Keywords

These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

5.1 Conceptual Framework

A close link between teaching and research is widely viewed as desirable by academics throughout the world. Indeed, it is considered to be an essential feature of the modern university over the last about two centuries. However, we note differences across countries and institutions both in the relative emphasis placed on research and teaching as well as in the understanding of the relationship between teaching and research. In the Carnegie International Survey of the Academic Profession undertaken in the early 1990s, Arimoto and Ehara (1996) proposed a tripartite classification of research and teaching orientations: (a) a German type with a prevailing strong research orientation, (b) an Anglo-Saxon type with a more or less balanced emphasis on research and teaching and (c) a Latin American type with a strong teaching orientation.

In the recent public debates on the changing function of higher education, much emphasis has been placed on the research function as the principle characteristic of ‘world-class universities’, so much so that one might assume that academia in recent years has come to stress the research orientation over teaching. But in contrast is the continuing growth of enrolment rates in higher education which has led to enhanced attention being paid to the teaching function of higher education—in part, because the tertiary level sectors that have experienced the most rapid growth in many countries are those where teaching and learning are paramount—for example, in community colleges, technical institutes and distance educations providers. Particularly in these sectors much attention is being devoted to professionalising the teaching competencies of the professoriate.

As many of the questions posed in the comparative survey of the academic profession conducted in the early 1990s have been asked again in the 2007 ‘Changing Academic Profession’ (CAP) study, it is possible to examine how the roles of research and teaching have changed as well as what the members of the academic professions think about these changes. It is possible, for example, to explore whether the Humboldtian ideal emerging in the early nineteenth century, according to which research is the driving force in shaping the relationship between research and teaching, has spread over a larger number of countries and whether research also has become more important in countries which have remained basically within the tradition of the Anglo-Saxon and Latin American types. And it is possible as well to examine whether more elaborate concepts as regards the quality of teaching and learning have taken root recently in countries where teaching traditionally was viewed as subordinate to research (cf. the conceptual framework in Fig. 5.1).

Fig. 5.1
figure 1

Framework of research, knowledge, academic work and nexus between research, teaching and service. Source: Based on Arimoto 2010

Full size image

Therefore, the analysis in this chapter will not only address the views and activities as regards teaching and research. Rather, it also will examine how the links between teaching and research are viewed and shaped and what this means for the degree of compatibility between research and teaching in the various countries included in the CAP survey.

The interpretation of the survey findings is based on the conviction that a close link between research and teaching is essential for academic work, as expressed in Fig. 5.1. First, we follow Clark (1983) in assuming that knowledge is the basic component—the raw material for academic work. Knowledge has several dimensions: understanding, discovery, dissemination, application and control. These different dimensions of knowledge have to be translated into learning, research, teaching and service, and they affect management and administration as well. Second, ‘academic work’ is the most suitable term to translate this function into operation; this work is best described as the discovery of knowledge (‘research’) and its dissemination (‘teaching’). However, the history of the modern university has shown that a close link between research and teaching is not guaranteed. The issue of ‘balance’, ‘compatibility’ and ‘harmony’ between teaching and research is a continuing challenge. According to the Humboldtian ideal underlying the establishment of the University of Berlin at the beginning of the nineteenth century, the ‘unity of teaching and research’ was realised through the inclusion of students in the process of knowledge generation. The training process of scholars was understood to focus on research, and the seminars and laboratory work were viewed as integrated processes of research, teaching and study (see Von Humboldt 1970; Clark 1997, 2008). Students were an integral part of the research process (Ushiogi 2008, p. 24).

The notion of research being the most pervasive element of universities has spread internationally in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, but not to the same extent as the Humboldtian concept of the linkage between teaching and research. For example, Geiger (2000, p. 1) argues that the nineteenth century colleges in the USA were ‘institutions that conveyed only textbook knowledge to mostly adolescent boys’. Also, other countries adapting elements of the Humboldtian approach realised it to a varying extent (Rudolph 1962; Oleson and Voss 1979; Arimoto 1996). The English tradition of a strong educational approach during the first years of study did not vanish. And the Napoleonic division of labour between teaching and research is often viewed as a third model which spread across many countries. Finally, it is worth noting that many countries have opted for diversification within higher education where different notions of the link between teaching and research shape the most prestigious sectors on the one hand and other sectors of the higher education system on the other hand. For example, Japan successfully established several research universities (Nakayama 1978, pp. 42–43) and thus put research at the apex of the academic function, even though research plays a subordinate role in the majority of universities.

5.2 Preferences for Research and Teaching

It is widely assumed in research on the academic profession that the academics’ views as regards the desirable relationships between teaching and research play a powerful role in shaping the actual activities in those domains. Therefore, academics have been asked in the CAP study about their preference as regards teaching and research: whether their interests lie (a) ‘primarily in teaching’, (b) ‘in both, but leaning towards teaching’, (c) ‘in both, but leaning towards research’ and (d) ‘primarily in research’.

Actually, academics in all countries point out that they themselves are in favour of a nexus between teaching and research. As Table 5.1 shows, the two categories ‘in both …’ are named as prime interest by academics in all countries surveyed. On average across countries, three-quarters are interested in such a nexus. Thereby, we note that this nexus is most strongly emphasised (more than 80%) by academics in Korea, Italy and in the majority of majority of emerging countries: In contrast, the nexus is underscored by less than two-thirds of academics in Finland, Germany, the Netherlands, Norway, Australia, the UK and the USA. Actually, the nexus between both functions but leaning towards research is more widespread on average across countries (45%) than leaning towards teaching (30%). Leaning towards research prevails in the most advanced countries, while the leaning towards teaching is as frequent as leaning towards research in most emerging countries.

Table 5.1 Preference for teaching and research (per cent)
Full size table

A prime interest in teaching is stated by only 11% of academics on average across countries. This rate is exceptionally high in the United States (27%), the Netherlands (22%) and Mexico (20%)—that is, some of the countries where certain institutional types or certain institutions hardly have any research tasks. The pro­portion of those with a clear emphasis on research is 14% on average, that is, only moderately higher than that with a clear emphasis on teaching. The clear emphasis on research is most frequent in Australia and Norway (31% each), Finland (29%), the United Kingdom (27%) and Germany (26%)—not only in countries with a strong Humboldtian legacy but also among some Anglo-Saxon countries where rigorous incentive systems in recent years have underscored the research function of higher education.

