Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Individual Differences in Faculty Research Time Allocations Across 13 Countries

  • Published:
Research in Higher Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In research universities, research time is often too scarce to satiate the wishes of all faculty and must be allocated according to guidelines and principles. We examine self-reported research hours for full-time faculty at research universities in 13 countries (Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Finland, Germany, Italy, Malaysia, Norway, UK, USA, and Hong Kong, a semi-autonomous special administrative region of China). We examine the level of variation in individual faculty research time and the factors associated with individual differences, including differences in: (a) university policy regarding the allocation of working time for research between individual faculty members, (b) individual motivation towards research, and (c) family commitments. Our results suggest that the factors associated with additional research time vary across countries, but individual motivation towards research (relative to teaching) is a significant in all countries. University policies towards research and the research status of individual faculty, are relatively weak predictors of individual research time, though stronger effects are generally found in English-speaking countries. Research hours typically decrease with age, but plateau or increase in the oldest cohorts. Family and gender are weak predictors of research time amongst full-time faculty.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. China for Social Sciences (VIF = 4.46), Natural sciences (VIF = 5.92), and Technology (VIF = 5.31); Malaysia for Social sciences (VIF = 4.64), Natural sciences (VIF = 5.78) and Technology (VIF = 6.65).

References

  • Balbachevsky, E., & Quinteiro, M. C. (2003). The changing academic workplace in Brazil. In P. G. Altbach (Ed.), The decline of the guru: The academic profession in developing and middle-income countries (pp. 75–106). New York: Palgrave-Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barry, J., Berg, E., & Chandler, J. (2003). Managing intellectual labour in Sweden and England. Cross Cultural Management: An International Journal, 10(3), 3–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Becher, T. (1989). Academic tribes and territories. Intellectual enquiry and the culture of disciplines. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bellamy, S., Morley, C., & Watty, K. (2003). Why business academics remain in Australian universities despite deteriorating working conditions and reduced job satisfaction: An intellectual puzzle. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 25(1), 13–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bellas, M. L., & Toutkoushian, R. K. (1999). Faculty time allocations and research productivity: Gender, race, and family effects. Review of Higher Education, 22, 367–390.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bentley, P. J., & Kyvik, S. (2012). Academic work from a comparative perspective: A survey of faculty working time across 13 countries. Higher Education, 63, 529–547.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, X. (2003). The academic profession in China. In P. G. Altbach (Ed.), The decline of the guru: The academic profession in developing and middle-income countries (pp. 107–134). New York: Palgrave-Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cole, J. R., & Cole, S. (1973). Social stratification in science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Creamer, E. (1998). Assessing faculty publication productivity: Issues of equity. Washington D.C.: ASHE-ERIC/George Washington University.

  • Elster, J. (1992). Local justice: How institutions allocate scarce goods and necessary burdens. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Enders, J. (Ed.). (2001). Academic staff in Europe: Changing contexts and conditions. Westport: Greenwood Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Enders, J., & Teichler, U. (1997). A victim of their own success? Employment and working conditions of academic staff in comparative perspective. Higher Education, 34(3), 347–372.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gottlieb, E. E., & Keith, B. (1997). The academic research-teaching nexus in eight advanced-industrialized countries. Higher Education, 34(3), 397–419.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guest, R., & Duhs, A. (2002). Economics teaching in Australian universities: Rewards and outcomes. Economic Record, 78(241), 147–160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hood, C. (1995). The “new public management” in the 1980s: Variations on a theme. Accounting Organisations and Society, 20, 93–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jaccard, J., Becker, M. A., & Wood, G. (1984). Pairwise multiple comparison procedures: A review. Psychological Bulletin, 96(3), 589–596.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacobs, J. A. (1998). Measuring time at work: Are self-reports accurate? Monthly Labor Review, 121(12), 42–53.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacobs, J. A. (2004). The faculty time divide. Sociological Forum, 19(1), 3–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jacobs, J. A., & Winslow, S. E. (2004a). The academic life course, time pressures and gender inequality. Community, Work & Family, 7(2), 143–161.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jacobs, J. A., & Winslow, S. E. (2004b). Overworked faculty: Job stresses and family demands. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 596(1), 104–129.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kyvik, S. (2009). Allocating time resources for research between academic staff: The case of Norwegian University Colleges. Higher Education Management and Policy, 21(3), 109–122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kyvik, S. (2012). Academic salaries in Norway: Increasing emphasis on research achievement. In P. G. Altbach, L. Reisberg, M. Yudkevich, L. Reisberg, G. Androushchak, & I. Pacheco (Eds.), Paying the professoriate (pp. 255–264). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kyvik, S., & Olsen, T. B. (2008). Does the aging of tenured academic staff affect the research performance of universities? Scientometrics, 76(3), 439–455.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kyvik, S., & Teigen, M. (1996). Child care, research collaboration, and gender differences in scientific productivity. Science, Technology and Human Values, 21(1), 54–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lafferty, G., & Fleming, J. (2000). The restructuring of academic work in Australia: Power, management and gender. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 21(2), 257–267.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Link, A., Swann, C., & Bozeman, B. (2008). A time allocation study of university faculty. Economics of Education Review, 27(4), 363–374.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Long, J. (1990). The origins of sex differences in science. Social Forces, 68(4), 1297–1316.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marquis, C. (2003). Universities and professors in Argentina: Changes, challenges. In P. G. Altbach (Ed.), The Decline of the Guru: The Academic Profession in Developing and Middle-Income Countries (pp. 51–73). New York: Palgrave MacMillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Massy, W. F. (2004). Markets in Higher Education: Do They Promote Internal Efficiency? In P. Teixeira, B. Jongbloed, D. Dill, & A. Amaral (Eds.), Markets in Higer Education, (Vol. 6, pp. 13–35). the Netherlands: Springer.

