merit plan on “the quality of researchofourfaculty”and“thequan-tityofresearchofourfaculty.”Forthese questions, we used 5-point Likert-type scalesrangingfrom1(verypositive)to 5 (very negative). These two measures
were designed to be more indirect and other-oriented.
We measured faculty service levels by asking the respondents to rate the influence of their merit plan (reward system)onthe“levelofserviceofour faculty.”Forthisquestion,weuseda5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (verypositive)to5(verynegative).
Weusedtwomeasuresoffacultyjob satisfaction. The first measure of job satisfaction asked the respondents the following question: “In general, how satisfiedareyouwithyourjob?”Forthis question,weuseda5-pointLikert-type scalerangingfrom1(verysatisfied)to5 (veryunsatisfied).Thesecondmeasure ofjobsatisfactionaskedtherespondents toratetheinfluenceoftheirmeritplan (rewardsystem)onthe“levelofjobsat-isfactionofthecurrentfaculty.”Forthis question,weuseda5-pointLikert-type scalerangingfrom1(verypositive)to5 (verynegative).Thissecondmeasureof job satisfaction was more indirect and other-orientedthanthefirstmeasure.
Weusedtwomeasuresoffacultypay satisfaction. The first measure asked therespondents,“Ingeneral,howsatis-fied are you with your pay?” For this question,weuseda5-pointLikert-type scalerangingfrom1(verysatisfied)to5 (veryunsatisfied).Thesecondmeasure askedtherespondents,“Ingeneral,how fairistheamountofmeritpaythatyou
typicallyreceive?”Forthisquestion,we useda5-pointLikert-typescaleranging from1(veryfair)to5(veryunfair).
We measured faculty attraction and faculty retention by asking the respon-dentstoratetheinfluenceoftheirmerit plan(rewardsystem)onthe“abilityto attractandrecruitnewfaculty”andthe “abilitytoretain(keep)currentfaculty.” For these two questions, we used 5-pointLikert-typescalesrangingfrom1 (verypositive)to5(verynegative).
InstitutionalVariables
Wemeasuredthesizeofthecollege oruniversitybyaskingtherespondents to indicate “the approximate student enrollment” of their institution. They also indicated whether their institution was public or private. To assess disci-pline type, we asked the respondents, “To what discipline do you belong?” Theirfixedchoiceswereasfollows:lib- eralarts,business,education,engineer-ing,law,nursing,pharmacy,continuing education, humanities, social sciences, sciences,orother.
RESULTS
FacultyActivityEmphases
Table1presentsthefrequenciesand
percentagesofthedifferenttypesoffac-ultyactivityemphases.Fewrespondents (n =9)indicatedthatservicewasthepri-maryrewardcriterion.Inasimilarway, few respondents (n = 7) indicated that “research and service (equal weight)” weretheprimaryrewardcriteria.There-fore,thesetworesponsecategorieswere eliminatedfromtheremaininganalyses. Overall figures are presented in Table 1,alongwithadditionalbreakdownsby institutionsize(≤10,000studentsvs.> 10,000 students), public status versus privatestatus,andacademicdiscipline.
The overall figures in Table 1 show thatthemostcommonfacultyemphasis was one that stressed research (31%). Anemphasisthatgaveequalweightto research, teaching, and service (28%) was also frequently used. Only 15% of the faculty respondents indicated that teaching was the primary activity emphasizedintheirinstitution.
Activity emphases differed by size. Smaller institutions were more like-ly to emphasize teaching (26%) than research (9%). Still, the most common emphasisforsmallinstitutionswasone inwhichresearch,teaching,andservice weregivenequalweight(33%).Larger institutionsweremorelikelytoempha-sizeresearch(52%)thanteaching(4%). Similar differences in emphases were apparent for private institutions versus public institutions. Private institutions weremorelikelytoemphasizeteaching
TABLE1.FrequenciesandPercentagesofTypesofFacultyActivityEmphases
Research Research,
and Teaching teaching,
Research Teaching teaching andservice andservice
Facultyactivityemphasis f % f % f % f % f %
Overallfigures(N=417) 131 31 62 15 75 18 33 8 116 28
Size
≤10,000(n=201) 18 9 53 26 34 17 30 15 66 33
>10,000(n=203) 106 52 8 4 40 20 3 1 46 23
Status
Public(n=316) 117 37 42 13 53 17 20 6 84 27
Private(n=94) 13 14 20 21 20 21 13 14 28 30
Discipline
Liberalarts(n=99) 33 33 18 18 16 16 6 6 26 26
Sciences(n=75) 25 33 7 9 7 9 10 13 26 35
Businessand
accounting(n=61) 20 33 8 13 18 30 6 10 9 15
Education(n=40) 5 13 7 18 13 33 3 8 12 30
Socialsciences(n=32) 12 38 5 16 4 13 1 3 10 31
(21%) than research (14%), although themostcommonemphasisforprivate institutionswasoneinwhichresearch, teaching,andserviceweregivenequal weight (30%). Public institutions were more likely to emphasize research (37%)thanteaching(13%).