By combining the responses (c) and (d), we can establish the frequency of a (dominant) research orientation and of a (dominant) teaching orientation. Actually, we note research orientation according to this measure among 58% of the respondents on average across the 19 countries. Focusing at the country level (see Fig. 5.2), it can be inferred that a research orientation is:

Fig. 5.2
figure 2

Preference for teaching and research—aggregated categories (per cent, categories 1 and 2 merged to a single category ‘teaching’, categories 3 and 4 to a single category ‘research’). Question B2: Regarding your own preferences, do your interests lie primarily in teaching or in research?

Full size image

  • Clearly dominating (more than 65%) among the academics surveyed by the CAP survey in Norway (83%), Italy (77%), Japan (71%), Australia (69%), Canada and Korea (68% each) and the United Kingdom (67%)

  • Somewhat dominating (51–65%) in Finland (65%), Germany and Hong Kong (63%), the Netherlands (56%), Portugal (53%) and Argentina (51%)

  • Only true for the minority of academics (less than 50% of the respondents) in Brazil (48%), Malaysia (47%), South Africa (46%), China and the USA (each 44%) and Mexico (43%)

Obviously, a research orientation is more widely emphasised by academics in advanced countries than in emerging countries. The USA is the clear exception with only a minority of respondents expressing a preference for research.

In the Carnegie International Survey on the Academic Profession, the same question was posed (see Altbach 1996, p. 20). In classifying the countries in the same way as above, we note that among the ten higher education systems participating in both the Carnegie and the CAP survey, a research orientation was clearly (65% and more) evident in 1992 in three countries (the Netherlands, Japan and Germany), and in the recent CAP survey in four countries (Japan, Australia, Korea and the United Kingdom), a research orientation is somewhat prominent (between half and 65%) in 1992 in three countries (Korea, the United Kingdom and Australia) and also in the recent survey in three countries (Germany, Hong Kong and the Netherlands), and research-oriented academics are a minority in the same three countries in both surveys (Mexico, the USA and Brazil).

Among the ten countries participating in both surveys, only Japan is classified at both points of time as strongly research oriented. Germany and the Netherlands have moved from a strong research orientation towards more of a balance between research and teaching, while, in reverse, Korea, Australia and the United Kingdom have moved from a balance towards a strong research orientation. Hong Kong has remained unchanged in the middle position, and Mexico, the USA and Brazil have remained unchanged as countries with a minority emphasis on research. On average of the ten countries, the proportion of research-oriented academics increased from 54% in the early 1990s to 58% in recent years.

In looking at the different types of higher education institutions and the status of the respondents, we note, as was pointed out by Jacob and Teichler (2011), first that professors at ‘universities’, understood as institutions emphasising both teaching and research, tend to have a strong interest in research. This holds true for more than two-thirds (68% on average across countries) of the respondents in the CAP study (see Table 5.2).

Table 5.2 Preference for teaching and research—aggregated categories—by type of higher education institution and status group (per centa)
Full size table

This has been true in the Carnegie Survey in all countries except for Mexico (47%) and Chile (38%) in 1992, and it is true for all of the countries in the CAP survey. Among academics at universities, the research orientation did not change from the early 1990s until recently (68% on average across all countries in both cases).

Table 5.2 shows as well that junior staff at universities tend to have similar preferences as university professors in their respective countries. There are striking exceptions, though. In Finland, junior staff are more interested in research than senior staff (81% vs. 69%); in contrast, a clearly stronger emphasis on research by senior academics at universities than by junior academics is reported for four countries: Australia (87% vs. 70%), Hong Kong (75% vs. 54%), the USA (55% vs. 45%) and Malaysia (55% vs. 41%).

As one might expect, scholars at other institutions of higher education, understood as institutions emphasising teaching predominantly, have a stronger interest in teaching than scholars at universities. However, we note a substantial change over time. While only the academics at teaching-oriented institutions in the single country of Japan differed from the rule in the survey of the early 1990s in being predominantly research oriented, a research orientation also is dominant at the other institutions of higher education in the CAP survey in five cases: Australia, Hong Kong, Japan, Korea and the Netherlands (see Table 5.2).

Thus, altogether, the move towards a slightly stronger research orientation among the academics surveyed is primarily a ‘research drift’ at teaching-oriented institutions. In contrast, the orientation of academics at universities both in charge of teaching and research hardly changed on average across countries.

5.3 Factors Underlying Research and Teaching Orientation

As the research orientation and the teaching orientation can be viewed as crucial for academic work, an overview will be provided here about the factors which might explain the academics’ options for a preference of research versus a preference for teaching. Thereby, differences by country will be taken into consideration. Differences according to the academics’ status and type of higher education were considered in the previous section.

First, the discipline is relevant for the orientation towards teaching and research. Actually, 62% of the academics in science and engineering—on average across countries—state a preference for research as compared to 56% of the academics in the humanities and social sciences:

  • In science and engineering, around 70% of academics in most advanced countries state a preference for research; this preference is only more pronounced in Norway (86%) and clearly less pronounced in the USA (50%). In emerging countries, the respective figure is more than 10% lower on average, whereby it ranges from 43% in South Africa to 61% in Argentina.

  • In the humanities and social sciences, preference for research is most widespread in Italy (76%), and it also dominates in most other advanced countries except for the USA (42%). In emerging countries, the preference for research in the humanities and social sciences dominates only in Argentina (52%), while the respective figure is about 40% in China, Malaysia and Mexico.

The distinction between the two disciplinary groups is more pronounced in emerging countries (10% difference on average across countries) than in advanced countries (4%). In Italy, hardly any distinction exists among the academics in this respect (77% vs. 76%), while research preference is substantially higher among respondents in science and engineering than those in the humanities and social sciences in the Netherlands (66% vs. 50%), China (53% vs. 40%), Malaysia (52% vs. 40%) and Germany (67% vs. 56%).

These findings are consistent with the argument that there are different cultures embedded in the various academic disciplines. Becher called these ‘academic tribes’ with their own cultures and territories (Becher 1989; Becher and Trowler 2001), and Clark (1987) referred to the ‘small world and different world’. Zuckerman and Merton (1971) pointed out that there is less of a consensus in the humanities and social sciences concerning what might be regarded as creativity and originality. And Arimoto (1981) underscores that values associated with ‘universalism’ and ‘achievement’ play a major role in the sciences, while the humanities and social sciences stress values reflecting ‘particularism’ and ‘ascription’. Yet, in comparison to these general assumptions, the preference for research differs only moderately by disciplinary group in the responses to the CAP questionnaire.

