Higher Education

, Volume 70, Issue 3, pp 375–394

The research–teaching nexus among academics from 15 institutions in Beijing, Mainland China

Article

Abstract

For long, the research–teaching nexus has maintained the interest of the scholarly community. The present study introduced a process variable—teaching styles—into the investigation of the association between research and teaching. The study adopted a predominantly quantitative-driven, mixed research method design, with a questionnaire survey supplemented by insiders’ views. Three hundred and fifty-four academics from 15 institutions in Beijing, P. R. China, responded to the Thinking Styles in Teaching Inventory and reported their research publications for 3 years. The quantitative findings suggested that after key demographics and contextual factors were controlled for, teaching styles were related to research productivity largely in the anticipated directions. Subsequently, four additional academics who met the criteria of possessing expertise in teaching styles and of having experiences as academics in China were invited to explain the quantitative findings concerning the relationships between specific teaching styles and particular types of publications. It was concluded that although the magnitude of the relationship between teaching and research is rather small, the research–teaching nexus does exist. Theoretical significance is discussed and practical implications of the findings are proposed for academics and for university senior managers.

Keywords

Teaching styles Research productivity University academics Mainland China 

References

  1. Biggs, J. B. (1979). Individual differences in study processes and the quality of learning outcomes. Higher Education, 8, 381–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Boyer, E. L. (1992). Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professoriate. Issues in accounting education, 7(1), 87–91.Google Scholar
  3. Bresler, J. B. (1968). Teaching effectiveness and government awards. Science, 160, 164–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brew, A., & Boud, D. (1995). Teaching and research: Establishing the vital link with learning. Higher Education, 29, 261–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brown, R. B., & McCartney, S. (1998). The link between research and teaching: Its purpose and implications. Innovations in Education and Training International, 35(2), 117–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Coffield, F., Moseley, D., Hall, E., & Ecclestone, K. (2004). Learning styles and pedagogy in post-16 learning. UK: Learning Skills Research Centre.Google Scholar
  7. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  8. Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16, 297–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Curry, L. (1983). An organization of learning styles theory and constructs. ERIC Document 235, 185.Google Scholar
  10. Durning, B., & Jenkins, A. (2005). Teaching/research relationships in departments: The perspective of built environment academics. Studies in Higher Education, 30(4), 407–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Elton, L. (2001). Research and teaching: Conditions for a positive link. Teaching in Higher Education, 6(1), 43–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Evans, C., & Kozhevnikov, M. (Eds.). (2013). Styles of practice in higher education: Exploring approaches to teaching and learning. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  13. Feldman, K. A. (1987). Research productivity and scholarly accomplishment of college teachers as related to their instructional effectiveness: A review and exploration. Research in Higher Education, 26(3), 227–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Griffiths, R. (2004). Knowledge production and the research-teaching nexus: The case of the built environment disciplines. Studies in Higher Education, 29(6), 709–726.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Grigorenko, E. L., & Sternberg, R. J. (1993). Thinking styles in teaching inventory. Unpublished test, Yale University.Google Scholar
  16. Grigorenko, E. L., & Sternberg, R. J. (1995). Thinking styles. In D. Saklofske & M. Zeidner (Eds.), International handbook of personality and intelligence (pp. 205–229). New York: Plenum.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hair, J., Black, W., Babin, B., Anderson, R., & Tatham, R. (2006). Multivariate data analysis (6th ed.). New Jersey: Pearson Educational, Inc.Google Scholar
  18. Hattie, J., & Marsh, H. W. (1996). The relationship between research and teaching: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 66(4), 507–542.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Healey, M. (2005). Linking research and teaching to benefit student learning. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 29(2), 183–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Healey, M., & Jenkins, A. (2006). Strengthening the teaching-research linkage in undergraduate courses and programs. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 107, 45–55.Google Scholar
  21. Horta, H., Dautel, V., & Velosob, F. M. (2012). An output perspective on the teaching-research nexus: An analysis focusing on the United States higher education system. Studies in Higher Education, 37(2), 171–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hu, A. G. (2011). China in 2020: A new type of Superpower. Harper-Collins.Google Scholar
  23. Jin, B. H., & Rousseau, R. (2004). Evaluation of research performance and scientometric indicators in China. In H. F. Moed, W. Glänzel, & U. Schmoch (Eds.), Handbook of quantitative science and technology research: The use of publication and patent (pp. 497–514). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  24. Kaplan, E. J., & Kies, D. A. (1995). Teaching and learning styles: Which came first? Journal of Instructional Psychology, 22(1), 29–33.Google Scholar
  25. Leahey, E. (2006). Gender differences in productivity: Research specialization as a missing link. Gender and Society, 20, 754–780.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Marsh, H. W., & Hattie, J. (2002). The relation between research productivity and teaching effectiveness: Complementary, antagonistic, or independent constructs? Journal of Higher Education, 73(5), 603–641.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. McCaughey, R. A. (1992, August 5). Why research and teaching can coexist. Chronicle of Higher Education, p. A36.Google Scholar
  28. McGrath, E. J. (1962). Characteristics of outstanding college teachers. Journal of Higher Education, 33, 148–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Miller, A. (1987). Cognitive styles: An integrated model. Educational Psychology, 7(4), 251–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Newman, J. H. (1853). The idea of a university. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.Google Scholar
  31. Ortega y Gasset, J. (1944). Mission of the university. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University.Google Scholar
  32. Ou, A. Y., Varriale, L., & Tsui, A. S. (2012). International collaboration for academic publication: Implications from the resource-based view and transaction cost theory. Group and Organization Management, 37(4), 407–451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Ozay, S. B. (2012). The dimensions of research in undergraduate learning. Teaching in Higher Education, 17(4), 453–464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Porter, S. R., & Umbach, P. D. (2001). Analyzing faculty workload data using multilevel modeling. Research in Higher Education, 42(2), 171–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Postiglione, G. A. (2013). Anchoring globalization in Hong Kong’s research universities: Network agents, institutional arrangements, and brain circulation. Studies in Higher Education, 38(3), 345–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Ramsden, P., & Moses, I. (1992). Associations between research and teaching in Australian higher education. Higher Education, 23, 273–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Rayner, S. (2007). A teaching elixir, learning chimera or just fool’s gold? Do learning styles matter? British Journal of Support for Learning, 22, 24–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Riding, R. J., & Cheema, I. (1991). Cognitive styles: An overview and integration. Educational Psychology, 11(3 & 4), 193–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Robertson, J. (2007). Beyond the ‘research/teaching nexus’: Exploring the complexity of academic experience. Studies in Higher Education, 32(5), 541–556.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Royal Society (2011). New countries emerge as major players in scientific world. (March 28). https://royalsociety.org/news/2011/new-science-countries/.
  41. Sample, S. B. (1972). Inherent conflict between research and education. Educational Record, 53, 17–22.Google Scholar
  42. Shin, J. C. (2011). Teaching and research nexuses across faculty career stage, ability, and affiliated discipline in a South Korean research university. Studies in Higher Education, 36(4), 485–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Shin, J., & Cummings, W. (2010). Multilevel analysis of academic publishing across disciplines: Research preference, collaboration, and time on research. Scientometrics, 85(2), 581–594.Google Scholar
  44. Smeby, J. C. (1998). Knowledge production and knowledge transmission: The interaction between research and teaching at universities. Teaching in Higher Education, 3(1), 5–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Spronken-Smith, R., & Walker, R. (2010). Can inquiry-based learning strengthen the links between teaching and disciplinary research? Studies in Higher Education, 35(6), 723–740.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Sternberg, R. J. (1997). Thinking styles. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Sternberg, R. J., & Grigorenko, E. L. (1995). Styles of thinking in the school. European Journal for High Ability, 6(2), 201–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Tiedemann, J. (1989). Measures of cognitive styles: A critical review. Educational Psychology, 24, 261–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Wang, S. H., & Weldon, P. R. (2006). Chinese academic journals: Quality, issues, and solutions. Learned Publishing, 19(1), 97–105.Google Scholar
  50. Yu, D. M. (2012). The roles of teachers’ teaching behavior in students’ learning styles and academic achievement. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of Hong Kong.Google Scholar
  51. Zhang, L. F. (2001). Approaches and thinking styles in teaching. Journal of Psychology, 135(5), 547–561.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Zhang, L. F. (2002). Thinking styles and cognitive development. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 163(2), 179–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Zhang, L. F. (2007a). Do personality traits make a difference in teaching styles among Chinese high school teachers? Personality and Individual Differences, 43, 669–679.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Zhang, L. F. (2007b). Teaching styles and occupational stress among Chinese university faculty members. Educational Psychology, 27(6), 823–841.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Zhang, L. F. (2011). Teaching styles and conceptions of effective teachers: Tibetan and Han Chinese academics compared. Learning and Individual Differences, 21(5), 619–623.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Zhang, L. F. (2013). The malleability of intellectual styles. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Zhang, L. F., & Sternberg, R. J. (2002). Thinking styles and teacher characteristics. International Journal of Psychology, 37(1), 3–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Zhang, L. F., & Sternberg, R. J. (2005). A threefold model of intellectual styles. Educational Psychology Review, 17(1), 1–53.Google Scholar
  59. Zhang, L. F., & Sternberg, R. J. (2006). The nature of intellectual styles. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  60. Zhang, L. F., & Sternberg, R. J. (2009). Revisiting the value issue in intellectual styles. In L. F. Zhang & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), Perspectives on the nature of intellectual styles (pp. 63–85). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  61. Zhang, L. F., Sternberg, R. J., & Rayner, S. (Eds.). (2012). Handbook of intellectual styles: Preferences in cognition, learning, and thinking. New York: Springer.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of EducationThe University of Hong KongPokfulamHong Kong
  2. 2.Department of EducationSeoul National UniversitySeoulKorea

Personalised recommendations