•  
  •  
 

Abstract

Research and Publication has been one of the key indicators of success for an academician. The term “publish or perish” came up with the connotation to understand the pressure academicians goes through for publication of research papers. In recent years, from Indian academic industry perspective, research has been one of the core criteria for promotion and evaluations. University Grants Commission (UGC), the regulatory body for Higher Education in India has made it mandatory to have a doctorate and some research publications to be eligible as an Associate Professor, though the proposed change in the regulation demands doctorate degree as a mandatory criterion to be eligible as an Assistant Professors in Indian Universities. National Assessment and Accreditation Council (NAAC), an autonomous institution of UGC assures quality of an educational institution recognised by UGC, has seven key indicators for giving ranks in the institutions. Institutions not meeting the minimum criteria can be derecognised and barred from conferring degrees. The highest scoring amongst all indicators are research, innovations and extensions and the teaching- learning and evaluation being the second priority. Evidently to get better ranking and thrive in the competition of education impartment, there is more emphasis on research publications. There are various reasons for emphasising on research for improvement of teaching and also contrary opinions. The corelation of evaluation of academicians against the criteria of research publication has proven to risk academic research integrity. The research has analysed documents of UGC and NAAC as also examined promotion and reward policies of five (5) central & state universities in India and five (5) private universities in India who cater to legal education. Twenty (20) Assistant Professors from various law schools in India have been interviewed to obtain insight between individual priorities of teaching and research. The result of the empirical study showed almost 70% of the academicians prioritize research over teaching. The reward system and database analysis also showed overprioritizing of research over teaching. This forces teachers to invest more time and energy for research than teaching their students. For teachers who try to provide equal attention to teaching and research are overburdened and evidently stressed out. The researchers propose some recommendations for Indian Higher education institutions to have a balance of both the responsibilities of an academician.

References

Legal Documents

India. UGC Draft regulation on minimum qualification for appointment of teachers and other academic staff in universities and colleges and other measures for the maintenance of standard in Higher Education 2018, [available at ]

Journal Articles and Periodicals

Chen, B. S. “A study on the relationship of university faculty’s promotion system, faculty’s professional growth, and school development orientation.” Journal of National Taipei Teachers College 14, (2001): 163-208.

Chen, Chi Yusn. “A Study Showing Research Has Been Valued over Teaching in Higher Education”. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning 15, no. 3 (2015): 15-32.

Chou, C. P, R. F. Wu, and J. Hu. “The impact of SSCI on Taiwan's academic evaluation in humanities and social sciences: A case study of NCCU.” Journal of Comparative Education 70, (2011): 31-56. doi:10.1080/13562510500527727.

Du, J. “Teaching and Research: The Time Involved of University Professors.” Journal of Pingtung Teachers College 17, (2002): 135-174.

Dunkin, M. J. “Award winning university teachers’ beliefs about teaching versus research.” Higher Education Research and Development 13, (1994): 85-91, doi: 10.1080/0729436940130108.

Fairweather, J. S. “Academic values and faculty rewards,” Review of Higher Education 17, (1993): 43-68.

Jain, Sonali Bhandari, Surabhi Choudhary, and Joanna Philip. “Revival and Resurgence of Our Lost GEM - The Ancient Indian Education System.” Shanlax International Journal of Education 9, no. 4, (2021): 382-88. https://doi.org/10.34293/education.v9i4.4211.

Kaur, Ishveen and Sugandha Gupta. “Evaluating Quality - Measures to Improve NAAC Ranking for Higher Education Institutes.” International Journal of Recent Technology and Engineering 9, (2021): 97-105.

Knapper, C. K. “Rewards for teaching.” New Directions for Teaching and learning 72, (1997): 41-52. doi: 10.1002/tl.7205.

Seaberg, J. R. “Faculty reports of work-load: Results of a national study.” Journal Social Work Education 31 (1998): 7-19.

Seipel, M. O. “Assessing publication for tenure.” Journal Social Work Education 39, (2003): 79-88.

Yen, Phuong Hoang, Vo Phuong Quyen, et. al. “Factors inhibiting teachers from research engagement: A Review,” Can Tho University Journal of Science 6, (2017): 17-22. doi: 10.22144/ctu.jen.2017.022.

Young, P. “Out of balance: Lectures’ perceptions of differential status rewards in relation to teaching and research.” Teaching in Higher Education, 11, no. 2. (2006): 191-202.

Books

Fox, M. F. “Publication, performance, and reward in science and scholarship” in Higher education: Handbook of theory and research. edited by J.C. Smart., 1-11. Agathon Press, 1985.

Knapper, C.K. “Lifelong learning and university teaching” in Higher Education in the late twentieth century: A festschrift for Ernest Roe, edited by I. Moses. Higher education research and development society of Australia, 1992.

Others

Fairweather, J. S. “Teaching and the faculty reward structure: Relationships between faculty activities and compensation.” Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Association for the Study of Higher Education. Minneapolis, MN. (1992) https://doi.org/10.14434/josotl.v15i3.13319.

Share

COinS