The data in Table 1 also indicated that faculty activity emphases varied byacademicdiscipline.Althoughthere were substantial differences in empha-ses between the various types of dis-ciplines, the activity emphases for the businessdisciplinewereverysimilarto those of the overall figures. The most common emphasis for business was one in which research was given the most weight (33%). The most com-monemphasisoverallwasalsoonethat stressedresearch (31%). In the
busi-ness discipline, few institutions gave theteachingemphasisthemostweight (13%).Inaddition,fewinstitutionsgave teachingthemostweightoverall(15%). The least common emphasis for busi-ness (10%) and overall (8%) was one in which teaching and service (equal weight)weregiventhehighestpriority.
IndividualandOrganizational Outcomes
Table 2 presents the mean scores and standard deviations of the 12 important individual and organiza-tional outcome measures by type of facultyactivityemphasis.
Aseriesofone-wayanalysisofvari-ance (ANOVA) tests were performed on the outcome measures to check for
statistically significant differences. Follow-up mean comparison analyses (Duncan’s multiple range tests) were also performed on each set of mean scores to determine which specific meansweresignificantlydifferentfrom theothers.
Regarding the three measures of teaching performance, theANOVAs for general faculty teaching effectiveness,
F(4,404)=8.93,p<.05,generalstudent knowledge and competency,F(4, 393) =3.13,p < .05, and general student satisfaction,F(4, 388) =5.78,p < .05, were all significant. For general faculty teachingeffectiveness,aDuncan’smul-tiplerangetestindicatedthatthelevelof generalteachingeffectivenessassociated withtheresearchandteachingemphasis (M=2.47,SD=0.80)wassignificantly
TABLE2.InfluenceofTypesofFacultyActivityEmphasesonIndividualandOrganizationalOutcomes
Research Research,
and Teaching teaching,
Research Teaching teaching andservice andservice
(n=131) (n=62) (n=75) (n=33) (n=116)
Outcomeemphasis M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD
Individualfacultyjob
satisfaction 2.06 0.97 2.08 1.01 1.80 0.81 2.24 1.09 1.97 1.01
Generalfacultyjob
satisfaction 3.28 1.11 3.59 1.00 3.06 1.03 3.41 0.98 3.19 1.07
Individualfacultypay
satisfaction 2.87 1.07 3.03 1.08 2.41 1.03 2.91 1.10 2.72 1.12
Individualfacultypay
fairness 2.89 1.01 3.03 1.08 2.49 1.03 3.18 1.10 2.80 0.99
Generalfaculty
researchquality 2.37 0.98 2.76 0.90 2.65 0.92 3.00 0.93 2.55 0.81
Generalfaculty
researchquantity 2.15 0.92 2.63 0.82 2.39 0.83 3.03 0.74 2.44 0.85
Generalfaculty
teaching
effectiveness 3.16 1.00 2.88 0.89 2.47 0.80 2.78 0.79 2.63 0.80
Generalstudent
knowledgeand
competency 3.06 0.88 2.87 0.68 2.69 0.77 2.85 0.67 2.79 0.69
Generalstudent
satisfaction 3.02 0.88 2.81 0.80 2.50 0.79 2.77 0.72 2.68 0.65
Generalfaculty
servicelevel 3.24 1.00 2.55 0.80 2.79 0.85 2.33 0.92 2.50 0.81
Attractionand
recruitmentofnew
faculty 2.90 0.89 3.14 0.82 2.85 0.87 3.27 0.67 2.81 0.88
Retentionof
currentfaculty 3.10 1.15 3.43 1.05 3.01 0.99 3.42 0.94 3.01 1.00
Note.Allofthemeasuresofindividualandorganizationaloutcomesemployed5-pointLikert-typescalesrangingfrom1(averypositiveinfluenceor effect)to5(averynegativeinfluenceoreffect).
