Research in Higher Education

, Volume 42, Issue 5, pp 619–632 | Cite as

Managing Productivity in an Academic Institution: Rethinking the Whom, Which, What, and Whose of Productivity

  • Gary Rhoades
Article

Abstract

Drawing on a review of scholarly literature, this article suggests rethinking productivity in academic institutions along four dimensions: the productivity of whom, productivity for which unit of analysis, productivity according to what functions, and productivity in whose interests. It offers principles for promoting enlightened discussion and pursuit of productivity at all levels of the organization. In contrast to the dominant discourse, which emphasizes focus, centralized standard measures, and accountability, the bias in my principles is toward balance, decentralized diversity, and recalibration. I suggest the ideal is not for employees and units to produce to centrally managed objectives but for all individuals and units to manage individually and collectively to design their work to improve their productivity along multiple dimensions.

productivity academic management faculty 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

REFERENCES

  1. Allen, Henry L. (1996). Faculty workload and productivity in the 1990s: preliminary findings. In The NEA 1996 Almanac of Higher Education, pp. 21-34. Washington, DC: National Education Association.Google Scholar
  2. Astin, Alexander W. (1993). What Matters in College?: Four Critical Years Revisited. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  3. Baird, Leonard L. (1986). What characterizes a productive research department? Research in Higher Education 25(3): 211-225.Google Scholar
  4. Baird, Leonard L. (1991). Publication productivity in doctoral research departments: interdisciplinary and intradisciplinary factors. Research in Higher Education 32(3): 303-318.Google Scholar
  5. Becher, Tony. (1989). Academic Tribes and Territories: Intellectual Enquiry and the Cultures of Disciplines. Milton Keynes, England: The Society for Research into Higher Education & Open University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Bellas, Marcia L. (1997). Disciplinary differences in faculty salaries: does gender bias play a role? The Journal of Higher Education 68(3): 299-321.Google Scholar
  7. Bellas, Marcia L., and Toutkoushian, Robert K. (1999). Faculty time allocations and research productivity: gender, race, and family effects. The Review of Higher Education 22(4): 367-390.Google Scholar
  8. Birnbaum, Robert. (2000). Policy scholars are from Venus; policy makers are from Mars. The Review of Higher Education 23(2): 119-132.Google Scholar
  9. Braxton, John M. (1996). Contrasting perspectives on the relationship between teaching and research. In John M. Braxton (ed.), Faculty Teaching and Research: Is There a Conflict? New Directions for Institutional Research, No. 90, pp. 5-14. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  10. Braxton, John M., and Hargens, Lowell L. (1996). Variations among academic disciplines: analytic frameworks and research. In John C. Smart (ed.), Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research, pp. 1-46. New York: Agathon.Google Scholar
  11. Brinkman, Paul. (1990). Higher education cost functions. In Stephen Hoenack and Eileen Collins (Eds.), The Economics of American Universities, pp. 107-128. Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  12. Burke, Joseph C., and Modarresi, Shahpar. (2000). To keep or not to keep performance funding: signals from shareholders. The Journal of Higher Education 71(4): 454-475.Google Scholar
  13. Clark, Burton R. (1987). The Academic Life: Small Worlds, Different Worlds. Princeton, NJ: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.Google Scholar
  14. Clark, Burton R. (Ed.) (1993). The Research Foundations of Graduate Education: Germany, Britain, France, United States, Japan. Los Angeles: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  15. Clark, Burton R. (1995). Places of Inquiry: Research and Advanced Education in Modern Universities. Los Angeles: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  16. Clark, Burton R. (1997). The modern integration of research activities with teaching and learning. The Journal of Higher Education 68(3): 241-255.Google Scholar
  17. Clotfelter, C. T. (1993). Economic Challenges in Higher Education. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  18. Colbeck, Carol L. (1998). Merging in a seamless blend: how faculty integrate teaching and research. The Journal of Higher Education 69(6): 647-671.Google Scholar
  19. Dey, Eric L., Milem, Jeffrey F., and Berger, Joseph B. (1997). Changing patterns of publication productivity: accumulative advantage or institutional isomorphism? Sociology of Education 70(4): 308-323.Google Scholar
  20. Dundar, Halil, and Lewis, Darrell R. (1995). Departmental productivity in American universities: economies of scale and scope. Economics of Education Review 14(2): 119-144.Google Scholar
  21. Dundar, Halil, and Lewis, Darrell R. (1998). Determinants of research productivity in higher education. Research in Higher Education 39(6): 607-632.Google Scholar
  22. Fairweather, James. (1996). Faculty Work and the Public Trust: Restoring the Value of Teaching and Public Service in American Academic Life. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.Google Scholar
  23. Feldman, Kenneth A. (1987). Research productivity and scholarly accomplishments of college teachers as related to their instructional effectiveness. Research in Higher Education 26(3): 227-298.Google Scholar
  24. Finkelstein, Martin J. (1995). College faculty as teacher. In The NEA 1995 Almanac of Higher Education, pp. 33-48. Washington, DC: National Education Association.Google Scholar
  25. Geiger, Roger L. (1990). Organized research units-their role in the development of university research. The Journal of Higher Education 61(1): 1-19.Google Scholar
  26. Griswold, Carolyn P., and Marine, Ginger Minton. (1996). Political influences on state policy: higher tuition, higher aid, and the real world. The Review of Higher Education 19(4): 361-390.Google Scholar
  27. Grunig, Stephen D. (1995). The impact of development office structure on fund-raising efficiency for research and doctoral institutions. The Journal of Higher Education 66(6): 686-699.Google Scholar
  28. Gumport, Patricia J. (1993). The contested terrain of academic program reduction. The Journal of Higher Education 64(3): 283-311.Google Scholar
  29. Gumport, Patricia J., and Pusser, Brian. (1995). A case of bureaucratic accretion: context and consequences. The Journal of Higher Education 66(5): 493-520.Google Scholar
  30. Hasbrouck, Norma Sue. (1997). Implications of the changing funding base of public universities. Doctoral Dissertation, Center for the Study of Higher Education, University of Arizona.Google Scholar
  31. Hattie, John, and Marsh, H. W. (1996). The relationship between research and teaching: a meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research 66(4): 507-542.Google Scholar
  32. Hoyt, D. P., and Spangler, R. K. (1974). Interrelationships among instructional effectiveness, publication record, and monetary reward. Research in Higher Education 2(1): 81-88.Google Scholar
  33. Kim, Mikyong, Rhoades, Gary, and Woodard Jr., Dudley B. (2000). Sponsored research versus graduating students?: public research universities. Unpublished manuscript, under review.Google Scholar
  34. Kuh, George, Schuh, J., Whitt, Elizabeth, and Associates. (1991). Involving Colleges. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  35. Layzell, Daniel T. (1996). Faculty workload and productivity: recurrent issues with new imperatives. The Review of Higher Education 19(3): 267-282.Google Scholar
  36. Leslie, David W. (1996). “Strategic Governance:” The Wrong Questions? The Review of Higher Education 20(1): 101-112.Google Scholar
  37. Leslie, Larry L., and Rhoades, Gary. (1995). Rising administrative costs: on seeking explanations. The Journal of Higher Education 66(2): 187-212.Google Scholar
  38. Leslie, Larry L., Rhoades, Gary, and Oaxaca, Ron. (2000). The effects of changing revenue patterns on public research universities. NSF Report for NSF Grant # 9628325.Google Scholar
  39. Lovell, Cheryl D. (2000). Past and future pressures and issues of higher education: state perspectives. In Joseph Losco and Brian L. Fife (eds.), Higher Education in Transition: The Challenges of the New Millennium, pp. 109-133. Westport, CT: Bergin and Garvey.Google Scholar
  40. Massy, William F., and Zemsky, Robert. (1994). Faculty discretionary time: departments and the “Academic Ratchet.” The Journal of Higher Education 65(1): 1-22.Google Scholar
  41. Michalak, S. J., and Freidrich, R. J. (1981). Research productivity and teaching effectiveness at a small liberal arts college. The Journal of Higher Education 52(6): 578-597.Google Scholar
