Research in Higher Education

, Volume 54, Issue 3, pp 329–348 | Cite as

Individual Differences in Faculty Research Time Allocations Across 13 Countries

Article

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.

Keywords

Research time Research motivation Resource allocation Faculty work 

References

  1. 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
  2. Barry, J., Berg, E., & Chandler, J. (2003). Managing intellectual labour in Sweden and England. Cross Cultural Management: An International Journal, 10(3), 3–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Becher, T. (1989). Academic tribes and territories. Intellectual enquiry and the culture of disciplines. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  4. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 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
  8. Cole, J. R., & Cole, S. (1973). Social stratification in science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  9. Creamer, E. (1998). Assessing faculty publication productivity: Issues of equity. Washington D.C.: ASHE-ERIC/George Washington University.Google Scholar
  10. Elster, J. (1992). Local justice: How institutions allocate scarce goods and necessary burdens. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Enders, J. (Ed.). (2001). Academic staff in Europe: Changing contexts and conditions. Westport: Greenwood Press.Google Scholar
  12. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gottlieb, E. E., & Keith, B. (1997). The academic research-teaching nexus in eight advanced-industrialized countries. Higher Education, 34(3), 397–419.Google Scholar
  14. Guest, R., & Duhs, A. (2002). Economics teaching in Australian universities: Rewards and outcomes. Economic Record, 78(241), 147–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hood, C. (1995). The “new public management” in the 1980s: Variations on a theme. Accounting Organisations and Society, 20, 93–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Jaccard, J., Becker, M. A., & Wood, G. (1984). Pairwise multiple comparison procedures: A review. Psychological Bulletin, 96(3), 589–596.Google Scholar
  17. Jacobs, J. A. (1998). Measuring time at work: Are self-reports accurate? Monthly Labor Review, 121(12), 42–53.Google Scholar
  18. Jacobs, J. A. (2004). The faculty time divide. Sociological Forum, 19(1), 3–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Jacobs, J. A., & Winslow, S. E. (2004a). The academic life course, time pressures and gender inequality. Community, Work & Family, 7(2), 143–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 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
  23. Kyvik, S., & Olsen, T. B. (2008). Does the aging of tenured academic staff affect the research performance of universities? Scientometrics, 76(3), 439–455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kyvik, S., & Teigen, M. (1996). Child care, research collaboration, and gender differences in scientific productivity. Science, Technology and Human Values, 21(1), 54–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Link, A., Swann, C., & Bozeman, B. (2008). A time allocation study of university faculty. Economics of Education Review, 27(4), 363–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Long, J. (1990). The origins of sex differences in science. Social Forces, 68(4), 1297–1316.Google Scholar
  28. 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
  29. 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.Google Scholar
  30. 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.Google Scholar
  31. Moscati, R. (2001). Italian University Professors in Transition. Higher Education, 41(1/2), 103–129.Google Scholar
  32. Probert, B. (2005). ‘I just couldn’t fit it in’: Gender and unequal outcomes in academic careers. Gender, Work & Organization, 12(1), 50–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Robinson, J. P., & Bostrom, A. (1994). The overestimated workweek? What time diary measures suggest. Monthly Labor Review, 111(8), 11–23.Google Scholar
  34. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Singell, L., & Lillydahl, J. (1996). Will changing times change the allocation of faculty time? Journal of Human Resources, 31(2), 429–449.Google Scholar
  37. Slaughter, S., & Leslie, L. L. (1997). Academic capitalism: Politics, policies, and the entrepreneurial university. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  38. 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
  39. Teodorescu, D. (2000). Correlates of faculty publication productivity: A cross-national analysis. Higher Education, 39(2), 201–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. UNESCO. (1978). Recommendation Concerning the International Standardization of Statistics on Science and Technology. Paris: UNESCO.Google Scholar
  41. White, K. (2001). Women in the professoriate in Australia. International Journal of Organisational Behaviour, 3(2), 64–76.Google Scholar
  42. White, K. (2004). The leaking pipeline: Women postgraduate and early career researchers in Australia. Tertiary Education and Management, 10(3), 227–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 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

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.LH Martin InstituteUniversity of MelbourneCarltonAustralia
  2. 2.NIFU, Nordic Institute for Studies in Innovation, Research and EducationOsloNorway

Personalised recommendations