Second, the gender effect seems to be small. Sixty-three per cent of the men (68% in advanced countries and 52% in emerging countries) and 56% (63 and 41%) of the women surveyed indicate a research orientation. As women in many countries are underrepresented in science and engineering, this relatively small difference is primarily a compositional effect rather than a different gender-based orientation.

There are noteworthy differences, though, by country. On the one hand, slightly more women than men are research oriented in Germany (65% vs. 62%), Norway (84% vs. 82%) and Brazil (49% vs. 47%); on the other hand, women in China are by far less research oriented than men (31% vs. 56%).

Third, in order to examine the possible impact of age, the respondents have been subdivided into those being 45 years old or elder and those being younger than 45 years. Actually, older academics (62%) somewhat more frequently expressed a research orientation than younger academics (57%). This holds true both for advanced countries (70% vs. 62%) and for emerging countries (51% vs. 45%). Only in three countries is the reverse true: Germany (57% vs. 68%), Korea (66% vs. 71%) and Norway (81% vs. 86%). Altogether, we note that a research orientation prevails both among older and younger academics.

Fourth, the research orientation does not vary on average by the academics’ income. In splitting the academics surveyed into a high income and a low income group, we find that those with low income are more strongly research oriented in some countries, while in other countries those with a high income are more strongly research oriented. But on average across countries, income does not help in explaining differences in the strength of the research orientation.

Fifth, having an advanced academic degree plays a key role in influencing the research orientation versus the teaching orientation of academics. Seventy-two per cent of the doctoral degree holders (73% on average across advanced countries and 70% in emerging countries) countries express a preference for research in contrast to 43% of those not holding a doctoral degree (46% in advanced countries and 35% in emerging countries).

Such a difference is most pronounced in Mexico (80% vs. 28%), the Netherlands (80% vs. 30%) and Hong Kong (72% vs. 29%). Also in the UK and China, more than twice as many doctoral degree holders than those without a doctoral degree are research oriented. In contrast, this difference hardly exists in Germany (63% vs. 62%), where most academics at higher education institutions without a degree are young scholars working on their dissertation, and it is relatively small in Norway (87% vs. 75%) and Italy (84% vs. 70%)

Sixth, part-time employed academics (47% on average, 51% in advanced countries and 37% in emerging countries) show less frequently a preference for research than full-time employed academics (61% on average, thereby 67% in advanced countries and 48% in emerging countries). This holds true for the majority of countries and is very pronounced in Latin American countries where part-timers are often employed for teaching purposes only. Moreover, part-timers are more frequent among persons without a doctoral degree. However, there are four countries where a preference for research is more pronounced by part-timers: in China, Japan, Malaysia and Portugal.

Seventh, professional mobility seems to be associated with having a research orientation. Sixty-four per cent (70% in advanced countries and 50% in emerging countries) of those having been active at more than two institutions underscore their preference for research as compared to 58% (64 and 45%, respectively) of the academics who have never moved or moved only once. Research orientation differs most strikingly with the extent of mobility in China (68% of the more mobile vs. 44% of the less mobile or nonmobile respondents), the UK (77% vs. 62%), Hong Kong (71% vs. 58%), Australia (76% vs. 66%) and South Africa (53% vs. 43%). In contrast, those who have been mobile only once or not at all are slightly more research oriented than their mobile peers in Argentina (58% vs. 57%), Brazil (48% vs. 47%) and Norway (84% vs. 83%). The link between professional mobility and the research orientation might be due to the practice among universities to prefer recruiting academics externally who are prominent with respect to their research calibre (see Shinbori 1965; Arimoto 2008).

5.4 Allocation of Working Time to Research and Teaching

Actually, the stronger leaning towards research than towards teaching among academics active at universities both in charge of research and teaching is also reflected in the actual allocation of working time. Both in the Carnegie Survey and in the CAP survey, academics have been asked to estimate the number of weekly hours spent on teaching (and teaching-related activities) and research (and research-­related activities) as well as other activities. They have been asked to estimate this both for the period of the year when classes are in session and for the period when classes are not in session. On that basis, the time allocation over the whole year could be calculated.

As shown in detail in Chap. 4, university professors surveyed in the CAP study report on average across countries that they spend 38% of their working time on research and 32% on teaching. There are striking differences by country, though: While university professors in Korea and Australia spend more than one and half times as much of their working hours on research than on teaching, more time is spent on teaching than on research by university professors in South Africa, Brazil and Malaysia.

Junior academics at universities spend a higher proportion of their working time on research and a lower proportion on teaching than university professors on average across countries. A closer look reveals, however, that the time allocation of junior academics and senior academics is similar in various countries. In some countries, though, research activities are clearly more pronounced among junior academic staff than among senior staff at universities: in Norway (65% vs. 39%), Finland (58% vs. 37%) and Germany (53% vs. 38%). Actually, in the countries most clearly shaped by the Humboldtian concept, junior academics are expected to spend substantial time on research in order to qualify for a professoriate.

Senior academics, as one might expect, spend a clearly lower proportion of their work time on research than senior academics at universities on average across countries. The extent to which the time allocation is similar or different, however, varies substantially by country. The most striking differences can be found in Finland, Germany and the Netherlands where senior academics at other institutions of higher education spend only about two-thirds as much of their overall time budget on research as their colleagues at universities do on average. Again, we note that the functional distinction between universities in charge of research and teaching and other institutions of higher education is most pronounced in countries with a strong emphasis on the Humboldtian understanding of universities.

5.5 Perceived Links Between Research and Teaching Orientation

The actual relationships between research and teaching were addressed in the CAP study by asking the academics to state the extent to which they agreed to two statements:

  • ‘Your research activities reinforce your teaching’.

  • ‘Teaching and research are hardly compatible with each other’.

About three quarters of the academics surveyed share the view that their research activities reinforce their teaching. As Fig. 5.3 shows, this is stated by more than four-fifth of the academics in seven countries: Korea (85%), Argentina (84%), Canada, Italy, Norway, Mexico (83% each) and Brazil (81%). In contrast, academics in South Africa least often agree to this statement (65%).

Fig. 5.3
figure 3

Perceived reinforcement of teaching and research activities (per cent, responses 1 and 2 on a scale from 1 = strongly agree to 5 = strongly disagree). Question C4: Please indicate your views on the following: … Your research activities reinforce your teaching

Full size image

University professors are the ones who convinced that their research activities reinforce their teaching, as Table 5.3 shows. Eight-four per cent state this on average across countries; the differences by country are relatively small: They range from 91 to 80% with the exception of South Africa, where such a reinforcement is observed less frequently (68%). Among junior staff at universities, the proportion of those believing in such a reinforcement is clearly lower (73% on average across countries), and the responses vary more substantially between countries (ranging from 60 to 82%). Also at other institutions of higher education, the conviction is widespread that research is reinforcing teaching: It is stated by 76% of the senior academics at these institutions on average, whereby the responses by country range from 65 to 87%. The responses of junior academic staff at these institutions are somewhat similar as those senior academics with exceptions. In Finland, Germany and the Netherlands, only a minority states such a reinforcing value. One has to bear in mind that the number of junior academics at other institutions of higher education is relatively low, whereby a substantial proportion of them are not employed for regular teaching and research purposes, but rather for various service functions.

Table 5.3 Perception of teaching and research as hardly being compatible with each other by institutional type and status group (per centa)
Full size table

On average across countries, 23% of the academics surveyed have come to the conclusion that teaching and research are hardly compatible. There are striking differences by county. The notion that teaching and research are hardly compatible is least frequent, as Fig. 5.4 shows, in Argentina (6%), Brazil (7%), Korea, Mexico (each 11%) and the USA (12%). In contrast, the problem of the incompatibility between teaching and research is somewhat more frequently noted by academics in Japan (51%), China (42%), Finland (38%), Germany (33%) and Malaysia (30%).

Fig. 5.4
figure 4

Perception of teaching and research as hardly being compatible with each other (per cent, responses 1 and 2 on a scale from 1 = strongly agree to 5 = strongly disagree). Question B5: Please indicate your views on the following: … Teaching and research are hardly compatible with each other

Full size image

Actually, problems of compatibility between teaching and research are named most often in countries characterised by a strong research orientation. In contrast, problems of compatibility are seldom named in countries characterised by a strong teaching orientation of the academics. This pattern, however, does not hold true for all countries. For example, academics in Italy and Korea are strongly research oriented but seldom name problems of compatibility between teaching and research.

Taking into account the institutional type and status of the respondent, we note that only one-fifth of university professors note problems of compatibility between teaching and research as compared to one-fourth of junior staff at universities and as compared to one-fourth of academics at other institutions (see Table 5.3). The finding certainly is due to the fact that senior academics in charge of both research and teaching have more flexibility in shaping the teaching-research nexus according to their intentions than other academics. Among the countries where such problems of compatibility are named frequently, we note that junior academics at universities state these clearly more often than university professors (61% as compared to 41%). In Malaysia, such a difference between junior and seniors holds true for both institutional types. Finally, senior academics at other institutions of higher education in Germany note more often problems of compatibility between teaching and research than senior academics at universities (43% vs. 33%).

These responses to the themes addressed in this section suggest that the relationship between research and teaching is not without tensions, but that the majority of academics note a productive relationship. However, we have to take into consideration that academics have been asked whether research reinforces teaching, but not whether teaching reinforces research.

5.6 Factors Affecting Compatibility Between Research and Teaching

Building on the above review of the factors associated with the academics’ preference for research or teaching, a similar review has been undertaken of several factors that were thought to be associated with the academics’ belief in the compatibility of research and teaching.

First, the proportion of respondents considering research and teaching as hardly compatible does not differ by disciplinary group. Slightly less than a quarter of academics in the humanities and social sciences as well as in science and engineering note a compatibility problem. In Japan—the country where academics most frequently raise doubts about the compatibility of teaching a research—this notion is almost equally spread across all disciplines (52% in the humanities and social sciences as compared to 50% in science and engineering).

Second, gender as well does not seem to be associated with the belief in the compatibility of teaching and research. Overall, only 2% of women question such compatibility more often than men.

Third, the influence of age seems to be small as well. The proportion of those noting problems of compatibility between research and teaching is only 4% higher among young academics (up to age 45) than among older respondents (45 years and older). The younger ones notably in Malaysia (34% vs. 17%), Australia (31% vs. 18%) and Hong Kong (31% vs. 20%) see more problems of compatibility.

Fourth, those not holding a doctoral degree are only slightly more likely to mention a compatibility problem between teaching and research (3% difference, i.e. 25% vs. 22%) than those holding a doctoral degree. Those not holding a doctoral degree mention most often such a problem as compared to doctoral degree holders in Korea (26% vs. 11%), Malaysia (33% vs. 24%), Australia (35% vs. 26%) and Portugal (33% vs. 25%). The reverse is true in Italy: Doctoral degree holders perceive more often a compatibility problem with research and teaching than those not holding a doctoral degree (16% vs. 12%).

Fifth, employment conditions also do not matter much as regards the notion of compatibility of research and teaching. South Africa is a notable exception: Full-­time employed academics are clearly more sceptical as regards the compatibility of research and teaching than part-timers (22% vs. 11%).

Sixth, academics’ income is somewhat more linked to compatibility between research and teaching than the previously discussed factors. Those with relatively low income raise doubts as regards compatibility more often (6%) than those with a relatively high income. This is most pronounced in Hong Kong (30% vs. 20%) and China (46% vs. 38%).

Seventh, those persons who have been professionally mobile several times view research and teaching as slightly more compatible than those who have little or no mobility. There is not a striking difference in any of the countries surveyed.

Thus, altogether the factors that have been taken into account above fail to adequately account for the likelihood that an academic will express the belief that research and teaching are compatible. One might assume that the perception of compatibility problems depends on specific conditions that cannot be generalised.

5.7 Teaching Approaches

In the CAP survey, the academics have been asked to characterise their teaching approaches with respect to five dimensions:

  • Practice-oriented approach (‘Practically oriented knowledge and skills are emphasised in your teaching’)

  • International approach (‘In your courses you emphasise international perspectives or content’)

  • Value-oriented approach (‘You incorporate discussions of values and ethics into your course content’)

  • Honesty approach (‘You inform students of the implications of cheating and plagiarism in your courses’)

  • Meritocratic approach (‘Grades in your courses strictly reflect levels of student achievement’)

Slightly more than two-thirds of all the academics surveyed—on average across countries—consider their teaching as practice oriented. As Table 5.4 shows, this is more typically the case for academics from emerging countries (more than three-­quarters) than from advanced countries. Rates of four-fifths or even more are stated by academics in Mexico (88%), Brazil (81%), Argentina (80%) as well as Germany (80%), that is, the highest ratio among advanced countries. While, in contrast, only about half of the respondents in Finland, Italy, Norway and Japan describe their teaching as practice oriented.

Table 5.4 Teaching approaches by type of higher education institution and status group (per centa)
Full size table

In some countries, a practice orientation is considered typical for other institutions of higher education, while the academics at universities place their emphasis on theories as contrasted to practice. This is most pronounced in Finland, where only 31% of the university professors describe themselves as practice oriented as compared to 79% of the senior staff at other institutions of higher education, and the Netherlands, where the respective figures are 40 and 84%. A clearly more moderate difference in the same direction can be observed in Germany (75% vs. 93%), Australia (65% vs. 81%) and Japan (38% vs. 55%), while such a distinction between a more theoretically and practically oriented institutional type does not seem to hold true at all for the majority of countries.

Sixty-two per cent of the academics on average across countries view their teaching as internationally oriented. There are no substantial differences between advanced and emerging countries in this respect, but international dimensions are very strongly emphasised in selected countries: Portugal (81%), Mexico (77%), Korea (74%) and Hong Kong (72%). In contrast, only slightly more than half of the respondents in Japan, Finland, the USA, Brazil and the Netherlands report that they place an emphasis on this dimension.

In Portugal (90% vs. 68%) and Germany (79% vs. 60%), senior academics at universities are clearly more strongly internationally oriented than are senior academics at other institutions of higher education. This holds true to a moderate extent as well for Finland and Korea, while we note the reverse in Malaysia.

A strong value orientation in teaching—reported by slightly less than two-thirds of all respondents—varies more substantially by country than the practice and international orientations. On average across countries, academics in emerging countries (73%) appreciate values and ethics in teaching more often than do academics in advanced countries (58%). This is most pronounced in Brazil (81%) and Mexico (77%) among the former countries, while among the latter this is emphasised by over half of the academics in Anglo-Saxon countries and Portugal and by less than half of the academics in Italy, Norway, the Netherlands and Japan.

In only a single country, the Netherlands, do we note a striking gap between senior academics at universities and at other institutions of higher education. Seventy-one per cent of the Dutch professors at other institutions consider the teaching of values to be important compared to 48% of the professors at universities.

The strength of the anti-plagiarism approach varies even more by country. Almost all academics in the United Kingdom (94%) underscore that they inform students about the consequences of cheating and plagiarism. This rate is also high among academics in advanced countries with an Anglo-Saxon tradition of teaching—Hong Kong (86%), Australia (82%) and the United States (81%)—and in South Africa (88%), Brazil, Malaysia (each 81%) and Mexico (80%) as well. In contrast, we note quite a low rate in Italy (32%), Norway (36%), Finland (41%) and Japan (42%).

In many countries, senior academics at other higher education institutions are slightly more likely to address cheating and plagiarism than senior academics at universities. This is quite pronounced in Germany (60% vs. 41%), the Netherlands (67% vs. 53%) and Japan (53% vs. 42%).

Finally, about 70% of the respondents underscore that their grading is meritocratically based. Affirmative responses are rare in China (31%) and only slightly above half in the Netherlands (51%), Portugal (55%) and Brazil (56%). In only two of the latter countries is such a meritocratic approach somewhat less frequent among senior academics at other institutions of higher education than among senior academics at universities: in China (25% vs. 35%) and in the Netherlands (42% vs. 54%).

By and large, junior academics hold similar views as senior academics as regards the desirable approaches for teaching and learning. There is no gap between generations in this respect.

5.8 Teaching Modes

Lecturing in classes is a common mode of teaching all over the world. Many experts argue, though, that more diverse modes of teaching and learning are needed. Among others, more complex modes of teaching are advocated to mobilise and motivate the rising number of students and notably the ‘nontraditional students’. New activities are seen as critical for increasing the societal relevance of higher education. Last but not least, new technologies provide new options for communication between the teachers and their students.

In the CAP survey, academics were asked to state whether they have been involved in the current year in several modes of teaching and communication with students—other than merely lecturing in classes. As Table 5.5 shows, the academics surveyed report on average that had been involved in 3.8 of these seven modes. On average the same frequency of varied teaching modes is reported for advanced and emerging countries. The country averages range from 4.5 in Mexico, 4.4 in Malaysia as well as 4.4 in Australia and the United Kingdom at the top to 2.8 in Germany at the bottom end. On average, academics at other institutions of higher education report a somewhat greater variety of teaching modes than academics at universities. We also note that junior academics—irrespective of type or higher education—are involved on average in a somewhat smaller range of teaching modes than senior academics.

Table 5.5 Variety of teaching modes (meana) by type of higher education institution and status group
Full size table

As Table 5.5 indicates, the variety of teaching modes hardly differs by institutional type. However, junior academics at both types of institutions are involved in a slightly smaller variety of teaching modes than senior academics. This is not surprising because junior academics in various countries are to a lesser extent involved in teaching than senior academics.

Three of the modes of teaching and communication are reported by more than 70% of the respondents: face-to face interaction with students outside class, electronic communication (e-mail) with students and individualised instruction. As one might expect, these figures are high across all countries. The few exceptions visible in the Appendix Table 5.11 might be named here: Individual instruction is not common in Portugal (20%) and Argentina (42%), and only about half of the German academics report frequent face-to-face international with students outside class (50%) or the use of electronic communication with students (52%).

About half of the respondents are involved in practice instruction/laboratory work (49%) and in learning in projects/project groups (47%). The former is named least by academics in the Netherlands (29%) and the latter by respondents in China (26%).

ICP-based learning/computer-assisted learning is only named as a current practice by about one-third and ‘distance education’ by one-sixth of the respondents. The former is only affirmed by 11% in Korea. Distance education is a rare responsibility for academics in many countries, while South Africa is the exception with almost one-half of the respondents involved.

In addition, almost 70% of the academics surveyed report that they have been involved in the development of course material, and almost 60% have been involved in curriculum/programme development. Japanese academics are the least likely to engage in these latter practices—only about one-quarter each.

5.9 Notions and Approaches to Research and Scholarship

The academics’ views of the character of their research were addressed in the CAP questionnaire by two questions. First, they have been asked to state whether research and scholarship is to be understood (‘is best defined’) as original research, the synthesis of academic knowledge, and/or as the application of knowledge in real-life settings. Second, they have been asked more directly linked to their own activities whether the research they undertake is basic/theoretical, practically oriented, international in scope and as mono-disciplinary or multidisciplinary. These questions are posed because academics have a choice between different approaches, but expectations have grown in recent years for more attention to the societal relevance of research. In other words, some observers argue for an increased emphasis to be placed on the dissemination of knowledge, the ‘transfer’ of knowledge, to move from ‘mode 1’ to ‘mode 2’ research (Gibbons et al. 1994) or to engage in more ‘applied’ and ‘commercial’ research.

Figure 5.5 suggests that many academics do not see research to be geared in a single major direction. Rather, while three quarters of the respondents support the applied nature of academic research, two-thirds support the ‘basic’ and ‘theoretical’ character of research, and two-thirds also support the need for the synthesis of major findings.

Fig. 5.5
figure 5

Prime character of research (per cent, responses 1 and 2 on a scale of answer from 1 = very much to 5 = not at all). Question D2: How would you characterise the emphasis of your primary research this (or the previous) academic year?

Full size image

It is surprising to note that the function of basic research is about as often stressed by academics from emerging countries as by academics from advanced countries. One could have expected that academics from advanced countries would emphasise this more strongly, because they certainly have better means as a rule to be active in basic research as well as in any kind of research with a theoretical emphasis. In contrast, the application of knowledge as well as commercially and transfer-­oriented research are somewhat more frequently named as customary by academics from emerging countries, and this is even more pronounced as far as socially relevant research is concerned.

There are, however, noteworthy differences between individual countries. For example, as Appendix Table 5.12 shows, among the advanced countries basic research is least supported by academics from Finland (57% as compared to 69–90% in other advanced countries); in contrast, more of Malaysia’s academics put a strong emphasis on the importance of basic research than their colleagues in the other emerging countries (78% as compared to 37–64%). The theoretical and basic nature of research is in some countries more often stressed by academics at universities than by those at other institutions of higher education. This difference is most pronounced among senior academics in Germany (83% vs. 56%), followed by the USA (74% vs. 57%), Finland (68% vs. 54%), the Netherlands (80% vs. 67%) and Norway (92% vs. 80%).

Application of knowledge is viewed as typical for scholarship by the majority of academics in all countries except for the Netherlands (46%). Otherwise, the rates range from 60% in Italy to over 80% in the three advanced and four emerging countries (with the highest rate of 86% in Mexico). A stronger emphasis on the application of knowledge can be observed among academics at other institutions of higher education compared to those at universities. Among senior academics, this difference is most pronounced in Norway (88% vs. 59%), the Netherlands (87% vs. 62%) and Germany (87% vs. 62%).

Synthesis of research findings is considered to be an important task of scholarship, as already pointed out, by about two-thirds of the academics surveyed. This mode is most frequently highlighted by the academics from Korea (91%), while it is exceptionally low in the Netherlands (45%) and Italy (46%). In this case, the responses differ by type of higher education institution to a lesser extent than the responses to the two research emphases already discussed.

In examining the responses by type of higher education institution and by status groups we note that the responses hardly differ on average between senior and junior academics at universities; the same holds true for senior and junior academics at other institutions. Therefore, we concentrate on responses of senior academics of the two institutional types. On average across countries the differences are smaller than one might have expected. University professors put somewhat more emphasis on basic research (61% vs. 47%) and somewhat less on applied research (69% vs. 78%), commercial and transfer-oriented research (20% vs. 24%) and socially relevant research (46% vs. 49%). As already shown above, there is only a small number of the countries addressed in the CAP survey where the functional profile between universities and other institutions of higher education is clearly polarised; this holds true notably for Finland, Germany and the Netherlands:

  • Sixty-one per cent of the university professors as compared to 24% of the professors at other institutions of higher education in Finland underscore basic and theoretical research. The respective figures for Germany are 64 and 27% and for the Netherlands 62 and 34%.

  • In contrast, an applied research emphasis is clearly more widespread at other institutions of higher education than at universities in these three countries, even though the affirmative responses by university professors are remarkably high: 89% versus 66% in Finland, 94% versus 67% in Germany and 93% versus 62% in the Netherlands.

  • The same holds true for commercially oriented and transfer-oriented research in the former two countries: 32% versus 16% in Finland and 43% versus 15% in Germany. In the Netherlands, the respective figure is 15% each for both senior academics at universities and other institutions of higher education.

  • The emphasis on socially relevant research is not clearly divided by institutional type. In the case of these three countries, socially relevant research is more often emphasised by professors at universities as by those at other institutions of higher education in Germany (48% vs. 37%), about as often in Finland (33% vs. 32%) and less frequently in the Netherlands (39% vs. 69%).

Academics were asked in the CAP questionnaire as well to indicate their general views on scholarship. In contrast to the previous question, this question does not address the character of their current activities, but rather their view on research and scholarship. The responses to four categories posed in the questionnaire are shown in Fig. 5.6:

Fig. 5.6
figure 6

Academics’ notion of scholarship as generation, synthesis and application of knowledge (per cent, responses 1 and 2 on a scale of answer 1 = strongly agree to 5 = strongly disagree). Question B5: Please indicate your views on the following. Items: Scholarship is best defined as the preparation and presentation of findings on original research; Scholarship includes the application of academic knowledge in real-life settings; Scholarship includes the preparation of reports that synthesise the major trends and findings of my field; Faculty in my discipline have a professional obligation to apply their knowledge to problems in society

Full size image

  • ‘Scholarship is best defined as the preparation and presentation of original research’.

  • ‘Scholarship includes the application of academic knowledge in real-life settings’.

  • ‘Scholarship includes the preparation of reports and synthesis of the trends and findings of my field’.

  • ‘Faculty in my discipline have a professional obligation to apply their knowledge to problems in society’.

The function of original research is emphasised by 68% of the academics on average across countries. As one might expect, this is more often the case in economically advanced countries (73% on average across countries) than in emerging countries (58%). By far the highest rate is stated, as Fig. 5.6 shows, by academics from Norway (90%) and by far the lowest by their colleagues from Brazil (37%).

The applied research function is highlighted by three quarters of all academics. As one might expect from the previous responses, applied research is named more often by academics from emerging countries (81% on average across countries) than from advanced countries (71%). It is most often selected by Chinese academics (86%) but also is selected by more than 70% of the academics in four advanced countries and four additional emerging countries. Altogether, the responses vary to a lesser extent by country than those regarding original research. The lowest rate as regards applied research is almost 60% (59% in Norway).

The synthesising research function finally is selected on average across countries by 65% of the academics, and the differences between advanced countries and emerging countries are small (64% vs. 67%). Differences by country range from 91% in Korea and 81% in Japan on the one hand to less than half in Italy and the Netherlands on the other hand.

In response to the query on multidisciplinary scholarship, 65% on average across countries describe their current primary research activities as multi-/interdisciplinary and 39% as based on a single discipline. Thus, only about 5% select both descriptors. In most of the countries, a majority describes the research as multidisciplinary. But in Norway (68%) and Japan (60%), the reverse is true, and also in the Netherlands (51%) and Mexico (55%), slightly more than half of the respondents characterise their research as mono-disciplinary.

In examining the differences by type of higher education institution and status group (see Appendix Table 5.13), we note a similar pattern as in the responses to the previous question. The responses between junior academics and senior academics are similar at universities as at other institutions of higher education. The differences according to type of higher education institution, therefore, will be illustrated only with respect to senior academics. As one might expect, university professors define scholarship more often as linked to original research than do professors at other institutions (72% vs. 65%) and less often to application (72 and 80%) and to the synthesis of findings (66% vs. 69%). But these differences with regard to their general views are even smaller than those in response to the previous question addressing their activities.

In this case, we note the most striking differences as regards original research and application again occur in Germany and the Netherlands. Clearly, more university professors than senior academics at other institutions consider scholarship is linked to original research in Germany (83% vs. 56%), whereas the respective difference is smaller in the Netherlands (80% vs. 67%). In contrast, more senior academics at other institutions of higher education than at universities underscore the importance of application in Germany (87% vs. 62%) and in the Netherlands (63% vs. 41%). In other countries, differences tend to be smaller.

5.10 Research Activities

Reports about the research function of higher education mostly address the output of research, notably publications, while the research activities as such often remain a ‘black box’. In the CAP survey, the process of research is probed with the help of several questions. While these do not cover all aspects of the research activities, they do touch on several interesting aspects.

Table 5.6 shows that about half of the respondents have been involved recently in preparing proposals for research projects. One-third say they have been involved in various aspects of starting and carrying out research: preparing experiments and inquiries, purchasing relevant materials, managing projects, supervising other researchers and actually conducting inquiries. Finally, about two-thirds are involved in writing up the results of research. As one might expect, the responses to these three questions are intertwined. We note that academics active in preparing research proposals are also more likely to indicate that they are involved in the research process and in reporting results.

Table 5.6 Research activities by type of higher education institution and status group (per centa)
Full size table

Turning to differences across countries, on the one hand, there is a group of research active countries (Korea, Norway, Italy, Japan and Canada) where research proposals are written by more than two-thirds of the academics and on the other hand are a group of countries (Portugal, Mexico, the Netherlands and South Africa) where relatively few academics spend time preparing proposals. Activities of preparing and conducting research are distributed similarly. The differences by country in writing up research results are smaller, because many scholars publish books and articles that do not depend on the acquisition of research grants and the availability of substantial resources for research.

We might also expect substantial differences in the research activities between senior and junior academics at universities, that is, institutions both more or less equally in charge of teaching and research:

  • Actually, 54% of junior academics at universities are involved in the writing of research proposals in comparison to 66% of the professors. In 11 countries, a smaller proportion of junior staff than of senior academics are involved in these activities, with the most pronounced differences in Portugal (18% vs. 38%) and China (43% vs. 73%). In the eight other countries, there were no substantial differences.

  • As one might expect, senior academics at universities are more likely than their junior colleagues to have a supervisory role in research activities. In fact, there is on average across all countries a gap of 58–38%.

  • Overall, half of the senior academics and junior academics report that they are actually involved in the process of inquiry. There are only two countries where a clearly lower proportion of senior academics at universities are involved in the research process itself than of junior academics: in Germany (48% vs. 64%) and Korea (74% vs. 84%).

  • Finally, across countries 79% of the senior academics and 71% of the junior academics report that they have recently been involved in writing the research results for publications.

In many countries, academics at other institutions of higher education are involved in research to a lesser extent than are the academics at universities. Among those countries for which information is available on the two types of higher education institutions, 48% of professors at other institutions of higher education are involved in writing research proposals as compared to 69% of the university professors; the respective rates for research supervision are 38% versus 59%, for actual research activities 40% versus 48%, and for writing the research results for publication 66% versus 81%.

Three quarters of the academics report that they collaborate with other persons in their research activities. This is not confined to their own institution of higher education, as Table 5.7 shows: six out of ten of those collaborating have research partners abroad, and eight out of ten who are collaborating have research partners in their country but outside their own institution. Half of the respondents state that they undertake research work individually; this suggests that many scholars are concurrently involved in collaborative research and in undertaking research on their own.

Table 5.7 Collaboration in research by type of higher education institution and status group (per cent of all undertaking research)
Full size table

5.11 Research Output

In the CAP questionnaire, the academics are asked to state the numbers of publications, papers and other research output they have produced during the last 3 years. The question addresses simply the quantity of the various products without any effort to elicit information that might be used for an in-depth assessment of academic productivity, for example, co-authorship and publication in select journals, because it seemed impossible to acquire additional information which could be used to weigh the research productivity according to criteria valid across all countries, disciplines and types of institutions.

Altogether, the responses of all academics—average across countries—show (see Tables 5.8 and 5.9) that:

Table 5.8 Research activities (means of all respondents)
Full size table
Table 5.9 Number of research output (means for respondents with any respective research output)
Full size table

  • Sixty-five per cent have published articles in academic books and journals—on average 5.1 articles over the past 3 years.

  • Sixty-three per cent have presented papers at scholarly conferences—on average 4.6.

  • Thirty-five per cent have written research reports/monographs—on average 1.1 reports.

  • Twenty-five per cent have authored or co-authored a scholarly books—on average 0.5 books.

  • Sixteen per cent have edited or coedited scholarly books—on average 0.3 books.

  • Twenty-five per cent have written professional articles for newspapers and magazines—on average 1.1 articles.

  • Five per cent or less each have produced other research results, such as patents (4%—on average 0.1), computer programmes for public use (4%—on average 0.1), artistic work (5%—on average 0.3), films (4%—on average 0.1) and others (5%—on average 0.3).

  • Twenty per cent have not produced any visible research results within the recent 3 years.

An aggregate publication index was created by counting the authorship and editorship of books as 3, the authorship of articles in scholarly books and journals as well as research reports as 2, and finally conference papers and articles for newspapers and magazines as 1. According to this index, the average score for all academics—21—does not explain very much, because it varies substantially not only by country but also by the academics’ status and type of higher education institution. Actually, the average score is:

  • 37 for university professors

  • 21 for junior staff at universities

  • 19 for senior academics at other institutions of higher education

  • 11 for junior academics at other institutions of higher education

According to this index, university professors publish almost twice as much as junior staff at universities and as senior academics at other institutions of higher education. Junior academics at other institutions publish substantially less.

