Keywords

Introduction

Teaching has been the primary mission of universities since their emergence in the medieval era (Shin, 2011), and the research function was added in universities following Wilhelm von Humboldt’s idea in the early nineteenth century. After Humboldt proposed the “unity of teaching and research,” the teaching and research nexus became one of the central topics in higher education (Schimank & Winnes, 2000). It was first implemented at Humboldt University of Berlin in 1810, and then many other universities in Germany and other countries followed. Humboldt asserted that research and education are inseparable and stated that the essence of college might be shown with the only way to teach freely through solitary research (Harland, 2016). The patterns of the teaching and research nexus have been developed in accordance with how to merge or differentiate teaching and research activities (Gottlieb & Keith, 1997; Schimank & Winnes, 2000). Schimank and Winnes (2000) demonstrated three different patterns of teaching and research relationships in European university systems: (i) the Humboldtian pattern, (ii) a post-Humboldtian pattern, and (iii) a pre-Humboldtian pattern. First, the Humboldtian pattern is well known as a German model institutionalizing the combination of teaching with research in the role of a professor. Moreover, teaching and research are jointly financed with block grants from the government, and most universities have a dual mission of teaching and research. Second, a post-Humboldtian pattern is a model differentiated by roles, organizations, and/or resources for teaching and research. The United Kingdom, the United States, and Canada are typical examples (de Weert, 2004). In the United Kingdom, the Research Assessment Exercise—which has changed to the Research Excellence Framework since 2014—was initiated in 1986, and the block grants are dedicated only to research. As a result, research performance has become a more crucial factor for gaining funding than teaching in universities. Furthermore, there is a differentiation at the level of organizations (i.e., research- and teaching-focused universities) and roles of professors (i.e., research- and teaching-focused professors). It is also represented by the US and Canada model, which is structured by an undergraduate program focused on teaching and graduate schools for the research function and has activated research-oriented universities (de Weert, 2004; Gottlieb & Keith, 1997). Third, a pre-Humboldtian pattern is characterized by its split institutes according to their function. A case in point is the French model differentiated by institutes, which are divided into universities as higher education and public research institutions as science systems. Schimank and Winnes (2000, p. 406) pointed out that “with respect to the Humboldtian pattern, these debates have not yet brought about major changes in some countries, whereas in others a movement towards the post-Humboldtian patterns can be seen.” In the meantime, the teaching and research nexus was generally implanted into European systems and then imitated in Asia, including South Korea (Gottlieb & Keith, 1997). However, we do not know how teaching and research are related to each other in Asian university systems. Are there similarities and differences between Asian and Western university systems? How have Asian university systems changed the teaching and research nexus over the past few decades?

As a university is part of the general socioeconomic and political fabric of a given society and era, each higher education system has its own characteristics of how teaching and research are interrelated. In this study, we focus on the Korean higher education system that was influenced by the German higher education model through the Japanese colonial period and then by the American higher education model. This study aims to explore how teaching and research are integrated in South Korea, which has dramatically developed on the basis of government-driven policies and already reached universal access in higher education since the late 1990s. First, we provide an overview of national initiatives that have affected the main characteristics of the teaching and research nexus in South Korea. Second, we examine how academic perceptions of the teaching and research nexus have changed over the past 30 years in Korean. In particular, we analyze how Korean academics differently perceive the teaching and research nexus by gender, academic rank, and discipline. Third, we examine how the teaching and research nexus in South Korea is similar to and different from that of other main countries such as Canada, Germany, and Japan.

National Initiatives for Teaching and Research in South Korea

Korean universities have quickly shifted from educational institutions primarily for teaching to institutions balancing teaching and research through funding initiatives (Shin & Lee, 2015). The Korean government began to increase the support provided to universities targeting university research in the 1990s (Ministry of Science & ICT, 2017). To develop the global competitiveness of core research areas and foster outstanding research groups, leading research centers such as the Science Research Center, Engineering Research Center, and Regional Leading Research Center have been established since 1990. One of the famous research funding projects is the Brain Korea 21 (BK21) project, which was established in 1999. The BK21 project is a national project to nurture masters- and doctorate-level manpower who would be supporting the creation of new knowledge and technology. It aims to reinforce research-oriented universities, promote global competitiveness, and nurture high-quality manpower. The first phase of the BK21 project lasted for 7 years from 1999 to 2005, followed by the second phase from 2006 to 2012 and the third phase from 2013 to 2020. The fourth phase was implemented in November 2020 to strengthen the capabilities of outstanding graduate schools and foster future academic generations. A total of 438 project groups from 72 universities were selected in the first phase, 568 project groups from 74 universities in the second phase, 522 project groups from 65 universities in the third phase (MOE, 2019), and 562 project groups from 68 universities in the fourth phase (MOE, 2020). The number of Science Citation Index (SCI)-level journal articles published by faculty members participating in the BK21 project increased significantly from 4392 in 1999 to 24,968 in 2017 (MOE, 2019). The BK21 project is a long-term and successful project aimed at enhancing the research capabilities of Korean universities and strengthening the competitiveness of graduate schools (Shin, 2009).

In addition, the Korean government initiated other major research projects. For example, the National Research Laboratory in 1999, National Core Research Center in 2003, and Global Research Laboratory in 2010 were established to further develop the research capabilities of universities and research institutes (Ministry of Science & ICT, 2017). The World-Class University project was initiated in 2008 and merged with BK21 Plus in 2013. The Humanities Korea project was implemented to lay the foundation for the globalization of university research institutes of humanities in 2007, and the Humanities Korea Plus project was introduced in 2017. The Social Science Korea project began in 2010 for academic research in the field of social sciences. These projects were mainly designed to improve the research competitiveness of Korean universities (Shin & Lee, 2015).

In the late 2000s, the Korean government began to pay more attention to strengthening the educational capabilities of undergraduate programs and enhancing the learning capabilities of university students. In 2008, the government promoted the University Education Capacity Enhancement (UECE) project as a general support project aimed at strengthening the overall educational capabilities of universities (Yun, 2018). The UECE project began with reflection that the previous financial support projects focused on strengthening the research capabilities of universities and neglected to strengthen the education capabilities of undergraduate programs (Ministry of Education, Science, and Technology, 2008). It is a performance-oriented funding project that uses a formula consisting of performance indicators and educational condition index factors to enhance the education capabilities of universities, and it seeks the autonomy and efficiency of financial management by way of block grants. The UECE project was applied on a yearly basis from 2008 to 2013. A total of four-year universities and junior colleges were reviewed and 64 four-year universities and 72 junior colleges were finally selected (Byoun, 2018).

The Advancement of College Education (ACE) project was promoted to discover and spread advanced models for various undergraduate programs and enhance the competitiveness of university education from 2010 to February 2019. The ACE project aims to focus on “good teaching universities” and “characteristic and competitive leading universities” to create and set up advanced models of undergraduate education with curriculum development and educational environment improvement (Lee, 2017). For this purpose, the Korean government selected a certain number of universities each year and supported them for 4 years. In 2017, the ACE project was upgraded to ACE Plus (ACE+), and 10 universities were newly selected, with a total of 42 universities participating. The ACE project led to the establishment of a core competency-based education system in university education. The universities participating in this project ran core competency-based education programs and conducted the Korea Collegiate Essential Skills Assessment (K-CESA). The K-CESA was developed by the Ministry of Education and Korea Research Institute for Vocational Education and Training in 2010 to measure the basic job skills of university students, encourage human resources to meet social changes and corporate needs, and diagnose the core skills and competencies of university students.

In addition, the Korea National Survey of Student Engagement and National Assessment of Student Engagement in Learning have been conducted since 2011 (Byoun, 2018). The University for Creative Korea (CK) project lasted from 2014 to 2018. This project was designed to lay the foundation for the characterization of universities centered on strengths, considering the needs and characteristics of local communities. In 2014, 338 project groups from 106 universities were selected for the CK project.

The Ministry of Education reorganized and simplified the university financial support projects to enhance the autonomy and quality of universities in 2019. These projects are mainly divided into four types of financial support at national universities: (i) the National University Promotion Project, (ii) the University Innovation Support project, (iii) Leaders in Industry-University Cooperation Plus (LINC+), and (iv) the BK21 project. In order to strengthen the public role of national universities, the National Universities Innovation (PoINT) project has been expanded to the National University Promotion Project. The University Innovation Support project is a general financial support project, and five projects, including the ACE+ and CK projects—which are subdivided by types—have been integrated. The University Innovation Support project mainly focuses on teaching in universities, LINC+ aims to foster university-industry cooperation, and the BK21 project drives the enhancement of research competitiveness of universities (Fig. 10.1).

Fig. 10.1
figure 1

Reorganization of university financial support projects (Note. ACE+, Advancement of College Education Plus; CK, Creative Korea; PRIME, the Program for Industrial Needs-Matched Education; CORE, Reinforcement of College Humanities Competency; WE-UP, Fostering women’s engineering; LINC+, Leaders in Industry-University Cooperation Plus; BK+, Brain Korea 21 Plus. Source: Pack (2018))

Full size image

University Mission and Academic Role in Teaching and Research

Article 28 of the Higher Education Act states the purpose of universities: “to develop students’ personality, to teach and research the profound theories of science and arts necessary for the development of the State and human society, and methods of application thereof, and to contribute to the State and human society.” This includes teaching and research as primary missions of universities. First, the teaching function of universities aims to build up the character of students and to educate people to work effectively and think critically in a society. However, this function has become more complex and diverse, ranging from general education for undergraduate programs to advanced doctorate programs (Altbach, 2008). Second, the research function of universities is dedicated to the advancement of knowledge and training of scholars. Faculty members are committed not only to conducting basic research but also to doing applied and developmental research related to practical goals, commercial products, and national development.

Amid changes in the environment surrounding universities, academic roles and perceptions of teaching and research are changing. The research performance-based evaluation and university ranking systems make universities and faculty members more interested in research activities. The research function of universities has become increasingly important in enhancing their competitiveness and reputation.

Massification is the dominant force in higher education and influences governance, curriculum, faculty, and student demographic information (Altbach, 2008; Shin & Harman, 2009). South Korea has achieved universal access to higher education with a tertiary enrollment rate of more than 50% (Shin & Harman, 2009). The number of 4-year universities was 191, and the tertiary education attainment rate in the age group 25–34 years was 70% in 2019 (MOE & KEDI, 2020). With massified higher education, various tertiary institutions such as junior colleges, polytechnic colleges, technical universities, and graduate school colleges emerged, with different goals, students, academic staff, and facilities. Junior and polytechnic colleges mainly focus on vocational education, whereas graduate school colleges only run graduate school programs. Among 4-year universities, prestigious universities are being transformed into research universities, and most universities focus mainly on teaching but often have some interest in research in Korea.

There has also been an expansion of academic staff along with the increase in the number of non-tenure-track faculty members and the diversification of types. There are research-focused professors, teaching-focused professors, lecturers, and adjunct professors with specialized academic roles, whereas tenure-track faculty members do both teaching and research. Currently, teaching workloads have increased in massified higher education systems, and complaints about teaching quality have also grown at the same time. In addition, research performance is becoming important in evaluating professors’ promotion and gaining research project funding. It may lead to conflicts between teaching and research. Many academics believe that research and teaching produce synergy when they are integrated within the role of a professor and in a university (Shin, 2011), but reality might be controversial. With the changing environment surrounding universities, patterns of teaching and research relationships have changed in the last few decades.

Data and Analytical Strategy

The data in this study were collected from the Carnegie International Survey on the Academic Profession in 1992, the Changing Academic Profession (CAP) survey in 2008, and the Academic Profession in the Knowledge Society (APIKS) survey in 2018. Table 10.1 presents the population and response rate for these three surveys in Korea. The data were collected through stratified sampling for the Carnegie survey and through random sampling for the CAP and APIKS surveys. The sample broadly represents the population of full-time faculty members who are affiliated with 4-year universities in Korea in terms of their gender, rank, and discipline.

Table 10.1 Population and response rate
Full size table

Table 10.2 presents the descriptive statistics for the samples of Korea in this study. Between 1992 and 2018, the proportion of male professors among respondents decreased from 87.0% to 71.5%, whereas that of female professors increased from 13.0% to 28.5%. In addition, the proportion of junior professors increased from 28.4% to 31.6%, and that of professors majoring in hard disciplines increased from 46.1% to 54.5%.

Table 10.2 Sample demographic information
Full size table

The empirical part was divided into two sections. The first section covered how Korean academic perceptions of the teaching and research nexus have changed over the past 30 years, comparing three research projects from the Carnegie survey in 1992, CAP survey in 2008, and APIKS survey in 2018. The second section examined the similarities and differences between Asian and Western university systems by comparing Korea to other major countries, such as Canada, Germany, and Japan. The Korean higher education system was influenced by the German higher education model through the Japanese colonial period while the Canadian higher education model was influenced by the British model during the colonial era. The German higher education model represents the Humboldtian model while the Canadian higher education model is one of typical models of a post-Humboldtian pattern (de Weert, 2004). We used the CAP and APIKS surveys to perform comparative research because Canada did not participate in the Carnegie survey. The sample information used for the international comparative study is provided in Table 10.3.

Table 10.3 Sample information used for international comparative study
Full size table

We examined academic preferences between teaching and research, workloads, research performance, and perceptions of teaching and research relationships. First, academic preferences were examined in terms of teaching or research preferences, as measured by the question “regarding your own preferences, do your interests lie primarily in teaching or research?” Of the four choices of responses given, we consider “primarily in teaching” and “in both but leaning toward teaching” to indicate teaching preference, and “primarily in research” and “in both but leaning toward research” to indicate research preference.

Second, academic workloads were measured by the average working hours per week during class session. The workloads were divided into three types: (i) teaching, (ii) research, and (iii) other academic activities. Teaching workloads included preparing instructional materials and lesson plans, developing and implementing classroom instruction, advising students, reading and evaluating student work, and so on. Research workloads covered reading literature, writing, conducting experiments, doing fieldwork, and so on. Other academic activities included administrative work and services within academia, such as committee work, paperwork, activities in academic associations, and reviews.

Third, research performance was divided into journal article and book publications. Journal article publications were measured by the number of total domestic and international academic journal article publications in the past 3 years. Book publications were measured by the number of scholarly books authored or co-authored and scholarly books edited or coedited in the past 3 years. The three questionnaires used for data analysis are slightly different, and in the case of 2018, journal indicators were combined for analysis. Table 10.4 shows questions and/or statements of the three questionnaires used in the analysis.

Table 10.4 Questions and/or statements of the three questionnaires used in the analysis
Full size table

Fourth, academic perceptions of teaching and research relationships were divided into positive and negative relationships. The positive relationship was examined by the questionnaire item “your research activities reinforce your teaching” and measured on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from “1” (strongly disagree) to “5” (strongly agree). The negative relationship was explored by the questionnaire item “teaching and research are hardly compatible with each other” and measured on a 5-point Likert scale. The CAP and APIKS survey responses were compared because the Carnegie survey did not ask for the questionnaire items.

Findings

Changes in the Teaching and Research Nexus in Korea

Table 10.5 presents the changes in the teaching and research preferences of Korean academics during the last three decades from 1992 to 2018. This study found that Korean professors prefer research to teaching. The proportion of professors who prefer research increased significantly from 55.7% in 1992 to 68.0% in 2008 and 64.5% in 2018.

Table 10.5 Teaching and research preferences by gender, academic rank, and discipline in Korea
Full size table

Looking at the differences in academic perception by gender, academic rank, and discipline, it was found that male professors preferred research than female professors did, whereas junior professors and professors majoring in hard disciplines preferred research than did senior professors and professors studying soft disciplines. Among these groups, significant statistical differences were found in academic rank and discipline in 1992, discipline in 2008, and gender and discipline in 2018.