greaterthanthelevelsofteachingeffec-tiveness associated with the teaching emphasis (M = 2.88,SD = 0.89) and theresearchemphasis(M=3.16,SD= 1.00)atthe.05levelofsignificance.The levelofteachingeffectivenessassociated with the research, teaching, and service emphasis(M=2.63,SD=0.80)wasalso foundtobesignificantlygreaterthanthe levelofeffectivenessassociatedwiththe researchemphasis(M=3.16,SD=1.00) at the .05 level of significance. Simi-larly,forgeneralstudentknowledgeand competency, a Duncan’s multiple range test indicated that the level of student knowledge and competency associated withtheresearchandteachingemphasis (M=2.69,SD=0.77)wassignificantly greater than the level of student knowl-edge and competency associated with theresearchemphasis(M=3.06,SD= 0.88)atthe.05levelofsignificance.For general student satisfaction, a Duncan’s multiplerangetestalsoindicatedthatthe level of student satisfaction associated withtheresearchandteachingemphasis (M=2.50,SD=0.79)wassignificantly greaterthanthelevelofstudentsatisfac- tionassociatedwiththeresearchempha-sis(M=3.02,SD=0.88)atthe.05level ofsignificance.
In general, the analyses involving the three measures of teaching perfor-mancesuggestedthatthemosteffective teacherswerethosewhoworkedunder systems that emphasized research and teaching (equal weight). Faculty who operatedundersystemsthatemphasized research and teaching were associat-ed with significantly better ratings of teaching effectiveness, student knowl- edgeandcompetency,andstudentsatis-factionthanwerefacultywhooperated undersystemsthatemphasizedresearch onlyorteachingonly.
The ANOVAs for general faculty researchquality,F(4,388)=3.98,p< .05,andgeneralfacultyresearchquan-tity,F(4, 389) =8.23,p < .05, were significant.Forresearchquality,aDun-can’s multiple range test indicated that the level of research quality associated with the research emphasis (M = 2.37,
SD = 0.98) was significantly greater than the levels of quality associated withtheteachingemphasis(M=2.76,
SD = 0.90) and the teaching and ser-viceemphasis(M=3.00,SD=0.93)at
the .05 level of significance. The level of research quality associated with the research,teaching,andserviceemphasis (M=2.55,SD=0.81)wasalsofoundto besignificantlygreaterthanthelevelof qualityassociatedwiththeteachingand serviceemphasis(M=3.00,SD=0.93) atthe.05levelofsignificance.
In addition, for general faculty research quantity, a Duncan’s multiple range test indicated that the research quantity associated with the research emphasis (M = 2.15,SD = 0.92) was significantly greater than the quantity associated with the teaching emphasis (M=2.63,SD=0.82)andtheteaching andserviceemphasis(M=3.03,SD= 0.74) at the .05 level of significance. Moreover, the levels of research quan-tity associated with the research and teaching emphasis (M =2.39,SD = 0.83), the research, teaching, and ser-vice emphasis (M = 2.44,SD = 0.85), and the teaching emphasis (M =2.63,
SD=0.82)wereallsignificantlygreater than the research quantity associated withtheteachingandserviceemphasis (M=3.03,SD =0.74)atthe.05signifi-cancelevel.
In general, faculty who oper-ated under systems that emphasized research (regardless of whether it was a research-only emphasis; a research and teaching emphasis; or a research, teaching, and service emphasis) were significantlymoreproductiveinterms of research quality and quantity than were faculty who operated under sys-temsthatdidnotemphasizeresearch(a teaching-only emphasis or a teaching andserviceemphasis).
TheANOVAforgeneralfacultyser-vice level,F(4, 383) =13.98,p < .05, was significant. A Duncan’s multiple range test indicated that the levels of service associated with the teaching andserviceemphasis(M=2.33,SD= 0.92); the research, teaching, and ser-vice emphasis (M = 2.50,SD = 0.81); the teaching emphasis (M = 2.55,SD = 0.80); and the research and teaching emphasis (M = 2.79,SD = 0.85) were all significantly greater than the level ofserviceassociatedwiththeresearch-onlyemphasis(M=3.24,SD=1.00)at the .05 level of significance. The level of service associated with the teaching andserviceemphasis(M=2.33,SD=
0.92)wasalsofoundtobesignificantly greater than the level of service asso-ciated with the research and teaching emphasis(M=2.79,SD=0.85)atthe .05levelofsignificance.
