This article describes results of an empirical investigation of the relationship between research and undergraduate teaching in Australian higher education. Two research indexes (weighted number of publications, and number of research activities) were used. Scores on a Likert-type scale of reported commitment to teaching undergraduate students formed the main criterion of teaching effectiveness. This was supplemented by student ratings in one of the aggregate-level analyses. The results revealed typically no relation or a negative relation between teaching and research at the level of the individual and at the level of the department, across all subject areas. The only exceptions concerned one group of former colleges of education. Further analysis by staff self-rating of academic quality showed that there existed one group of staff, mainly in the universities, who were committed to teaching and highly active researchers. However, the data did not support a causalinterpretation of the association. It is concluded that there is no evidence in these results to indicate the existence of a simple functional association between high research output and the effectiveness of undergraduate teaching. Some implications for policy and student course choice are discussed.

No abstract

Research studies conducted in the USA, Britain, Australia and New Zealand which examine academic staff's attitude to the promotion procedures in their institutions have all found dissatisfaction with existing promotion practices. In particular academics are reported to be dissatisfied with the undervaluing of teaching excellence in promotion decisions.This paper discusses studies of job satisfaction and staff motivation as background to an interview study at an Australian university. Data concerning promotion issues from interviews with 104 academic staff members are presented and discussed.Interviewed staff at that university see their institution as actively encouraging research through rewards and incentives. But they perceive the university as paying only lip-service to teaching by requiring documentation of teaching performance without rewarding good performance adequately. Many also perceive the university as interested more in publications than in scholarship and some adjust their activities accordingly.

No abstract

This article discusses the role and functions of heads of departments as analysed in the literature with particular reference to heads in one Australian university. Data on staffs expectations and perceptions of their head's role are examined.Staff from eight departments of the University of Queensland filled in a questionnaire designed to give feedback to heads. The results show clearly that staff attach great importance to the head's "encouragement" function: staff wanted their head to encourage good teaching in the department, to stimulate research and publication, and to take account of each staff member's special talents and interests.This was supported by data obtained from over one hundred structured interviews conducted with staff. They were asked, inter alia, what encouragement was given in their department to excellence in teaching and in research; what they would like to see done to encourage teaching and research more and what barriers to excellence existed in the department. Responses indicate that the majority of staff experienced no encouragement for excelling in teaching, whereas most departments and department heads encouraged active participation in research and publication by overt approval, funds, assistance with obtaining outside grants and a variety of other ways. Staff made suggestions on how to overcome the barriers to excellence; these were mostly realistic and practical and, in fact, implemented in those departments where staff felt encouraged in their pursuit of excellence.