Teaching Political Scientists: The Centrality of Research

Teaching Political Scientists: The Centrality of ResearchAuthor(s): Charles D. HadleySource: PS, Vol. 5, No. 3 (Summer, 1972), pp. 262-270Published by: American Political Science AssociationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/418116 .

Accessed: 17/06/2014 21:48

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

American Political Science Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access toPS.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 62.122.76.60 on Tue, 17 Jun 2014 21:48:45 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=apsa

http://www.jstor.org/stable/418116?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


Teaching Political Scientists: the Centrality of Research*

Three decades ago in his analysis of the academic profession, Logan Wilson found that the faculty in lesser institutions as well as the junior faculty in the major universities held teaching to have primacy over research. At the same time, however, "everywhere there (was) an attitude among the academic elite that dismisses meticulous attention to instruction as a deflection from the 'higher' purposes of scholarship and science." Research, not teaching, was found necessary for professional prestige and institutional recognition.1 Theodore Caplow and Reece J. McGee identified the conflict between teaching and research as "the leading problem for the individual faculty member." A faculty member is hired to teach but expected to do research and publish - at the expense of the former; and in fact, "academic success is likely to come to the man who has learned to neglect his assigned duties in order to have more time and energy to pursue his private professional interests."2

Other authors argue from a different perspective. Frank Pinner did not see teaching and research as alternatives but as "part of the same process of education, complementary activities in the academic community." Pinner went on to explain it was not possible to allocate time to each function due to differing teaching and research demands in different fields and due to individual work habits.3 On the other hand, * I wish to thank Professor Everett C. Ladd, Jr., Director of the University of Connecticut's Social Science Data Center, for making the data available. The analysis was conducted at the Louisiana State University in New Orleans Computer Research Center which is supported, in part, by National Science Foundation Grant GJ-131. This research, moreover, is revised from a paper presented at the 1971 Annual Meeting of the Southern Political Science Association.

1 The Academic Man: A Study in the Sociology of a Profession (New York: Oxford University Press, 1942), pp. 188-189, 205.

2 The Academic Marketplace (Anchor Books; Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1965), p. 189. To correct the teaching-research inequity the authors recommend the establishment of lecture ranks (e.g., associate professor equals associate lecturer) and standard teaching loads for all members of the teaching staff. (Pp. 204-205; 207-208.)

3 Frank Pinner, "The Crisis of the State Universities: Analysis and Remedies," in The American College: A Psychological and Social Interpretation of the Higher Learn- ing, ed. by Nevitt Sanford (New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1962), p. 963.

Charles D. Hadley Louisiana State University New Orleans

Christopher Jencks and David Riesman very forcefully make the same point that teaching and research are not antagonistic. They wrote:

Teachers cannot remain stimulating unless they also continue to learn, and while this learning may not focus on small, manageable "research problems," it is research by any reasonable definition. When a teacher stops doing it, he begins to repeat himself and eventually loses touch with both the young and the world around him. Research in this general sense does not, of course, neces- sarily lead to publication, but that is the most common result. Publication is the only way a man can communicate with a significant number of colleagues or other adults. Those who do not publish usually feel they have not learned anything worth communicating to adults. This means they have not learned much worth communicating to the young either.4

The authors, however, recognize the fact that research, not teaching, is rewarded, especially since there is no way to evaluate teaching. As a consequence, research flourishes at the expense of teaching; though the authors make specific recommendations aimed at improving teaching.s

Where do political science faculty members line up over teaching versus research? Should one judge teaching or research for tenure? For promotion? Who are the most productive political scientists and how do they feel about these matters? These and related questions are investigated in the pages which follow.

Primary Interests: Teaching or Research?

In their mail survey of political scientists, Albert Somit and Joseph Tanenhaus quite frankly report that, realists that they are, the respondents rank publication first and teaching last as attributes which contribute to a

4 Christopher Jencks and David Riesman, The Academic Revolution (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1968), p. 532.

5 Ibid., pp. 531-539. Cf. Clark Kerr, The Uses of the University (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1963), pp. 103-105, 118.

262 PS Summer 1972



successful career. In fact, of the ten attributes ranked quantity of publication is first followed by quality of publication which is fifth. The authors aptly note: "An astute student, observing the manner in which his professors divide their energies between teaching and research and their efforts to reduce the former in order to devote additional time to the latter, quickly senses the relative value of the two in furthering his career."6 In response to the question, "Do your interests lie primarily in teaching or research?" nearly two-thirds of the responding political scientists in the present study indicated an orientation toward teaching.7 One out of seven (3 to 21 percent), moreover, related that their interests were very heavily in research in contrast to very heavily in teaching. Of the middle group, who are interested in both, political scientists oriented toward teaching out-numbered those oriented toward research 43 to 31 percent. Breaking the sample down according to teacfiing responsibilities, those teaching only graduate students were the most research oriented (57 percent) followed by a fairly even split among political scientists teaching graduate/undergraduate courses (52 percent teaching oriented and 45 percent research oriented). As might be expected, political scientists most oriented toward teaching are those who teach only undergraduates (82 percent).

The differing teaching/research orientations are further revealed when the faculty's under- standing of institutional expectations are examined according to their published articles. The point is clear; the more published political scientists are the more they are oriented toward research and graduate teaching, the respective percentages ranging

6 Albert Somit and Joseph Tanenhaus, American Political Science: A Profile of a Discipline (New York: Atherton Press, 1964), pp. 80-81. See pp. 77-85 on this point.

7 The data presented here are from a national sample of 1,267 teaching political scientists or one out of five who taught in the spring of 1969. For the questionnaire and a detailed exposition of the sampling see: Alan E. Bayer, College and University Faculty: A Statistical Description, ACE Research Reports, Vol. V, No. 5 (Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education, 1970).

from 10 to 29 and 5 to 23 for categories "None" to "11-20+" articles. The more political scientists publish, the sharper their disinterest is in providing undergraduates with a broad liberal education, the decline being from 68 percent with no articles to 29 percent with "11-20+" articles. The breaking point for all categories is after the publication of four articles.8

Publication: Who, How and Why? As pointed out earlier, the most important ingredient in "The Road to Success" was quantity over quality of publication, an emphasis which is not expected to diminish irn the near future - witness the Behavioral and Social Sciences Survey of political science. At one point the study emphasizes: "of even more concern ... should be the fact that too few political scientists are devoted to research as a prerequisite to making for more and better theoretical knowledge and scientific advancement." The report goes on to conclude: ".. . political scientists themselves must greatly accelerate and improve their research efforts if they are to earn our society's trust and support."9 From another front, Victoria Schuck bewails the fact that women political science faculty "are disproportionately represented in professional activities given their numbers in the Associa- tion," and underrepresented in terms of publication, the men outpublishing the women more than two to one.10 The continuing emphasis is clear!

8 Moreover, 75 percent of the research committed political scientists teach in institutions that have more than 10,000 students and offer advanced degrees.

9 Political Science Panel, the Behavioral and Social Sciences Survey, Political Science, ed. by Heinz Eulau and James G. March (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice- Hall, Inc., 1969), pp. 83 and 142.

10 Victoria Schuck, "Femina Studens rei Publicae: Notes on her Professional Achievement," PS, III (1970), pp. 627- 628. The data reported here, in fact, reveal that 66 percent of the men and 44 percent of the women have at least one article. While 22 percent more women (54 percent) than men have no articles, nearly equal proportions of women (37 percent) and men (34 percent) have from one to four articles. Beyond that point, all the women together nearly equal the proportion of men who have published more than 20 articles (5 versus 6 percent).

263



Teaching Political Scientists: the Centrality of Research

TABLE 1

Political Science as a Career a Second Time

Political Science Again Survey Probably Probably

Yes Yes No No Other

Somit & Tanenhausa 38.1% 37.9% 13.2% 1.4% 9.4% (N = 425)

Current Surveyb 53.0 37.0 8.0 1.0 1.0 (N = 1267)

a. "If you were able to start over and pick your profession again, would you still choose a career in political science?"

b. "If you were to begin your career over again, would you still want to be a college professor?"

Career Success. With all of this, political science faculty are a pretty contented group. In marked contrast with the results of the survey conducted by Somit and Tanenhaus in 1963 (reported in Table 1), in just six years 15 percent more of the teaching political scientists would "definitely" embark on that career again and 14 percent more of the entire sample would do so (for a total of 90 percent). While Somit and Tanenhaus found 13.2 percent who "probably" would not enter that career again, only eight percent of those teaching political science today would give up that career.11 This phenomenon prevailed when the respondents were asked: "Comparing yourself with other academic men of your age and qualifications, how successful do you consider yourself in your career?" - 92 percent, regardless of publication record, felt they were successful. When their responses were measured against their record of published articles (Table 2-A), one notices an increase in those who consider themselves "very successful" commensurate with an increase in articles, the increase being from 15 percent of those who have but one or two articles to 43 percent of those who have "11-20+" articles.12 Half as many respondents consider

11 Somit and Tanenhaus, American Political Science, p. 124. See especially, pp. 123-136 on this point.

themselves "fairly unsuccessful" if they have five or more articles as opposed to four or less. The overriding fact remains, regardless of publication record, 92 percent of the teaching political scientists consider themselves successful!

Publications. In moving to an analysis of quantity of publication, it becomes quite evident from Table 2-B that the most prolific publishers not only have a high article output, but also a high book or monograph output. Excluding the non-publishers, those with one or two books and monographs generally have from one to ten articles. Most striking are the high publishers; of those having five or more books or monographs published or edited, 47 percent have from "11-20+" articles. Quite telling is the fact that political scientists with "11-20+" articles have at least one book or monograph (96 percent) in contrast to those in the other article delineations decreasing respectively, 83, 64, 52, and 21 percent from those with "5-10" articles to "None."

A good predictor of a political scientists' publication record is having his highest degree from a prestige department, remem- bering also that nearly 90 percent of the prestige department faculty earned their highest degrees from prestige departments-

12 For reasonable compactness, the number of articles is presented in the tables, especially since it is most repre- sentative of one's whole career; however, other publication trends are examined in the text.

264 PS Summer 1972



TABLE 2

The Relationship of Political Scientists' Article Output to Their Evaluation of Career Success, Book and Monograph Output, Academic Training, and Academic Rank

Number of Articles

None 1-2 3-4 5-10 11-20+

A. Career Successa

Very successful Fairly successful Fairly unsuccessful Very unsuccessful No answer

N

B: Books or Monographs

None 1-2 3-4 5+ No answer

N

C: Academic Trainingb

Prestige graduate Non-prestige graduate Other

N

D: Academic Rank

Professor Associate Assistant Instructor

N

17% 73

7 0 3

100% (423)

79% 17 2 2 0

100%o (423)

47% 49 4

100% (423)

5% 12 51 32

100% (375)

15% 78 5 1 1

100% (276)

48% 42

8 1 1

100% (276)

59% 38

3

100% (276)

18% 19 53 10

100% (251)

25% 69

6 0 0

100% (153)

36% 48

9 7 0

100% (153)

61% 36

3

100% (153)

28% 30 38 4

100% (143)

25% 70 3 0 2

100% (187)

17% 42 25 14 2

100% (187)

73%/ 25 2

100% (187)

43% 37 20 0

100% (180)

43% 52 3 0 2

100%/ (191)

4% 19 30 47

0

100% (191)

73% 26

1

100% (191)

70% 24

6 0

100% (123)

a. "Comparing yourself with other academic men of your age and qualifications, how successful do you consider yourself in your career?"

b. See footnote 13.

265




excluding foreign institutions.13 Such productivity is accentuated in Table 2C, which presents the scholarly productivity of political scientists with prestige versus non-prestige highest degrees. Once the prestige graduates get started, they outpublish non-prestige graduates two to one in the category "3-4" articles and nearly three to one for those who have five or more articles. The identical phenomenon prevails with professional writings published in the last two academic years (1967-1969) and books or monographs published or edited. In the former category, political scientists with prestige degrees and with one or two professional writings, outpublish their counterparts two to one, again nearly three to one for those with three or more writings. The publishing phenomenon of political scientists with prestige degrees, however, is not so marked in the category "Books or monographs published or edited" as it is a consistent nearly two to one from the first book or monograph.

Another aspect of quantity of publication manifests itself in academic rank (Table 2D). First, the more articles one published, the more likely he was a full professor - the range running from five percent with no aritcles to 70 percent of those with "11-20+" articles.14 The reverse is true for assistant professors and instructors; in fact, the proportion of instructors with articles is minimal and non-existent among faculty with five or more articles. Associate professors of political science find themselves in more of a

13 "Prestige" political science departments are those categorized "Distinguished and strong" faculty ratings in Kenneth D. Roose and Charles J. Andersen, A Rating of Graduate Programs (Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education, 1970) p. 64. This updates Allan M. Cartter's earlier study, An Assessment of Quality in Graduate Educa- tion (Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education, 1966), po. 40-41, which was accepted for political science by Albert Somit arid Joseph Tanenhaus in their The Develop- ment of American Political Science (Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc., 1967), pp. 164-166.

14 The relationship between number of articles and academic rank persists when age is controlled; that is, the greater one's productivity, the greater is the tendency to hold higher academic rank regardless of age. The Gamma value for the zero order relationship (shown in Table 2) is -.68 while the magnitude of the Gammas for those in their 30s, 40s and 50s or older are -.66, -.61, and -.63. Only 1.5 percent of the political scientists in their 20s hold academic rank above assistant professor; moreover, half that number have "11-20+" articles.

limbo with their greater number falling in the three to 10 article range.

Second, full professors have the current highest rate of publication. A similar trend, though more slight, exists among associate professors and the reverse is true of assistant professors and, most sharply, with instructors. Books and monographs published or edited is quite a different scene. Of those with more than five books or monographs, professors have nearly eight times those of associates who, in turn, have nearly four times those of assistants. A two to one relationship pervades the "3-4" category. Instructors have "None" in both instances.

The reward of publication is most dramatically illustrated in Figure 1 in which the percentage of political scientists within each salary range is graphed by their published articles. But one percent of those with 11 or more articles earns less than $10,000 with the line continually rising to 65 percent with incomes over

80 -

70

60 -\

50 - More

* 40 - None than 10

30 -

20 -

Under S10,000- $12,000- S14,000- $17,000- Over $10,000 11,999 13,999 16,999 19,999 $20,000

Figure 1 Salary (nine months)

The Fruits of Publication: The Percentage of Political Scientists in Each Salary Range According to Their Published Articles (The Extremes)

$20,000. Of course, the reverse is true for political scientists without any, 69 percent of whom make up the under $10,000 category and continually falling to two percent in the $20,000 or more range. Were lines added for the remaining publication ranges, one would notice distinct salary peaks - those with one or two articles at $10-11,999, with three or four at $12-13,999, and with five to 10 at

266 PS Summer 1972



TABLE 3

Political Scientists' Evaluation of Teaching Effectiveness for Promotion According to Their Primary Interests

Primary Interests Attitude on Teaching Effectiveness for Research Both, leaning Heavily Promotiona Orientationb toward teaching Teaching

Strongly agree 3% 15% 40% Agree with reservations 22 49 53 Disagree with reservations 59 33 6 Strongly disagree 15 3 1 No answer 1 0 0

100% 100% 100% N (429) (540) (260)

a. "Teaching effectiveness, not publications, should be the primary criterion for promotion."

b. Combines "heavily research" and "both, leaning toward research" (due to small N) when asked: "Do your interests lie primarily in teaching or research?"

$17-19,999. This phenomenon is consistent with the patterns shown previously in Table 2. In sum, it literally pays to publish!5l

Promotion and Tenure: Publication or Teaching?