Ingeneral,theanalysesinvolvingser-viceindicatedthatfacultywhoworked under systems that emphasized service insomefashion(e.g.,theteachingand serviceemphasisortheresearch,teach-ing, and service emphasis) had great-er levels of service than faculty who workedundersystemsthatemphasized researchonlyorresearchandteaching.
A one-way ANOVA of individual facultyjobsatisfactionwasnotsignifi-cant,F(4, 409) = 1.55,p > .05; how-ever, a Duncan’s multiple range test indicatedthatthelevelofindividualjob satisfactionassociatedwiththeresearch and teaching emphasis (M = 1.80,SD = 0.81) was significantly greater than thelevelofsatisfactionassociatedwith the teaching and service emphasis (M = 2.24,SD = 1.09) at the .05 level ofsignificance.Aone-wayANOVAof generalfacultyjobsatisfactionwassig-nificant,F(4,386)=2.38,p<.05,and aDuncan’smultiplerangetestindicated thatthelevelofgeneralfacultyjobsat-isfaction associated with the research and teaching emphasis (M = 3.06,SD = 1.03) was significantly greater than thelevelofsatisfactionassociatedwith theteachingandserviceemphasis(M= 3.41,SD=0.98)andteachingemphasis (M=3.59,SD=1.00)atthe.05levelof significance. The level of general fac-ultyjobsatisfactionassociatedwiththe research,teaching,andserviceemphasis (M=3.19,SD=1.07)wasalsofoundto besignificantlygreaterthanthelevelof satisfactionassociatedwiththeteaching emphasis(M=3.59,SD=1.00)atthe .05significancelevel.
In general, the analyses involving the two measures of job satisfaction indicated that faculty who worked in institutions that emphasized research and teaching (equal weight) were sig-nificantlymoresatisfiedwiththeirjobs than were faculty whose institutions emphasized teaching and service or simplyteaching.
The ANOVAs for individual faculty pay satisfaction,F(4, 410) =3.42,p < .05, and individual faculty pay fair-ness,F(4, 401) =3.70,p < .05, were
significant. For individual pay satisfac- tion,aDuncan’smultiplerangetestindi-cated that the level of pay satisfaction associatedwiththeresearchandteaching emphasis (M = 2.41,SD = 1.03) was significantly greater than the levels of satisfactionassociatedwiththeresearch emphasis (M = 2.87,SD = 1.07), the teachingandserviceemphasis(M=2.91,
SD = 2.10), and the teaching emphasis (M=3.03,SD=1.08)atthe.05levelof significance. In addition, for individual payfairness,aDuncan’smultiplerange testindicatedthatthelevelofperceived payfairnessassociatedwiththeresearch and teaching emphasis (M = 2.49,SD = 1.03) was significantly greater than thelevelsofsatisfactionassociatedwith theresearchemphasis(M=2.89,SD= 1.01),theteachingandserviceemphasis (M=3.18,SD=1.10),andtheteaching emphasis (M = 3.03,SD = 1.08) at the .05 level of significance. Moreover, the levelofperceivedpayfairnessassociated with the research, teaching, and service emphasis (M = 2.80,SD = 0.99) was foundtobesignificantlygreaterthanthe levelofperceivedpayfairnessassociated with the teaching and service emphasis (M=3.18,SD=1.10)atthe.05levelof significance.
In general, the analyses of the two pay-related measures indicated that university faculty who worked under systems that emphasized research and teaching (equal weight) were signifi-cantlymoresatisfiedwiththeirpaythan werefacultywhoworkedundersystems thatemphasizedteachingonly,research only,orteachingandservice.
The ANOVAs for faculty attraction,
F(4,393)=2.86,p<.05,andretention,
F(4,400)=2.52,p <.05,weresignifi-cant.Forfacultyattraction,aDuncan’s multiple range test indicated that the ability to attract and recruit new fac-ulty was significantly greater in sys-tems that emphasized research, teach-ing,andservice(M=2.81,SD=0.88); research and teaching (M = 2.85,SD = 0.87); and research only (M =2.90,
SD=0.89)thanitwasinsystemsthat emphasized teaching and service (M = 3.27,SD=0.67)atthe.05significance level.Inaddition,forfacultyretention, aDuncan’smultiplerangetestindicated thattheabilitytoretaincurrentfaculty wassignificantlygreaterinsystemsthat
emphasizedresearch,teaching,andser-vice(M=3.01,SD=1.00)andresearch andteaching(M=3.01,SD=0.99)than itwasinsystemsthatemphasizedteach-ingandservice(M=3.42,SD=0.94) andteachingonly(M=3.43,SD=1.05) atthe.05level.
In general, the aforementioned results indicated that systems that emphasized researchinsomefashion(research,teach-ing,andservice,orresearchandteaching, orresearchonly)weremoreappealingto university faculty. Systems that did not emphasize research (e.g., teaching only, orteachingandservice)faredtheworstin recruitmentandretention.
DISCUSSION
FacultyActivityEmphases
We found that the most common faculty emphasis is one that stresses research. Somewhat surprisingly, few ofthefacultyindicatedthatteachingis theprimaryactivityemphasizedintheir institution.Inrecentyears,severalstate legislatureshaverequiredprofessorsto devote more time to teaching and less timetoresearch(Cage,1995;Milemet al.,2000).Itisalsocommonforhigher education institutions to formally state that teaching is of the utmost impor-tance. Our research findings suggest thatlipservicemaybegiventoteaching as the most important faculty activity, but in actuality, the reward structure is stillheavilybasedonresearch.
Wealsofoundthatfacultyemphases differ on the basis of institutional size, private versus public status, and type of academic discipline. The findings regarding institutional size and private versuspublicstatusweresimilar.Small-erinstitutionsandprivateinstitutionsare morelikelytoemphasizeteachingthan largerinstitutionsandpublicinstitutions. However, the most common emphasis forsmallerinstitutionsandprivateinsti-tutionsiswhereresearch,teaching,and servicearegivenequalweight.Themost commonemphasisforlargerandpublic institutionsisonresearch.
We previously mentioned that many small,privateschoolsformallystatethat theyareteaching(ratherthanresearch) institutionsintheirmarketingliterature toappealtoprospectivestudents.Such
statementsmaybetrueforsomesmall, private institutions; however, our find-ings indicate that most small, private institutionsgiveequalweighttoteach-ing,research,andservice.
Our study appears to confirm the beliefs of scholars who have suggest-ed that the types of activity emphases mostlikelyvarybyacademicdiscipline (Bowen&Schuster,1986;Leslie,2002). We found some substantial differences amongthedisciplines(business,liberal arts,sciences,education,socialscienc-es). It is interesting that the emphases associated with the business discipline areverysimilartotheemphasesassoci-atedwiththeoverallfigures.Themost common emphasis for business is one in which research is given the most weight.Veryfewbusinessschoolsgive teachingthemostweight.
Theexistenceofdifferencesinactiv-ity emphases across disciplines is not surprising. However, in our study, the samplesizesintheindividualdisciplines wererelativelysmall;thus,ourestimates oftherelativeprevalenceofthedifferent typesofemphasesmaynotbeaccurate. More research in individual disciplines (using larger and more representative samples)shouldbeconductedtogauge theaccuracyofthecurrentestimatesof the different emphases. Future research using larger sample sizes could also investigatetheeffectsofdifferenttypes ofactivityemphasesonimportantindi-vidualandorganizationaloutcomes.
IndividualandOrganizational Outcomes:TeachingEffectiveness
Our findings suggest that the most effective teachers are those who work under systems that emphasize research and teaching (equal weight). Much debatehascenteredonthebestfaculty activity mix for teaching effectiveness. Some researchers believe that teach-ing should be given more emphasis thanresearch(Blackburn,1974;Marsh, 1987). Other researchers believe that a strong emphasis on research actu-ally contributes to teaching effective-nessandthatfacultywhoareactivein researcharemoreawareofrecentdevel-opments in their fields, making them betterteachersbecausetheypassalong more valid and up-to-date information
totheirstudents(Guliuzza,1992;Lind-say, Breen, & Jenkins, 2002; Marsh & Hattie, 2002). Our data suggest that a balance between teaching and research is best. State legislatures that require facultytodevotemoretimeandeffortto teaching than research may be doing a disservicetothestudentsintheirstates’ highereducationinstitutions.
ResearchPerformanceand ServiceLevels
We found that faculty who operate under systems that emphasize research in some fashion (e.g., a research-only emphasis; a research and teaching emphasis; or a research, teaching, and serviceemphasis)aresignificantlymore productive in terms of research quality andquantitythanarefacultywhooper-ateundersystemsthatdonotemphasize research(e.g.,ateaching-onlyemphasis or a teaching and service emphasis). The findings regarding faculty service generally suggest that faculty working under systems that emphasize service insomefashion(e.g.,theteachingand serviceemphasisortheresearch,teach-ing,andserviceemphasis)havegreater levels of service than faculty working under systems that emphasize research onlyorresearchandteaching.
JobSatisfactionandPay Satisfaction
The findings suggest that faculty are most satisfied with their jobs and pay whenresearchandteaching(equalweight) constitute the primary activity empha-sis. Previous research has shown that job satisfaction is related to motivation and performance (Ostroff, 1992), orga-nizational citizenship behavior (Organ &Ryan,1995),absenteeism(Hackett& Guion,1985),andturnoverandretention (Griffeth,Hom,&Gaertner,2000).Pay satisfactionisanarrowerconstructthan overall job satisfaction; however, some empiricaldatasuggestthatpaysatisfac-tionislinkedtooveralljobsatisfaction, motivationandperformance,pay-related grievances and lawsuits, and absentee-ismandturnover(Gerhart&Milkovich, 1990; Milkovich & Newman, 2005). It isclearthatthejobandpaysatisfaction levelsoffacultyhaveimportantimplica-tions for U.S. colleges and universities,
andourdatasuggestthatfacultyaremost satisfied, in general, when they work undersystemsthatgiveequalemphasis toresearchandteaching.
RecruitmentandRetention
The findings related to recruitment and retention suggest that systems that emphasizeresearchandteaching(equal weight) or research, teaching, and ser-vice(equalweight)aremoreappealing tofaculty.Systemsthatdonotempha-size research in any fashion fare the worstintermsofrecruitmentandreten-tion. The findings regarding retention seem to fit with the findings related to job and pay satisfaction. In general, ourstudysuggeststhatinstitutionsthat emphasize research and teaching have higherlevelsoffacultyjobandpaysat-isfaction, and they are also better able toretaincurrentfacultymembers.Turn- overandreplacementcostscanbesub-stantialformostfacultypositions.Also, voluntary turnover typically involves the best performers because they are moremobile. faculty job satisfaction, 2 measures of faculty pay satisfaction, and 1 mea-sure of faculty retention). The worst system,overall,isonethatemphasizes teaching.This particular emphasis was not associated with the highest rating foranyofthe12outcomemeasures.
SummaryandConclusion
In our study, we attempted to pro-vide some empirical data regarding the relative emphasis given to teach-ing, research, and service at colleges and universities in the United States. Weassessedtherelativeimportanceof thesethreeactivitiesbyaskingthefac-ultywhattheprimarycriteriawerethat theirrewardswerebasedon.Wefound
that,overall,themostcommonactivity emphasis is one that stresses research. Emphases were also found to vary by size,publicstatusversusprivatestatus, and academic discipline. The percent-agesassociatedwiththedifferenttypes ofemphasesforthebusinessdiscipline weresimilartotheoverallpercentages.
Inourstudy,wealsoattemptedtopro-videsomeempiricaldataontheeffects of different activity emphases on out-comes such as teaching effectiveness, facultyresearch,facultyservice,faculty job satisfaction, faculty pay satisfac-tion, faculty recruitment, and faculty retention.Ourfindingssuggestthatthe overall best faculty activity mix is one thatemphasizesandgivesequalweight to research and teaching. These find-ings, if confirmed by future research, mayhaveimplicationsforstatelegisla-tures, higher education boards, college anduniversityadministrators,andeven accrediting bodies. For example, some state legislatures require professors to devote the bulk of their time to teach-ing. However, we found that institu-tionsthatprimarilyemphasizeteaching farepoorlyintermsoffacultyteaching effectiveness,researchperformance,job and pay satisfaction, and recruitment andretention.
In recent years, there also seems to have been an increase in emphasis on facultyserviceactivities.Thisincreased emphasis may be in part because of callsfromstategovernmentsandhigher education boards for greater account-ability and more formal assessment of educational outcomes. The growing importanceofaccreditationmayalsobe afactorleadingtoanincreasedempha-sisonfacultyservice.Someaccrediting bodies encourage greater faculty par-ticipation in governance issues. Many accrediting bodies also require that colleges conduct formal assessments of program and learning objectives to be accredited or reaccredited. These requirements lead to increases in fac-ulty service loads. This trend of an increased emphasis on faculty service maybecounterproductive.Anincrease in service levels will, out of neces-sity,leadtoadecreaseinteachingand research performance. Our findings suggest that state legislatures, higher education boards, accrediting bodies,
andacademicadministratorsmaycon-sider changes that would allow faculty to focus more exclusively on teaching andresearch.