Table 10.6 presents the changes in the average working hours per week during class session over the past 30 years. Overall, Korean academics spend more time teaching than doing research, but teaching hours per week decreased from 23.05 h per week in 1992 to 21.08 h per week in 2008 and 19.02 h per week in 2018, whereas research hours per week did not change much over the past three decades. Interestingly, service and administrative work hours per week steadily increased from 11.23 h in 1992 to 14.02 h in 2008 and 17.56 h in 2018. In particular, junior professors were found to spend more time in teaching and research than senior professors, whereas senior professors spent more time in service and administrative work. In 2018, female professors and professors majoring in soft disciplines spent more time teaching, whereas male professors and professors majoring in hard disciplines spent more time doing research.

Table 10.6 Workloads per week by gender, academic rank, and discipline in Korea
Full size table

Table 10.7 presents the changes in the research performance of Korean academics and a summary of the t-test analysis. Most of the Korean universities put emphasis on a larger number of journal article publications to raise their world university ranking. In this context, the number of journal article publications has steadily increased over the past 30 years. As provided in Table 10.7, academics studying hard disciplines publish more journal articles, whereas those studying soft disciplines publish more books. Male and senior academics publish more journal articles compared to female and junior academics.

Table 10.7 Research performance across gender, academic rank, and discipline in Korea
Full size table

Table 10.8 presents academic perceptions of teaching and research relationships in Korea. In this study, academic perception of the teaching and research nexus was divided into positive and negative relationships. The positive relationship was examined by the questionnaire item “your research activities reinforce your teaching,” and the negative relationship was explored by the questionnaire item “teaching and research are hardly compatible with each other” and measured on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from “1” (strongly disagree) to “5” (strongly agree).

Table 10.8 Perception of teaching and research nexus across gender, academic rank, and discipline in Korea
Full size table

As provided in Table 10.8, Korean academics viewed positively that research reinforces teaching and recognized that teaching and research are compatible with each other. However, junior professors’ views on “research reinforces teaching” have declined slightly over the past decade, whereas their views on “education and research are incompatible” have increased slightly. Academics majoring in soft disciplines tend to have a more positive perception of the teaching and research nexus than those in hard disciplines.

Comparison of Countries on Changes in the Teaching and Research Nexus

We compared Korea to other major countries, such as Canada, Germany, and Japan. Figure 10.2 shows the changes in teaching and research preferences in Canada, Germany, Japan, and Korea during the decade from 2008 to 2018. We found that more than half of academics in each country prefer research to teaching. In detail, more than two-thirds of academics in Canada, Japan, and Korea except Germany prefer research to teaching. However, the percentage of Canadian, German, and Korean academics who said they preferred teaching increased slightly in 2018 compared to 2008. In contrast, for Japanese academics, the percentage of teaching preference decreased slightly from 28.3% in 2008 to 26.0% in 2018, and the percentage in favor of research increased from 71.7% in 2008 to 74.0% in 2018.

Fig. 10.2
figure 2

Teaching and research preferences in selected countries from 2008 and 2018 (Note. The values are in percentages)

Full size image

Table 10.9 presents that academics in Japan and Korea decreased their share of teaching workloads measured by hours per week in 2018 compared to 2008, while academics in Canada and Germany increased their share of teaching workloads. Only Japanese academics increased the percentage of research hours per week among the total working hours, whereas academics in other countries decreased it slightly.

Table 10.9 Share of teaching and research hours per week in selected countries from 2008 and 2018
Full size table

Figure 10.3 shows interesting results compared to Table 10.9. As given in Table 10.9, the research hours per week of Canadian and Korean academics decreased in 2018 compared to 2008, but their journal article publications increased significantly from 6.24 in 2008 to 10.72 in 2018 for Canadian academics and from 10.64 in 2008 to 13.76 in 2018 for Korean academics.

