Research in Higher Education

, Volume 57, Issue 1, pp 99–121 | Cite as

Managing Institutional Research Advancement: Implications from a University Faculty Time Allocation Study

Article

Abstract

While much is known about faculty time allocation, we know very little about how traditional managerial factors influence faculty time allocation behaviors. We know even less about the possible downsides associated with relying on these traditional managerial factors. Using survey data from the National Science Foundation/Department of Energy Survey of Academic Researchers, our study predicts faculty time allocations to grant writing as a function of pressure from administrative superiors. We then examine how pressure from administrative superiors influences faculty job satisfaction and the likelihood to pursue uninteresting research grants. Our findings indicate that faculty time spent pursuing grants increases in response to pressure from administrative superiors but that this same pressure is associated also associated with increases in pursuit of uninteresting research grants as well as decreases in work satisfaction. Our study contributes to better understanding of the merits and limitations of traditional, hierarchical approaches to managing university faculty behavior.

Keywords

Higher education research institutions Research and development Grantsmanship Faculty time allocation 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We acknowledge the assistance of graduate research assistants of the James M. Hull College of Business at Georgia Regents University.

References

  1. AAUP. American Association of University Professors (1994). On the relationship of faculty governance to academic freedom. AAUP Policies and Reports. Available online: http://www.aaup.org/report/relationship-faculty-governance-academic-freedom. Accessed 07 Sept 2014.
  2. Ali, M. M., Bhattacharyya, P., & Olejniczak, A. J. (2010). The effects of scholarly productivity and institutional characteristics on the distribution of federal research grants. Journal of Higher Education, 81, 164–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Allen, S. D., Link, A. N., & Rosenbaum, D. T. (2007). Entrepreneurship and human capital: Evidence of patenting activity from the academic sector. Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice, 31(6), 937–951.Google Scholar
  4. Austin, A. E. (1990). Faculty cultures, faculty values. New Directions for Institutional Research, 68, 61–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bauman, M. G. (1982). We regret to inform you: Research grants and the community college teacher. Community College Review, 10(1), 27–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bentley, P. J., Coates, H., Dobson, I. R., Goedegebuure, L., & Meek, V. L. (2013). Academic job satisfaction from an international comparative perspective: Factors associated with satisfaction across 12 countries. Job Satisfaction around the Academic World (p. 239). doi: 10.1007/978-94-007-5434-8_13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bentley, P., & Kyvik, S. (2012). Academic work from a comparative perspective: a survey of faculty working time across 13 countries. Higher Education, 63(4), 529–547.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bentley, P., & Kyvik, S. (2013). Individual differences in faculty research time allocations across 13 countries. Research in Higher Education, 54(3), 329–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bercovitz, J., & Feldman, M. (2008). Academic entrepreneurs: Organizational change at the individual level. Organization Science, 19(1), 69–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Blau, P. (1973). The organization of academic work. New York, NY: Wiley.Google Scholar
  11. Blau, Peter M. (1994). The organization of academic work. NewBrunswick, NJ: Transaction Publications.Google Scholar
  12. Boyer, P. (1997). Factors influencing College of Education faculty in pursuing grants. http://wwwlib.umi.com/cr/mo/fullcit?p9841267. Accessed 07 Sept 2014.
  13. Boyer, P., & Cockriel, I. (1998). Factors influencing grant writing: Perceptions of tenured and nontenured faculty. SRA Journal of the Society of Research Administrators, 29(3), 61–68.Google Scholar
  14. Boyer, P., & Cockriel, I. (1999). Women faculty pursuing grants: Gender differences. Advancing Women in Leadership. http://www.advancingwomen.com/awl/winter99/boyer.html. Accessed 07 Sept 2014.
  15. Boyer, P., & Cockriel, I. (2001). Grant performance of junior faculty across disciplines: Motivators and barriers. Journal of Research Administration, 2(1), 19–23.Google Scholar
  16. Bozeman, B., & Boardman, C. (2013). Academic faculty working in university research centers: Neither capitalism’s slaves nor teaching fugitives. Journal of Higher Education, 84(1), 88–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Bozeman, B., & Gaughan, M. (2007). Impacts of grants and contracts on academic researchers’ interactions with industry. Research Policy, 36(5), 694–707.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Bozeman, B., & Gaughan, M. (2011). Job satisfaction among university faculty: Individual, work, and institutional determinants. Journal of Higher Education, 82(2), 154–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Burgoon, M. (1988). Extramural funding or extracurricular research: That is the choice a research editorial. Western Journal of Communication, 52(3), 252–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Caplow, T., & McGee, R. J. (1958). The academic marketplace. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  21. Churchman, D. A., & Hellweg, S. A. (1981). The faculty is not in our stars: Self-generated obstacles to securing grants. Grants Magazine, 4(2), 106–110.Google Scholar
  22. Clark, B. R. (1987). The academic life: small worlds, different worlds. A Carnegie Foundation Special Report. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Colbeck, C. L. (1998). Merging in a seamless blend: How faculty integrate teaching and research. Journal of Higher Education, 69(6), 647–671.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Cole, J. R. (2009). Defending academic freedom and free inquiry. Social Research, 76(3), 811–844.Google Scholar
  25. Crane, D. (1965). Scientists at major and minor universities: a study of productivity and recognition. American Sociological Review, 30, 699–714.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Daniel, L. G., & Gallaher, I. (1990). Impediments to faculty involvement in grant-related activities: A case study. SRA Journal of the Society of Research Administrators, 16, 5–13.Google Scholar
  27. Deci, E. L. (1971). Effects of externally mediated rewards on intrinsic motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 18(1), 105–115. doi: 10.1037/h0030644.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Dietz, J. S., & Bozeman, B. (2005). Academic careers, patents, and productivity: Industry experience as scientific and technical human capital. Research Policy, 34(3), 349–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Dooley, L. M. (1995). Barriers and inducements to grant related activity by a college of education faculty. Research Management Review, 7(2), 10–24.Google Scholar
  30. Dundar, H., & Lewis, D. R. (1998). Determinants of research productivity in higher education. Research in Higher Education, 39(6), 607–631.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Easterly, D. C., & Pemberton, L. A. (2008). Understanding barriers and supports to proposal writing as perceived by female associate professors: Achieving promotion to professor. Research Management Review, 16(1), 1–17.Google Scholar
  32. Fairweather, J. S. (2002). The mythologies of faculty productivity: Implications for institutional policy and decision making. The Journal of Higher Education, 73(1), 26–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Fairweather, J. S., & Beach, A. L. (2002). Variations in faculty work at research universities: Implications for state and institutional policy. The Review of Higher Education, 26(1), 97–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Fox, M. F. (2005). Gender, family characteristics, and publication productivity among scientists. Social Studies of Science, 35(1), 131–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Gardner, W., Mulvey, E. P., & Shaw, E. C. (1995). Regression analyses of counts and rates: Poisson, overdispersed poisson, and negative binomial models. Psychological Bulletin, 118(3), 392–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Gaughan, M., & Ponomariov, B. (2008). Faculty publication productivity, collaboration, and grants velocity: using curricula vitae to compare center-affiliated and unaffiliated scientists. Research Evaluation, 17(2), 103–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Gumport, P. J. (2000). Academic restructuring: Organizational change and institutional imperatives. Higher Education, 39, 67–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Hagedorn, L. S. (2000). Conceptualizing faculty job satisfaction: Components, theories, and outcomes. New Directions for Institutional Research, 105, 5–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Hardré, P. L., Beesley, A. D., Miller, R. L., & Pace, T. M. (2011). Faculty motivation to do research: Across disciplines in research-extensive universities. Journal of the Professoriate, 5(1), 35–69.Google Scholar
  40. Houston, D., Meyer, L. H., & Paewai, S. R. (2006). Academic staff workloads and job satisfaction: Expectations and values in academe. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 28(1), 17–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Hull, R. (2006). Workload allocation models and ‘collegiality’ in academic departments. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 19(1), 38–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Jarvis, P. (2013). Universities and corporate universities: The higher learning industry in global society. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  43. Kleinfelder, J., Price, J. H., & Dake, J. A. (2003). Grant writing: Practice and preparation of university health educators. American Journal of Health Education, 34, 47–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Laudel, G. (2006). The ‘quality myth’: Promoting and hindering conditions for acquiring research funds. Higher Education, 52, 375–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Lechuga, V. M., & Lechuga, D. C. (2012). Faculty motivation and scholarly work: Self-determination and self-regulation perspectives. Journal of the Professoriate, 6(2), 59–97.Google Scholar
  46. Link, A. N., & Siegel, D. S. (2005). Generating science-based growth: An econometric analysis of the impact of organizational incentives on university-industry technology transfer. European Journal of Finance, 11(3), 169–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Link, A. N., Siegel, D. S., & Bozeman, B. (2007). An empirical analysis of the propensity of academics to engage in informal university technology transfer. Industrial and Corporate Change, 16(4), 641–655.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Link, A. N., Swann, C. A., & Bozeman, B. (2008). A time allocation study of university faculty. Economics of Education Review, 27(4), 363–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Mamiseishvili, K., & Rosser, V. J. (2011). Examining the relationship between faculty productivity and job satisfaction. Journal of The Professoriate, 5(2), 100–132.Google Scholar
