Abstract:

Although the academic milieu tends to support the research/teaching nexus, previous meta-analytic reviews of literature, including the broadly cited meta-analysis by Hattie and Marsh (1996), found little correlation between research productivity and teaching quality. Based on the matrix method for literature reviews, our paper reviews 29 empirical studies (including 14 qualitative studies, four quantitative studies, and nine studies with mixed methodology) that were published after 1996 and that examined the academics’ perspectives on the nexus. The relevant features of the reviewed studies (e.g., main focus of the study, methods, sample, main findings) were coded in a table and compared.

Among the qualitative studies, three main themes emerged:
1. the value attached to teaching and research,
2. differences between academics’ perspectives and other groups (students, administrators), and
3. the role of the context for the implementation of nexus practices.

Qualitative studies showed that while academics are generally positive toward the research-teaching nexus, they differ in their understanding of the nexus and its function. Among less positive aspects of the nexus, the central place of teaching was often cited as consuming the time and energy that could be used for research. However, it was also suggested that a lot may depend on the context in which the nexus is implemented. Among the studies with mixed methods, two main themes were found:
1. consequences of the nexus for students and teachers, and
2. the role of institutional context.

Mixed-methods studies confirmed the positive view of the nexus among academics and faculty administrators. Several objective benefits of the nexus were demonstrated (e.g., a better understanding of the lectured matter for academics, an increase of research awareness and of academic dispositions in students). Furthermore, the mixed-methods studies highlighted the critical role of the institutional context for a successful implementation of nexus practices, identifying several relevant contextual factors (e.g., department organization, culture and existing policies, the number of academics in an institution and the size of instructional networks between them, research funding received and presence of graduate programs, the disciplinary field). Finally, the four quantitative studies showed that teaching tends to be the central activity for academics, and the reward structure is perceived as inadequate for supporting nexus practices. While faculty administrators’ views on the research-teaching nexus tend to be unambiguously positive, academics are less univocal and more aware of the difficulties to effectively combine both aspects in their daily practice. Overall, our findings confirm that the research-teaching nexus is regarded as beneficial for all stakeholders: academics, students and institutions, and that these benefits are measurable. There are, however, several potential moderators of the relationship between research productivity and teaching quality. These include, at the first place, the factors related to the institutional context cited above. We discuss these findings, arguing that the relationship between research and teaching cannot be adequately assessed if the moderating factors are not taken into account. We also call for a broader reflection on the optimal model of combining research and teaching in practice.

Keywords:

Research, teaching, research-teaching nexus, teaching staff, researchers.