  • Meyer, K. A. (1998). Faculty workload studies: Perspectives, needs, and future directions ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No. 1. Washington, DC: George Washington University, Graduate School of Education and Human Development.

  • Moscati, R. (2001). Italian University Professors in Transition. Higher Education, 41(1/2), 103–129.

  • Probert, B. (2005). ‘I just couldn’t fit it in’: Gender and unequal outcomes in academic careers. Gender, Work & Organization, 12(1), 50–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robinson, J. P., & Bostrom, A. (1994). The overestimated workweek? What time diary measures suggest. Monthly Labor Review, 111(8), 11–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosser, V. J., & Tabata, L. N. (2010). An examination of faculty work: Conceptual and theoretical frameworks in the literature. In J. C. Smart (Ed.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (Vol. 25, pp. 449–475). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Sax, L., Hagedorn, L., Arredondo, M., & DiCrisi, F. (2002). Faculty research productivity: Exploring the role of gender and family-related factors. Research in Higher Education, 43(4), 423–446.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Singell, L., & Lillydahl, J. (1996). Will changing times change the allocation of faculty time? Journal of Human Resources, 31(2), 429–449.

    Google Scholar 

  • Slaughter, S., & Leslie, L. L. (1997). Academic capitalism: Politics, policies, and the entrepreneurial university. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stephan, P. E., & Levin, S. G. (1992). Striking the Mother Lode in science: The importance of age, place, and time. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Teodorescu, D. (2000). Correlates of faculty publication productivity: A cross-national analysis. Higher Education, 39(2), 201–222.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • UNESCO. (1978). Recommendation Concerning the International Standardization of Statistics on Science and Technology. Paris: UNESCO.

    Google Scholar 

  • White, K. (2001). Women in the professoriate in Australia. International Journal of Organisational Behaviour, 3(2), 64–76.

    Google Scholar 

  • White, K. (2004). The leaking pipeline: Women postgraduate and early career researchers in Australia. Tertiary Education and Management, 10(3), 227–241.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zemsky, R., Wegner, G. R., & Massy, W. F. (2005). The lattice and the ratchet. In R. Zemsky, G. R. Wegner, & W. F. Massy (Eds.), Remaking the American University: Market-smart and mission-centered (pp. 15–31). New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. LH Martin Institute, University of Melbourne, Level 1, 715 Swanston Street, Carlton, VIC, 3010, Australia

    Peter James Bentley

  2. NIFU, Nordic Institute for Studies in Innovation, Research and Education, Wergelandsveien 7, 0167, Oslo, Norway

    Svein Kyvik

Authors
  1. Peter James Bentley
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Svein Kyvik
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Peter James Bentley.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Bentley, P.J., Kyvik, S. Individual Differences in Faculty Research Time Allocations Across 13 Countries. Res High Educ 54, 329–348 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-012-9273-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-012-9273-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation