Linkages between research, scholarship and teaching in universities in China
2. What are the philosophical,
traditional and cultural expectations?
The discussion was based on the literature review presented
above, principally Boyer’s four-part notion of ‘scholarship’ and
ways in which research and teaching can be linked (as shown
in Figure 1).
Research success was of paramount importance. It deter-
mined to a large extent the culture of the whole institution,
which was taking its ‘211’ role very seriously; Bit’s website
states that the goal is to become “a first class and world-
renowned research-oriented university”. It was quite clear
that no-one became professor through teaching; it was only
research that was assessed. Typically, professors were required
to publish at least four papers a year, and there were rules
about the quantity and quality of publications required for
promotion. The importance of research was further empha-
sised by development programmes for younger staff and their
placement in established research groups where they were
allocated some resources to help them to initiate their own
research programmes, although it was also made clear to
them that they should seek external funding. Apparently a
common question from many young applicants is: “How will
you support my research?”, so the importance of research is
widely accepted.
Since the quality control of teaching was clearly established,
much discussion revolved around ways in which their research
influenced the curriculum content and how the students
became involved in research. One of the key determinants was
the academic discipline. Science and engineering subjects
were working very much within ‘teaching schedules’ and in
the earlier years of the courses these were very well estab-
lished. There was some scope for academic individuality later
on, but this seemed to be limited to ‘giving examples’. So, in
these subjects in a ‘211’ university like Bit, the research-teach-
ing nexus was firmly in the ‘Research-led’ quadrant of Figure
1. Paradoxically, the same academic staff emphasised how
important it was that students were taught by research-active
staff; to quote one senior professor: “Otherwise, how can
they learn to be innovative and creative?”
At the other end of the spectrum, the designers were oper-
ating in the ‘Research-based’ quadrant of Figure 1. Their
research is practice-based, so it is easier for the students to
get involved. Other Schools were within this spectrum, and
the School of Management and Economics embraced both
approaches because the MBA and Executive MBA were
offered to professional managers and so required staff with
extensive practical management experience, whereas the
more ‘scientific courses’ required more academic, research-
based and largely quantitative skills. More than 90 universities
in China offer MBAs, so this is a very competitive market in
which teaching quality is paramount. Basically, the ‘teaching
professors’ had to do some research and have some schol-
arly outputs and the ‘research professors’ had to do some
teaching.
Boyer’s ‘scholarship of application’ was relevant to most of
those I spoke to; they were aware that universities had a sig-
nificant role to play in the development of their country, but
there was tension between the criteria for research excellence
and its application.
3. What happens in reality?
An interesting requirement was that all academic staff,
including professors, have to teach, although of course the
time involved varies; figures quoted varied between 150 and
240 hours per year. This requirement was partly influenced
by student expectations—they were very keen to be ‘taught
by the best’. This reinforces the principle that research per-
formance is related quite closely to the prestige and
reputation of the individuals and of course the university as
a whole. In fact, it seemed that the strongest link between
research and teaching may in fact be that, in a very compet-
itive student market-place, research prestige draws in the best
students, who then—possibly through their own question-
ing and energetic participation—demand good teaching and
challenges to the academic staff. The best researchers also
attract the best PhD students, so reinforcing their position.
One common thread of the discussion with all schools was
some criticism that the specification of ‘research excellence’
may be drawing academics away from practical applications;
some felt this quite strongly. There is of course a tension of
priorities for individual members of staff between teaching
and research: “which has to be managed”, to quote one sen-
ior academic.
Another aspect of ‘reality’ is that academic staff are paid extra
for engaging in research projects and are under quite severe
systems of teaching quality control (it actually is quality con-
trol rather than quality assurance). For example, the teacher’s
personal appearance was part of the student assessment. In
terms of promotion and general non-monetary rewards, it
was certainly the case at Bit that promotion is based on
research performance and that although good teaching is
only peripheral to career advancement poor teaching can
damage it. This appears to be the case throughout China and
in some universities the penalties for poor teaching can be
quite severe, with loss of up to three months of the univer-
sity proportion of the salary and the loss of one month’s
university salary for answering a mobile phone while giving a
lecture. Thus research and teaching run to two quite differ-
ent human resources management systems, although there
Journal of Applied Research in Higher Education
Volume 1 • Number 1 • 79