Higher Education Policy

, Volume 18, Issue 3, pp 243–255 | Cite as

Supporting academic staff: Meeting new expectations in higher education without compromising traditional faculty values

  • Luanna H Meyer
  • Ian M Evans
Original Article

Abstract

University contributions to knowledge flow and capacity development depend upon the engagement and productivity of the faculty, who are called upon to meet changing expectations for teaching, research, and service. Escalating accountability demands accompanied by declining resources to support the professoriate could have unknown impact on traditional patterns of academic talent flow within higher education. Motivation theory and the existing empirical literature on faculty attitudes suggest detrimental effects of these conflicting demands without consideration for academic values, lifestyle, and role. Universities must proactively investigate policies and strategies to motivate and enhance their developing professoriate. Not doing so will lead inevitably to limits on the institution's capacity to attract, retain, and nurture those with the essential qualifications, academic ability, and commitment necessary for higher education to perform its unique role in society.

Keywords

universities faculty capacity motivation knowledge flow professoriate 

References

  1. Ayduk, O. and Mischel, W. (2002) ‘When smart people behave stupidly: reconciling inconsistencies in social–emotional intelligence’, in R.J. Sternberg (ed.) Why Smart People Can Be So Stupid, New Haven: Yale University Press, pp. 86–105.Google Scholar
  2. Bok, D. (2003) Universities in the Marketplace: the Commercialisation of Higher Education, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 233pp.Google Scholar
  3. Boyer, E. (1990) Scholarship Reconsidered: Priorities of the Professoriate, Princeton: The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, 147pp.Google Scholar
  4. Carr, S.C., Inkson, K. and Thorn, K. (2005) ‘From global careers to talent flow: reinterpreting ‘brain drain’, Journal of World Business (in press).Google Scholar
  5. Coaldrake, P. and Stedman, L. (1999) Academic work in the twenty-first century: changing roles and policies Occasional paper series 99-H Canberra, Australia: Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs.Google Scholar
  6. DeNardis, L.J. (2001) ‘Focus: shared governance’, The Presidency Fall: 38–39.Google Scholar
  7. Doring, A. (2002) ‘Challenges to the academic role of change agent’, Journal of Further and Higher Education 26: 139–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dweck, C.S. (1999) Self Theories and Goals: Their Role in Motivation, Personality, and Development, Philadelphia: Taylor & Francis, 245pp.Google Scholar
  9. Evans, I. (2001) ‘Reinforcement, principle of’, in: N.J. Smelser, P.B. Baltes, (eds.) International Encyclopaedia of the Social and Behavioural Sciences: Clinical and Applied Psychology, Oxford: Elsevier Science, pp. 1012–1016.Google Scholar
  10. Goddard, J. (2004) Institutional management and engagement with the knowledge society OECD Institutional Management in Higher Education General Conference Paris, France.Google Scholar
  11. Gordon, G. (2003 ‘University roles and career paths: trends, scenarios and motivational challenges’, Higher Education Management and Policy 15: 89–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Harley, S. (2002) ‘The impact of research selectivity on academic work and identity in UK universities’, Studies in Higher Education 27: 187–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Harloe, M. and Perry, B. (2004) ‘Rethinking or hollowing out the university?’, External engagement and internal transformation in the knowledge economy, OECD Institutional Management in Higher Education General Conference Paris, France.Google Scholar
  14. Henkel, M. (2000) Academic Identities and Policy Change in Higher Education, London: Jessica Kingsley, 286pp.Google Scholar
  15. Higgins, E.T. (1997) ‘Beyond pleasure and pain’, American Psychologist 52: 1280–1300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Higgins, R.L., Snyder, C.R. and Berglas, S. (eds.) (1990) Self-Handicapping: The Paradox that Isn’t., New York: Plenum, 298pp.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Houston, D., Meyer, L.H. and Paewai, S. (2005) ‘Academic staff workloads and job satisfaction: expectations and values in academe’, Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management 27(in press).Google Scholar
  18. Jongbloed, B., Maassen, P. and Neave, G. (eds.) (1999) From the Eye of the Storm: Higher Education's Changing Institution, Dordrech: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 316pp.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kogan, M. (1999) Academic and institutional leadership, National Conference of University Professors with the Committee of Vice Chancellors and Principals, London, Great Britain.Google Scholar
  20. Kohn, A. (1993) Punished by Rewards, Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 430pp.Google Scholar
  21. Meyer, L.H. and Evans, I.M. (1993) ‘Science and practice in behavioral intervention: meaningful outcomes, research validity, and usable knowledge’, Journal of The Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps 18: 224–234.Google Scholar
  22. Meyer, L.H. and Evans, I.M. (2003) ‘Motivating the professoriate: why sticks and carrots are only for donkeys’, Higher Education Management and Policy 15: 151–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Richardson, J. and McKenna, S. (2002) ‘Leaving and experiencing: why academics expatriate and how they experience expatriation’, Career Development International 7: 67–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Sassower, R. (2000) A Sanctuary of Their Own: Intellectual Refugees in the Academy, Lanham MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 111pp.Google Scholar
  25. Scott, P. (1994) ‘Wider or deeper? International dimensions of mass higher education’, Journal of Tertiary Education Administration 16: 179–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Shapin, S. (2003) ‘Ivory trade’, London Review of Books September: 15–19.Google Scholar
  27. Steele, C.M. (1988) ‘The psychology of self-affirmation: sustaining the integrity of the self’, in: L. Berkowitz (Ed) Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Vol 21. New York: Academic Press, pp. 261–302.Google Scholar
  28. Welsh, J.F. and Metcalf, J. (2003) ‘Administrative support for institutional effectiveness activities: responses to the ‘new accountability’’, Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management 25: 183–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Wilson, R. (2005) ‘Keeping kids close: campuses provide child-care centres to help professors cope’, The Chronicle of Higher Education 51: 19–23.Google Scholar
  30. Winter, R., Taylor, T. and Sarros, J. (2000) ‘Trouble at mill: quality of academic work/life issues within a comprehensive Australian university’, Studies in Higher Education 25: 279–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International Association of Universities 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Luanna H Meyer
    • 1
  • Ian M Evans
    • 2
  1. 1.College of Education, Victoria University of WellingtonWellingtonNew Zealand
  2. 2.School of Psychology, Massey UniversityPalmerston NorthNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations