EL CONSUMO COTIDIANO: ENTRE EL GUSTO

According to the literature, the issue of ensuring that ASD positively affect teaching and learning outcomes appear to be influenced by the competition between research and teaching (Elton, 2009; Nicholl, 2005; Marsh, 2011; Weller, 2011). The rationale for the existence of a university ―is based on the assumption that a positive relationship exists between teaching and research to the extent that one contributes to the other‖ (Marsh, 2011:166). Humbolt, for example, was equally concerned with both research and teaching (Elton, 2009:1). In contrast to this position, a quite different dichotomy between research and teaching emerged. Cavalli and Moscati (2010:35) encourage that ―the difference between teaching and research functions should be considered‖. Marsh (2011:163) found that ―the correlation between teaching and research effectiveness was almost zero‖ and that good researchers were no more or ―less likely to be good teachers and conversely good teachers were no more or less likely to be good researchers‖. Arguably, the most regrettable feature ―of the dichotomy between research and teaching is that it has led to a skewed value

58

system with research being considered significantly more prestigious than teaching‖ (Elton, 2009:9).

Hardy and Smith (2006) raised criticism about increasing importance of teaching based on value traditionally given to research. They argue that as research is often a criterion for promotion it is privileged over teaching. Scholars like (Horta, Huisman and Heitor, 2008:155; Martin, 2012:548; Ramsden and Moses, 1992:274) contend that research policies in universities do not motivate academics to engage in APD programmes. Instead, the policies reward research output of academics. The influence of disciplinary research and its attraction of recognition particularly promotion to professorship has the effect of marginalising teaching. Teaching would be on the margins of the academic‘s role while research will be prioritized (Kogan, 2000:210). These developments take place in spite of the call to raise the quality of teaching in HEIs by both governments and industry.

D‘Andrea and Gosling eloquently capture the tension experienced by lecturers:

In practice we have a tension between the rhetoric of valuing teaching, enhancing the status of teaching and rewarding excellent teachers, and the reality which continues to suggest teaching is very much a lower priority subservient to research and income generating activities (2005:16).

The dichotomy between research and teaching has affected academics less positively in that their commitment to the academic role of teaching will not be given the attention it deserves. This arises from lack of a reward system associated with teaching that has a bearing on its low status accorded to it by academics. Tynan and Garbet (2007) emphasise the point when they argue that research is perceived to be more important because it is related to promotion. These arguments are supported by comments by Hunt (2007) who advocates that training courses in how to teach are problematic in institutions where teaching has a lower status than research. She indicates that ―even universities

59

that claim to give greater recognition to teaching lecturers deem it a ―career hazard‖ not to prioritise research‖ (2007:773).

Evidence of this pressure experienced by lecturers appears in many promotion policies found in universities. In South Africa, criteria designed for institutional Audits in HEIs reflect the privileged status of research over teaching (CHE, 2004:9). In addition, the shift towards teaching focused scholarship is evident in some of the comprehensive higher education institutions. Scholars like Boughey (2013:36-38), Mckenna (2013:48) and Pisto (2013) acknowledge that scholarship of teaching and learning has become reality in South African comprehensive universities. These scholars argue that, through research student- centred approaches student performance is now understood to stem from not only student based characteristics but from the socially constructed nature of universities and the practices within them. This demonstrates a recent shift towards teaching focused scholarship. In Zimbabwe, the Zimbabwe Council for Higher Education Promotion Criteria makes research the only criterion to be satisfied to the exclusion of teaching for an academic to be promoted (ZMCHE, 2006:10). Internationally, these research policies also impact on academic staff development in a negative way. In the UK Gosling (2001) cites the effect of the Research Assessment Exercise (REA) on teaching. According to Gosling (2001:77), REA ―favoured increased funding for discipline based research leading to the marginalisation of teaching‖. Arguably, research policies discourage academics to prioritize teaching and by implication APD programmes which might promote the quality of teaching.

Appointment of a Dean of Research in a university set up further strengthens the value and status given to research. Absence of an equivalent position for teaching and learning in the university hierarchy is indicative of the low value given to teaching. However, there are some scholars who advocate for the scholarly nature of teaching as a rigorous and robust activity comparable to disciplinary research. Boyer‘s (1990) definition of various forms of scholarship has assisted to present the notion of teaching as a rigorous and scholarly activity comparable to disciplinary research. Anderson (2000) expands the argument by

60

suggesting that the scholarly nature of teaching can be applied to the discipline of the academic developer:

Developer‘s scholarship lies in the qualities of mind and hand, and the intellectual and moral integrity that they bring to their own study. I am arguing that there is nothing intrinsically about teaching development that excludes it from being a site of scholarly practice and its cultivation, and that there is an enormous amount about it and gives opportunity for scholarship to be cultivated and expressed. Development practice differs not at all from teaching and research in this respect (2000:26 – 28).

Academic development is being treated as a site of scholarly practice and the academic developer‘s intellectual capacity is acknowledged. Kreber (2000) advocates for rewards for achievement made in advancing the scholarship of teaching:

In the scholarship of teaching they engage in a learning process involving various kinds of reflection or research based and experience based knowledge about teaching. This process of acquiring knowledge should be rewarded in addition to the resulting product (2000:64).

The implication is that ASD should be used as a strategy that promotes the link between research and teaching for promoting the value of the quality of students‘ learning experiences instead of perpetuating the competition between the two discourses. Such measures are likely to reduce the stress and conflict among academics on whether they should place their academic commitment between research and teaching. Academic motivations are influenced by rewards and as such professional development should promote this missing construct which is teaching for learning (Nicholls, 2005:621). Attempts should be made to make lecturers change their conceptions of teaching. The question of

61

credibility of educational practitioners in higher education is another discourse examined below that is associated with some tension.

2.8.2.4 Credibility of educational practitioners and its influence on development of