In conclusion, we hope that our studyhasyieldedsomeinformationand insightsthatmayeventuallyproveuse-ful to institutions that are interested in increasing the knowledge and satisfac-tion of their students and the perfor-mance, satisfaction, and retention of theirfaculty.
NOTES
Dr.DavidE.Terpstraisamanagementprofes-soratEasternWashingtonUniversity.Hereceived his PhD in industrial and organizational psychol-ogy from the University of Tennessee. He has conductedresearchintheareasofmotivation,com-pensation,organizationdevelopment,andselection and has published approximately 80 articles in managementandpsychologyjournals.
Dr.AndreL.Honoreeisanassociateprofessor of management at Southeastern Louisiana Uni-versity. He received his PhD in business admin-istration from the University of Mississippi. His current research interests are compensation and discriminationlitigation.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Dr. David E. Terpstra, Eastern Washington University, Department of
Manage-ment, College of Business, 316 Kingston Hall, Cheney,WA99004,USA.
E-mail:[email protected]
REFERENCES
Blackburn, R. T. (1974). The meaning of work in academia. In J. I. Doi (Ed.),Assessing fac-ulty effort (Vol. 2, pp. 75–99). San Francisco: JosseyBass.
Bowen,H.R.,&Schuster,J.H.(1986).American professors:Anationalresourceimperiled.New York:OxfordUniversityPress.
Cage,M.(1995,January20).Regulatingfaculty workloads.Chronicle of Higher Education, p. A33.
Carnegie Foundation. (2005).The 2005 revision of the Carnegie classification system. Stan-ford, CA: Author. Retrieved June 17, 2005, from www.carnegiefoundation.org/classifica-tion/future.htm
Gerhart,B.,&Milkovich,G.T.(1990).Organiza-tional differences in managerial compensation and financial performance.Academy of Man-agementJournal,33,663–691.
Griffeth,R.W.,Hom,P.W.,&Gaertner,S.(2000). A meta-analysis of antecedents and correlates ofemployeeturnover:Update,moderatortests, and research implications for the next millen-nium.JournalofManagement,26,463–479.
Guliuzza,F.(1992,November8).Twotypesofuni-versities?Notreally.SaltLakeTribune,p.A42.
Hackett,R.D.,&Guion,R.M.(1985).Areevalu-ation of the absenteeism–job satisfaction rela-tionship.OrganizationalBehaviorandHuman DecisionProcesses,35,340–381.
Jurgensen, C. E. (1978). Job preferences: What makes a job good or bad.Journal of Applied Psychology,63,267–276.
Leslie, D. W. (2002). Resolving the dispute: Teaching is academe’s core value.Journal of HigherEducation,73,49–74.
Lindsay,R.,Breen,R.,&Jenkins,A.(2002).Aca-demicresearchandteachingquality:Theviews of undergraduate and postgraduate students. StudiesinHigherEducation,27,309–327. Marsh, H. W. (1987). Students’ evaluations of
university teaching: Research findings, meth-odological issues, and directions for further research.InternationalJournalofEducational Research,11,253–288.
Marsh, H. W., & Hattie, J. (2002). The relation between research productivity and teaching effectiveness: Complementary, antagonistic, or independent constructs?Journal of Higher Education,73,603–642.
Milem,J.F.,Berger,J.B.,&Dey,E.L.(2000). Facultytimeallocation.JournalofHigherEdu-cation,71,454–476.
Milkovich,G.T.,&Newman,J.M.(2005).Com-pensation.Boston:McGraw-HillIrwin. Opsahl,R.L.,&Dunnette,M.D.(1966).Therole
offinancialcompensationinindustrialmotiva-tion.PsychologicalBulletin,66,94–118.
Organ,D.W.,&Ryan,K.(1995).Ameta-analyti- calreviewofattitudinalanddispositionalpre-dictors of organizational citizenship behavior. PersonnelPsychology,48,775–803.
Ostroff,C.(1992).Therelationshipbetweensat- isfaction,attitudes,andperformance:Anorga-nizational level analysis.Journal of Applied Psychology,77,963–974.