The first dimension, from the question: "Teaching effectiveness, not publications, should be the primary criterion for promotion," in light of the political scientists' primary interests - teaching or research - is presented in Table 3. It aptly demonstrates the clear preference for such policies the further one moves from research to teaching among those in "strong" agreement -from three percent among those oriented toward research to 40 percent among those with little or no interest in research. The relative relationship remains about the same; but the proportions greatly increase for those in general agreement. In that situation, 25 percent among the research oriented agree with teaching effectiveness for promotion

15 Political scientists' article output was graphed due to the strong relationship between the high publishers in each publication category and due to the ambiguity of mixing "books and monographs published and edited." Hence, articles give the most comprehensive and clear picture of one's entire publication span.

while nearly two-thirds agree among those interested in both areas but leaning to.ward teaching; and, not surprisingly, 93 percent among those heavily interested in teaching so do.

The phenomenon described above is accentuated when one centers his attention on political scientists' scholarly productivity with respect to promotion for teaching effectiveness. Whether looking at the number of articles, publications in the last two years, or the number of books and monographs published or edited, one cannot help notice the dichotomization between those with few publications and those with a modest to heavy publication output. For example, focusing on political scientists' article production readily reveals the non-publishers favoring teaching effectiveness for promotion by a margin of three to one and dropping to a near even division among those with one to four articles. A two to one disagreement with such promotion criterion begins to develop with those having five to 10 articles and is accentuated among the higher publishers - those who have "11-20+" articles. The same dichotomy manifests itself between those who published three or more items in the last two academic years versus those who have not and between those who published or edited three or more

267




books and monographs and those who have not.

Moving to the differences between prestige versus non-prestige political science department products, the emphasis is clear. While a majority (52 percent) of the prestige graduates disagree that "teaching effectiveness, not research, should be the primary criterion for promotion," less than two thirds (30 percent) of the non-prestige graduates are in such disagreement. On the whole, however, the balance is tipped toward such a promotion criterion with 57 percent of the entire sample favoring teaching effectiveness as the primary criterion for promotion. Ten percent of the prestige graduates in contrast to 24 percent of the non-prestige graduates, moreover, "strongly agree" with the teaching criterion.

Tenure is another matter. Narrow majorities (51 percent) of the political science faculty holding non-prestige highest degrees agree with the statement: "In my department it is very difficult for a man to achieve tenure if he does not publish." The products of prestige departments, on the other hand, are three to one in favor of such a criterion. In fact, two-thirds of the sample are in agreement with publication for tenure. The implica- tions are clear-teaching political scientists with their highest degrees from prestige departments are more achievement and professionally oriented and, consequently, place much heavier emphasis on publication for both promotion and tenure while those from non-prestige departments lean to the opposite direction.

What about tenure? Slightly optimistic are the political scientists who indicate strong interests in teaching as 57 percent feel it is not "very difficult for a man to achieve tenure if he does not publish." Those whose interests are both in teaching and research, but leaning toward research, feel (two to one) that tenure is indeed difficult to achieve if one does not publish. The most marked attitudes toward publishing and tenure are borne by political scientists who are oriented toward research; nearly five-sixths of whom feel it would be

very difficult for non-publishing political scientists to achieve tenure in their departments.

Attitudes toward publication and tenure are illuminated more clearly and precisely according to published output. First, whether by the number of articles published, the professional writings in the last two academic years, or by books or monographs published or edited, there is more importance attached to publication, the more publications one has. Take first the article output of political scientists; even a majority of those without an article (52 percent) recognize the necessity of publication for tenure. As one moves along the categories of increasing article production, the percentages, with minor exception, increase from 52 (none) to 87 (11-20+); from their first article two-thirds of the teaching political scientists attach importance to publication for tenure while more than three- fourths do so after they publish five or more articles. The same phenomenon prevails for those without any "books or monographs published or edited"-57 percent attributing such importance to publication on this dimension though political scientists peak at 82 percent (over five). The trend persists among those publishing over the last two years though this is the only dimension on which a majority is in disagreement - 51 percent of those with no publications. After this near even division, the percentages jump up to 71, 77, and 89 percent for political scientists having "1-2," "3-4," or "5-10+" publications. Hence, whether they publish or not, a clear majority of the teaching political scientists recognize the necessity of publication as a sure road to tenure.

On examination of Somit and Tanenhaus' "vital role of connections in career success," 74 percent of the research oriented political scientists "agree" that "many of the highest- paid university professors get where they are by being 'operators' rather than by their scholarly or scientific contributions." The percentage drops to 55 percent of those interested in research and teaching but leaning toward teaching and drops further to 42 percent of those "heavily in teaching."

268 PS Sunimer 1972



TABLE 4

The Exploitation of Graduate Students to Advance Faculty Research

Number of Articles Student Exploitation for Faculty Researcha None 1-2 3-4 5-10 11-20+

Strongly agree 17% 22% 21% 20% 8% Agree with reservations 54 50 54 46 44 Disagree with reservations 23 23 21 28 42 Strongly disagree 4 4 2 3 4 No answer 2 1 2 3 2

100% 100% 100% 100% 100% N (423) (276) (153) (187) (191)

a. "Many professors in graduate departments exploit their students to advance their own research."

Perhaps those doing research simply are not naive.

Another telling development comes to light in response to the question: "Many professors in graduate departments exploit their students to advance their own research." Table 4 reveals this attitude along the dimension of article output. Within each publication category from "None" to "3-4" over 70 percent of the teaching political scientists agree that students are exploited by faculty in the interests of their own research. The proportion drops slightly to 66 percent for those in the "5-10" article range. A glaring shift toward denial draws attention to the "11-20+" article range in which only eight percent of the political scientists "strongly agree" (52 percent in general agreement), the commensurate increase manifested in the category "disagree with reservations." One should not lose sight of the fact, however, that 74 percent of the political science faculty sample is interested in both teaching and research. There is always room for reform; but, the 'research-teaching' dilemma, report Jencks and Riesman, "is false," "the real problem [being] to marry the two enter- prises."16 The question is: when will the marriage take place?

16 Jencks and Reisman, The Academic Revolution, p. 533.

Conclusion

Among teaching political scientists the division is clear; it is between those whose commitments lie primarily in teaching or research. The majority of those interested in research prefer engaging in research or training graduate students while solid majorities of those oriented toward teaching see their responsibilities as providing undergraduates with a broad liberal education (61 percent). The research-teaching orientations are more clearly sorted out when viewed over article output-high volume, strong research and professional training orientation.

Ninety percent of the political scientists would enter that career again were they starting over. Regardless of article output, 90 percent of the sample consider themselves successful though there is a definite trend for greater proportions of the "very successful" with greater output. Highly productive scholars, moreover, are highly productive on every publish.ng front. In fact, the clear trends in published output are greater for those with highest degrees from prestige departments; and publication is amply rewarded with academic rank and greater salaries.

In increasing intensity, those teaching oriented prefer the use of "teaching effectiveness" rather than publication for promotion. This

269




phenomenon is becoming increasingly strong the fewer publications one has, peaking at two-thirds among those without publications of any kind. Political scientists trained in prestige departments disagree and consist- ently agree on publications for tenure. Whether they have articles or not, however, political scientists see publications cover- ing the path to tenure. Only 57 percent "heavily in teaching" do not agree with that path. Majorities admit, moreover, that the highest paid faculty are operators and students are exploited for faculty research. The message is clear; political scientists remain divided over teaching and research; and those reaping the rewards have the highest scholarly output. Tangible benefits, with regards to teaching, remain few.

RES PUBLICA Review of the Belgian Institute of Political Science

Quarterly (April, July, October, December) with sometimes special volumes.

Res Publica is the scholarly Journal of the Institute and includes articles on the

Belgian political Life, Institutions, Political behaviour, political theory, elections,

government and administration, international relations, especially with the European Economic Community.

A bibliography of the articles edited in all the best Belgian reviews and journals is

also periodically included. 800 pages published each year.

Annual subscription (individual and institutional): $12 Address: 43, rue des Champs-Elysees - B-1050 Bruxelles/Belgium.

270 PS Summer 1972



Documents

Teaching Political Scientists: The Centrality of Research