A Study Showing Research Has Been Valued over Teaching in Higher Education

Main Article Content

Chi Yuan Chen


Research has been valued and given priority over teaching for a long time in academia.  In recent decades, the Taiwanese Ministry of Education has pursued objective and quantitative research criteria and has encouraged higher education institutions to ask teachers to publish papers in SSCI or SCI journals as part of the criteria for promotion and evaluation.  This policy strengthens the concept that research has priority over teaching because teachers must devote more time to research than to teaching in order to be promoted and evaluated.

The purpose of this study is to explore the influences that cause teachers to value research over teaching.  To achieve this purpose, document analysis, the analysis of Taiwan Higher Education database and interviews were adapted as methods. First of all, our researchers collected and analyzed the documents for promotion and evaluation of twelve different universities whose areas of specialty included general studies, education, medicine, vocational studies, and the arts. Then, the study used and analyzed the empirical data of teachers’ working hours every week for different tasks from the Taiwan Higher Education Database which investigated the working conditions of teachers in higher education in 2004. Additionally, twenty professors who have different areas of study and work in different types of universities were interviewed to collect teachers’ opinions of the task priority of research, teaching, and service duties. 

The results showed that academia in Taiwan exhibits the phenomenon that research is valued over teaching. The reasons are due to the requirements of the reward system. The reward system emphasizes research over teaching and service. Teachers’ research achievements are judged based on publishing articles in different types of journals and the amount of research funding they can obtain. The results also showed that every week teachers spend the most time on teaching, then on research, and finally on service. However, teachers emphasize research as the most important task, then teaching, and finally service. Although the majority of teachers think research is the most important duty, there is still twenty percent of teachers who think it is the least important. Although teaching has been thought of as the second most important duty after research, it is the task that the most teachers give as the first priority as far as time spent and none of the interviewees thought it is the least important. Universities and teachers all try to use their professionalism as capital to gain financial support from the government. This situation forces teachers to try to put more time and energy into research, but they still need to maintain teaching and service work quality. Some teachers focus more time and energy on research and ignore the needs of students. Working time endlessly increases even for teachers who out value on both teaching and research. Some suggestions based on the findings have been proposed for Taiwanese higher institutions.


Download data is not yet available.

Article Details

How to Cite
Chen, C. Y. (2015). A Study Showing Research Has Been Valued over Teaching in Higher Education. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 15(3), 15–32. https://doi.org/10.14434/josotl.v15i3.13319


Carol, C. (1992). Extrinsic rewards and intrinsic interest: The influence of tenure on faculty preference for teaching or research. ASHE Annual Meeting Paper, 37.

Chen, B. S. (2001). A study on the relationship of university faculty’s promotion system, faculty’s professional growth, and school development orientation. Journal of National Taipei Teachers College, 14, 163-208.

Chou, C. P., Wu, R. F., & Hu, J. (2011). The impact of SSCI on Taiwan's academic evaluation in humanities and social sciences: A case study of NCCU. Journal of Comparative Education, 70, 31-56.

Commonwealth (2012, October 3). Forty percent professors: The education system in Taiwan can’t improve the quality of students. Retrieved from http://www.cw.com.tw/article/article.action?id=5043846&idSubChannel=41

Du, J. (2002). Teaching and research: The time involved of university professors. Journal of Pingtung Teachers College, 17, 135-174.

Dunkin, M. J. (1991). Determinants of academic career advancement at an Australian university. Higher Education Research and Development, 10, 115-131. doi: 10.1080/0729436910100201

Dunkin, M. J. (1994). Award winning university teachers’ beliefs about teaching versus research. Higher Education Research and Development, 13, 85-91. doi: 10.1080/0729436940130108

Euster, G., & Weinback, R. (1983). Rewards for faculty community service activities. Journal of Social Work Education, 19, 108-114. doi: 10.1080/00220612.1983.10778603

Euster, G., & Weinback, R. (1994). Faculty rewards for community service activities: An update. Journal of Social Work Education, 30, 317-324.

Fairweather, J. S. (1992, October). Teaching and the faculty reward structure: Relationships between faculty activities and compensation. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Association for the Study of Higher Education. Minneapolis, MN.

Fairweather, J. S. (1993). Academic values and faculty rewards. Review of Higher Education, 17, 43-68.

Fox, M. F. (1985). Publication, performance, and reward in science and scholarship. In J.C. Smart (Ed.). Higher education: Handbook of theory and research, 1. New York: Agathon Press.

Gibb, O., & Locke, B. (1989). Tenure and promotion in accredited graduate social work programs. Journal of Social Work Education, 25, 126-133.

Green, R. G. (2008). Tenure and promotion decisions: The relative importance of teaching, scholarship, and service. Journal of Social Work Education, 44(2). 117-127. doi: 10.5175/JSWE.2008.200700003

Knapper, C. K. (1990). Lifelong learning and university teaching. In I. Moses (Ed.). Higher Education in the late twentieth century: A festschrift for Ernest Roe. Kensington, New South Wales: Higher education research and development society of Australia.

Knapper, C. K. (1997). Rewards for teaching. New Directions for Teaching and learning. 72, 4152. doi: 10.1002/tl.7205

Lin, J. Y., & Yang, S.W. (2011).The study of human resource management of faculty in public universities in Taiwan. Journal of National Taichung University, 25(2),85-110.

Miller, D. (1978). Criteria for appointment, promotion, and retention of faculty in graduate social work programs. Journal of Social Work Education, 14(2), 74-81. doi: 10.1080/00220612.1978.10671503

Parker, J. (2008). Comparing research and teaching in university promotion criteria. Higher Education Quarterly, 62(3), 237-251. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2273.2008.00393.x

Seaberg, J. R. (1998). Faculty reports of work-load: Results of a national study. Journal Social Work Education, 31, 7-19.

Seipel, M. O. (2003). Assessing publication for tenure. Journal Social Work Education, 39, 7988.

Sun, C. L. (2007). Accountability control or professional development? A dilemma of faculty evaluation in university. Journal of Educational Practice and Research, 20(2), 95-128.

The Higher Education Academy (2009). Reward and recognition in higher education institutional policies and their implementation. Retrieved from http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/resources/detail/publications/Reward_and_Recognition_Resource2

Vardi, I. & Quin, R. (2011). Promotion and the scholarship of teaching and learning. Higher Education Research and Development, 30(1), 39-49. doi: 10.1080/07294360.2011.536971

Walker, J. D., Baepler, P., & Cohen, B. (2008). The scholarship of teaching and learning paradox: Results without rewards. College Teaching, 56(3), 183-189. doi: 10.3200/CTCH.56.3.183-190

Wei, M. H., & Cheng, C. Y. (2006). The study on Taiwanese college students’ perspectives of good college teachers based on teachers’ research ability, instruction ability, and community service ability. Journal of National Hualien University of Education, 23, 103-130.

Wray, M. L., Lowenthal, P.R., Bates, B., Switzer, T., & Stevens, E. (2010). Examining faculty motivation to participate in faculty development. Retrieved from http://www.slideshare.net/plowenthal/aera-2010-examining-faculty-motivation-for-professionaldevelopment

Wu, C. S. (2007). The crisis is an opportunity: The SWOT analysis of the situation of higher education. In National Taiwan University Press (Eds.). Mission and vision: Development plan for world class universities and research centers of excellence (pp. 74-105). Taipei: Office of Research and Development, National Taiwan University.

Young, P. (2006). Out of balance: Lectures’ perceptions of differential status rewards in relation to teaching and research. Teaching in Higher Education, 11(2), 191-202. doi: 10.1080/13562510500527727