  50. Meyer, L. H., & Evans, I. M. (2003). Motivating the professoriate: Why sticks and carrots are only for donkeys. Higher Education Management and Policy, 15(3), 151–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Middaugh, M. F. (2001). Understanding faculty productivity: Standards and benchmarks for colleges and universities. New York, NY: Wiley.Google Scholar
  52. Milem, J. F., Berger, J. B., & Dey, E. L. (2000). Faculty time allocation: A study of change over twenty years. Journal of Higher Education, 71(4), 454–475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Misra, J., Lundquist, J. H., & Templer, A. (2012). Gender, work time, and care responsibilities among faculty. Sociological Forum, 27(2), 300–323. doi: 10.1111/j.1573-7861.2012.01319.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Monahan, T. C. (1993). Barriers and inducements to grant-related activity by New Jersey State college faculty. SRA Journal of the Society of Research Administrators, 24(4), 9–26.Google Scholar
  55. Monahan, T. C. (1995). Using institutional variables to predict success in the acquisition of sponsored projects. Research Management Review, 8(1), 23–40.Google Scholar
  56. Mustapha, N. (2013). The influence of financial reward on job satisfaction among academic staffs at public universities in Kelantan, Malaysia. International Journal of Business and Social Science, 4(3), 244–248.Google Scholar
  57. Paewai, S. R., Meyer, L. H., & Houston, D. J. (2007). Problem solving academic workloads management: A university response. Higher Education Quarterly, 61(3), 375–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Perorazio, T. E. (2009). Curiosity and Commercialization: Faculty Perspectives on Sponsored Research, Academic Science and Research Agendas. ProQuest LLC, Dissertation.Google Scholar
  59. Porter, S. R., & Umbach, P. D. (2001). Analyzing faculty workload data using multilevel modeling. Research in Higher Education, 42(2), 171–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Rainey, H. G., & Jung, C. S. (2014). A conceptual framework for analysis of goal ambiguity in public organizations. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 25, 71–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Ryan, J. F., Healy, R., & Sullivan, J. (2012). Oh, won’t you stay? Predictors of faculty intent to leave a public research university. Higher Education, 63(4), 421–437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Sarewitz, D. (2003). Does science policy exist, and if so, does it matter: Some observations on the U.S. R&D budget. Discussion Paper for Earth Institute Science, Technology, and Global Development Seminar, April 8, 2003. http://archive.cspo.org/products/papers/budget_seminar.pdf. Accessed 08 Sept 2014.
  63. Schoenfeld, A. C., & Magnan, R. (1994). Mentoring in a manual: Climbing the academic ladder to tenure (2nd ed.). Madison, WI: Atwood Publishing.Google Scholar
  64. Scott, J. C. (2006). The mission of the university: Medieval to postmodern transformations. Journal of Higher Education, 77(1), 1–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Siegel, D. S., Waldman, D. A., Atwater, L. E., & Link, A. N. (2004). Toward a model of the effective transfer of scientific knowledge from academicians to practitioners: qualitative evidence from the commercialization of university technologies. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 21(1/2), 115–142. doi: 10.1016/j.jengtecman.2003.12.006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Singell, L., Lillydahl, J. H., & Singell, L. D. (1996). Will changing time change the allocation of faculty time? Journal of Human Resources, 31, 429–449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Sterner, A. (1999). Faculty attitudes toward involvement in grant-related activities at a Predominantly Undergraduate Institution (PUI). SRA Journal of the Society of Research Administrators, 31(1), 5–15.Google Scholar
  68. Thyer, B. A. (2011). Harmful effects of federal research grants. Social Work Research., 31(7), 3–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Toutkoushian, R. K., & Bellas, M. L. (1999). Faculty time allocations and research productivity: Gender, race and family effects. The Review of Higher Education, 22(4), 367–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Trowler, P., & Becher, T. (2001). Academic tribes and territories: intellectual enquiry and the culture of disciplines (2nd ed.). New York: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  71. Walden, P. R., & Bryan, V. C. (2010). Tenured and non-tenured college of education faculty motivators and barriers in grant writing: A public university in the south. Journal of Research Administration, 41(3), 85–98.Google Scholar
  72. Washburn, J. (2011). Academic freedom and the corporate university. Academe, 97(1), 8–13.Google Scholar
  73. Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Inc.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Public AffairsArizona State UniversityTempeUSA
  2. 2.James M. Hull College of BusinessGeorgia Regents UniversityAugustaUSA

Personalised recommendations