Fig. 10.3
figure 3

Research performance in selected countries in 2008 and 2018 (Note. Journal article or book publication represents the total during the 3 years between 2005 and 2007 and 2015 and 2017)

Full size image

Table 10.10 presents academic perceptions of teaching and research relationships. The positive relationship was measured in the proportion of respondents who responded 4 and 5 to the questionnaire item “your research activities reinforce your teaching.” The negative relationship was measured in the proportion of respondents who answered 4 and 5 to the questionnaire item “teaching and research are hardly compatible with each other.”

Table 10.10 Teaching and research relationships in selected countries from 2008 and 2018
Full size table

In 2008, most academics in Canada, Germany, Japan, and Korea recognized that research reinforces teaching, but in 2018, Japanese academics perceived it as relatively low. In particular, only half of Japanese academics recognized that research reinforces teaching.

In terms of the negative teaching and research relationship, the percentage of respondents who answered that they agreed with the questionnaire item “teaching and research are hardly compatible with each other” increased from 2008 to 2018, except for Japanese cases. Most Canadian and Korean academics perceived that teaching and research are compatible with each other, but German and Japanese academics did not. Interestingly, 41.5% of German academics and 48.1% of Japanese academics recognized that teaching and research are hardly compatible with each other.

Discussion and Conclusion

The findings of this study show that Korean higher education is a hybrid of the Humboldtian and post-Humboldtian patterns. The characteristics of the Humboldtian model can be described in dual mission statements, professors’ integrated roles, and joint funding of teaching and research (Schimank & Winnes, 2000). Among these three main factors, Korean higher education presented dual mission statements and professors’ integrated roles for teaching and research. First, the Higher Education Act states that universities contribute to teaching and research for the development of the state and human society. Most Korean universities have the dual missions of teaching and research. Second, Korean academics postulate that they should do both teaching and research. This is also evident in their perceptions of the teaching and research nexus. Most Korean academics viewed positively that research reinforces teaching and recognized that teaching and research are compatible with each other. The proportion of Korean academics who positively agreed with the survey item “your research activities reinforce your teaching” was the highest, but the percentage of Korean academics who agreed with the survey item “teaching and research are hardly compatible with each other” was the lowest among other academics in Canada, Germany, and Japan.

The characteristics of a post-Humboldtian pattern can be shown in a differentiation of resources and roles for teaching and research. The university financial support projects in Korea are divided according to their purpose. The University Innovation Support project targets the improvement of teaching in universities, whereas the BK21 project drives the enhancement of research competitiveness in universities. There has also been an expansion of academic staff along with an increase in the number of research- and teaching-focused professors since 2003. In terms of differentiation of institutions, top-tier universities are being transformed into research universities with the help of the BK21 project, whereas most universities mainly focus on teaching but often have some interest in research.

In the changing environment surrounding universities, the pattern of linking teaching and research has changed. With massified higher education, various types of institutions such as junior colleges, polytechnic colleges, technical universities, and graduate school colleges have emerged. The types of academic staff have also diversified, including research-focused professors, teaching-focused professors, lecturers, and adjunct professors with specialized academic roles. With the research performance-based evaluation and university ranking system, universities and faculty members are more interested in research than in teaching to enhance their competitiveness and reputation. This study found that more than half of academics in Canada, Germany, Japan, and Korea prefer research to teaching. Especially in Korea, the proportion of professors who prefer research has increased significantly over the past three decades. Most Korean academics have the perception that research and education are compatible with each other, but junior academics’ positive view on the teaching and research nexus has decreased slightly over a decade.

Teaching and research are the main functions of universities in our society, and the unity of teaching and research is a core value that most professors still hold. However, universities are under pressure to cope with increased numbers of students and societal demands, and they have been reactive and competitive (Altbach, 2008). The changing environment and context affect the teaching and research nexus in universities and academic roles. We think that various types of institutions and academics coexist and that they link teaching and research in different ways. It remains to be seen how teaching and research are linked together or independently exist in an institution or among academic staff or between institutions and academic staff.