Among university professors, as Table 5.13 shows, academic productivity, according to the index chosen, is:

  • Very high in Korea (61), Germany (56) and Japan (50)

  • High in Australia (49), Portugal (47), Hong Kong (46) and the Netherlands (41)

  • Close to the average in Italy (39), Finland (38), Malaysia (36), China (34) and Canada (31)

  • Low in the Argentina, Brazil and the UK (29), Norway (28), the USA (27) and Mexico (22)

  • Very low in South Africa (14)

On average, the score is one and a half times as high in advanced countries as in emerging countries. The score is higher in 8 of the 13 advanced countries than in the emerging country with the highest score (Table 5.10).

Table 5.10 Indexa of academic productivity by type of higher education institution and status group (arithmetic mean)
Full size table

Among junior staff at universities, who publish slightly more than half as much as senior academics, the score is exceptionally high in Japan (45) and Korea (37); both of these countries have an exceptionally small proportion of academics with junior level appointments. The score is high as well in Italy (29) and in the Netherlands (27), while it is very low in South Africa (12) and Norway (11). In half of the countries, the academic productivity of junior staff at universities is less than half of that of university professors.

Among senior academics at other institutions of higher education, the scores vary even more widely by country. The highest scores are reported for Malaysia (59), Portugal (42) and Korea (40). In contrast, the scores are exceptionally low in the Netherlands (7), the USA (9) and Finland (10).

Among junior academics at other institutions of higher education, who publish clearly least, the highest scores are reported in Korea (36) and Japan (20), where again the exceptionally small number of these junior staff positions in the two countries comes into play. In contrast, the score is exceptionally low in the Netherland (5) and Finland (7)—that is, countries with a strong polarisation of the research function between universities that are expected to stress research in contrast to a more limited role for academics at other institutions of higher education.

The academics included in the CAP survey have been asked to provide some additional information about the modes of publications. Four issues are worth reporting.

About three quarters of the respondents report that their publications have been peer reviewed. This holds true—according to the academics’ responses—on average across countries for 82% of the publications published by authors in advanced countries and 65% in emerging countries. ‘Peer reviewed’ is high in Canada (95%), the UK, Australia (94%) and Argentina (91%), while it is low in China (35%), Brazil and Malaysia (54% each).

About three quarters of the publications are reported to be co-authored by colleagues of the country of employment, while about one-third are co-authored by colleagues of other countries. The latter is most often stated by academics in the Netherlands (57%), Norway (50%) and Hong Kong (49%), and least often in China (3%), Brazil (19%) and South Africa (21%).

Slightly more than half of the publications are ‘published in a language different from the language of instruction at your current institution’. This is most often the case among academics in Norway (94%), the Netherlands (90%) and Italy (86%), while it is seldom the case in Australia (6%), the USA (10%) and the UK (12%).

5.12 Concluding Observations

The framework of the study, which underlined the relationship between knowledge and academic work, first, pointed out that academic work was located at the core of discovery and dissemination. Accordingly, in the processes of academic work, research and teaching are the most important vehicles. In fact, in modern universities, where a research orientation was institutionalised together with the teaching orientation that had existed since the medieval universities, these two functions had the potential for generating conflicts so the search for their intentional and ­systematic nexus became inevitable. The Humboldtian ideal, attempting to clarify their integration, is an aim to be realised in modern universities.

Second, fostering harmony between the research and teaching functions is often a challenge, as both are established activities of the contemporary university and as in most major universities both have their distinctive administrative settings. The former has been the role of higher education institutions since the middle ages; the latter has entered the university in conjunction with the institutionalisation of modern sciences and the scientific community. Integration of the values of both research and teaching has presented a great deal of difficulty as shown by the fact that cross-­nationally there are several types in terms of academics’ consciousness. In the 1992 Carnegie survey, three types were identified, with the German type stressing research. By the time of the 2007 survey, arguably most systems had converged into one type, the research orientation type, or the German type. Arguably because, just at the same time that systems such as the UK system were heightening their stress on research, others such as the US and Japanese systems were striving to fortify their teaching orientation.

Third, recognising these ambiguities, still it is useful to ask why national systems and their academics might strengthen the research orientation at the expense of the teaching orientation. Modern universities are intrinsically committed to a research orientation. Moreover, the results of the emerging university rankings since the early twenty-first century have affected every system, bringing about a trend of identifying world-class universities, COEs and global universities. Finally, the market mechanism of university ranking, which was started originally in the USA, has emerged internationally in connection with the globalisation and marketisation of the knowledge society and has extended to almost all of the countries in the world.

At a time when the research orientation is itself becoming more pronounced, one has to ask, fourth, whether the integration between research and teaching has been adequately fostered. The Humboldtian ideal is, as it were, an abstract theory so there is no guarantee of its actual implementation. In reality, Germany, where this ideal was initially introduced, has been and is still going further towards a research orientation without realising the ideal. Despite the US system’s recent efforts to favour quality teaching, the compatibility of teaching and research has a shaky foundation there. This is perhaps because the USA initially constructed a system realising both differentiation and integration simultaneously. However, even in the USA, the integration between teaching and research is continually confronted with constraints in which the deliberate pursuit of a teaching orientation is not attainable.

In this regard, Japan’s trend is noteworthy because it is the country with the lowest compatibility of research and teaching. Recent higher education policies, especially the Faculty Development (FD) policy, seek to transform higher education in Japan from a research orientation to a teaching orientation. But these policies have encountered difficulties due to insufficient consideration of the scholarship on the factors that foster the compatibility of teaching and research. It would appear that the Japanese approach to faculty development has experienced a setback (Arimoto 2010).

This article, fifth, has testified to the compatibility of research and teaching in nineteen countries on the basis of the CAP survey. The factors highly associated with a research orientation are as follows: male gender, older age group, doctoral degree, sciences discipline, higher income, full-time employment and greater mobility. In contrast, factors associated with a teaching orientation are as follows: female gender, younger age group, lower level degree than doctorate, humanities and social sciences discipline, lower income, part-time employment and lower mobility. Based on these results, five countries are revealing high compatibility and five other countries are revealing low compatibility. The other countries are situated in between. It is realistic to say that there is the likelihood in the future of witnessing a decline in the compatibility of teaching and research.