  42. Middaugh, Michael F. (1999). Instructional productivity of systems. In Gerald H. Gaither (ed.), The Multicampus System: Perspectives on Practice and Prospects, pp. 122-142. Sterling, VA: Stylus.Google Scholar
  43. Milem, Jeffrey F., Berger, Joseph B., and Dey, Eric L. (2000). Faculty time allocation: a study of change over time. The Journal of Higher Education 71(4): 454-475.Google Scholar
  44. Mintzberg, H. (1994). The Rise and Fall of Strategic Planning: Reconceiving Roles for Planning, Plans, Planners. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  45. Mortenson, T. (1995). Educational attainment by family income, 1970–1994. Postsecondary Education OPPORTUNITY 41: 1-8.Google Scholar
  46. Pascarella, Ernest T., and Terenzini, Patrick T. (1991). How College Affects Students: Findings and Insights from Over Twenty Years of Research. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  47. Presley, Jennifer B., and Engelbride, Edward. (1998). Accounting for faculty productivity in the research university. The Review of Higher Education 22(1): 17-38.Google Scholar
  48. Rhoades, Gary. (1995). Rising, stratified administrative costs: student services' place. In Dudley B. Woodard Jr. (ed.), Budgeting as a Tool for Policy in Student Affairs. New Directions for Student Services, No. 70, pp. 25-38. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  49. Rhoades, Gary. (1998a). Reviewing and rethinking administrative costs. In John C. Smart (ed.), Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Practice, pp. 11-47. New York: Agathon Press.Google Scholar
  50. Rhoades, Gary. (1998b). Managed Professionals: Unionized Faculty and Restructuring Academic Labor. Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  51. Rhoades, Gary. (2000a). Who's doing it right: strategic activity in public research universities. The Review of Higher Education 24(1): 41-66.Google Scholar
  52. Rhoades, Gary. (2000b). The changing role of faculty. In Joseph Losco and Brian L. Fife (eds.), Higher Education in Transition: The Challenges of the New Millennium, pp. 29-50. Westport, CT: Bergin and Garvey.Google Scholar
  53. Rhoades, Gary, and Slaughter, Sheila. (1997). Academic capitalism, managed professionals, and supply side higher education. Social Text 51 15(2): 9-38.Google Scholar
  54. Slaughter, Sheila, and Leslie, Larry L. (1997). Academic Capitalism: Politics, Policies, and the Entrepreneurial University. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  55. Smart, John C., and Hamm, Russell E. (1993). Organizational effectiveness and mission orientation of two-year colleges. Research in Higher Education 34(4): 489-502.Google Scholar
  56. Stahler, Gerald J., and Tash, William R. (1994). Centers and Institutes in the research university: issues, problems, and prospects. The Journal of Higher Education 65(5): 540-554.Google Scholar
  57. Stricker, Lawrence J. (1994). Institutional factors in time to the doctorate. Research in Higher Education 35(5): 569-588.Google Scholar
  58. Tolbert, Pamela. (1985). Institutional environments and resource dependence: administrative structure in institutions of higher education. Administrative Science Quarterly 30: 1-13.Google Scholar
  59. Volkwein, J. Fredericks, and Carbone, David A. (1994). The impact of departmental research and teaching climates on undergraduate growth and satisfaction. The Journal of Higher Education 65(2): 147-167.Google Scholar
  60. Ward, Gary Tripp. (1997). The effects of separately budgeted research expenditures on faculty instructional productivity in undergraduate education. Doctoral Dissertation, Center for the Study of Higher Education, University of Arizona.Google Scholar
  61. Woodard, Dudley B. Jr. (Ed.) (1995). Budgeting as a Tool for Policy in Student Affairs. New Directions for Student Services, No. 70. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  62. Zemsky, Robert, and Massy, William F. (1999). Telling time: comparing faculty instructional practices at three types of institutions. Change (March/April): 55-58.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Human Sciences Press, Inc. 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gary Rhoades
    • 1
  1. 1.Center for the Study of Higher Education, College of EducationUniversity of ArizonaTucson

Personalised recommendations