Publish and/or perish?

Abstract

The or perish challenge faces university faculty across country. In case of tenured faculty, perish may be too strong a word, but without publications faculty members likely are locked in their present rank and denied more than minimal salary increase. In case of untenured faculty, perish carries additional penalty of losing one's job; indeed, so parlous is plight of untenured faculty member that situation may even be and perish. The debates pro and con publishing occur in corridors of academe together with attendant debates concerning relative value of publishing over teaching. Surprisingly, certainly on surface few data back up debate. Rather, it has become an ideological dispute with most persons deploring that same professor is required both to teach and to research. One might expect both sides to try to assemble evidence supporting their position. One might expect journals by now would report findings of studies correlating research productivity and teaching competence. But no. The Education Index, for instance, lists fewer than twenty-five articles between 1970 and 1979 that even deal with this issue, and only five of these attempt to examine issue empirically. The remaining fifteen or so (ranging from persuasive to banal) deal with it ideologically. Of these, apparently case for insistence on publication argues about as well as that of insistence on greater teaching emphasis. Certainly, latter predominate, but their arguments are no more effective than those of their opponents. In reviewing Graeme Norris' 1979 book devoted to topic, Justifying Research and Teaching Objectives in Universities, Anthony Bottomley notes that the indivisibility of good teaching and research receives scant empiric support; thus, he concludes that one of great cliches of academic life goes to wall.1 Clearly, issue is not going to be settled polemically, for, while literature remains sparse, not only during decade of 70s but also in previous years, topic has been addressed (in about same degree) since beginning of century-with no resolution. Indeed, we need to settle debate by empirical means. That is, we must try to discover whether there exists a demonstrable relationship between research productivity and teaching competence and, if so, whether that relationship is positive or negative. Notice, however, that challenge is to publish or perish; thus, relationship must be between productivity of a visible and concrete sort and teaching competence, not simply between hours spent doing research (reading, studying, etc.) and teaching. Many persons have argued that teachers perforce do research (if they are serious)-there can be little argument on that score. In