Advertisement

Teaching and Research of Korean Academics Across Career Stages

  • Jung Cheol Shin
  • Jisun Jung
  • Yangson Kim
Chapter
Part of the The Changing Academy – The Changing Academic Profession in International Comparative Perspective book series (CHAC, volume 9)

Abstract

This chapter discusses how teaching and research activities differ across academics’ career stages. Specifically, we focus on differences in their preference for teaching and research, budgeting time, teaching methods used, research approach, and research productivity. For this chapter, we analyzed a sample of 900 academics in the Korean Changing Academic Profession data. We found that senior academics lean more toward teaching but allocate more time on research; junior academics on the other hand have a stronger preference for research but spend more time on teaching and administration. In their teaching, Korean academics use lecturing as their main instructional method. In the classroom, interestingly, senior academics tend to emphasize practical and more socially oriented knowledge than do their junior colleagues. In terms of academic productivity, junior academics have a high rate of publication in international journals, while senior academics are high performers in relation to domestic journals and book publications.

Keywords

Korean Government Career Stage Senior Academic Junior Academic Domestic Journal 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgement 

This research was supported by the National Research Foundation of Korea Grant funded by the Korean Government (NRF-2010-330-B00232).

References

  1. Abramo, G., D’Angolo, C. A., & Costa, F. D. (2008). Assessment of sectoral aggregation distortion in research productivity measurements. Research Evaluation, 17(2), 111–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Akerlind, G. S. (2008). Growing and developing as a university researcher. Higher Education, 55(8), 241–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bayer, A. E., & Dutton, J. E. (1977). Career age and research-professional activities of academic scientists: Tests of alternative nonlinear models and some implications for higher education faculty policies. Journal of Higher Education, 48(3), 259–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Becher, T., & Trowler, P. R. (2001). Academic tribes and territories: Intellectual inquiry and the culture of disciplines. Milton Keynes: The Society for Research into Higher Education & Open University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Biglan, A. (1973). The characteristics of subject matter in different academic areas. Journal of Applied Psychology, 57(3), 195–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Blackburn, R. T., & Lawrence, J. H. (1986). Aging and the quality of faculty job performance. Review of Education Research, 23(3), 265–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Boice, R. (2010). New faculty as teachers. Journal of Higher Education, 62(2), 150–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Boyer, E. L. (1990). Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professoriate. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Braxton, J. M., & Hargens, L. L. (1996). Variation among academic disciplines: Analytical frameworks and research. In J. C. Smart (Ed.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (Vol. 11). New York: Agathon Press.Google Scholar
  10. Bush, V. (1945). Science: The endless frontier. Washington: Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  11. Cummings, W. K. (2011). Is the academic center shifting to Asia? CERC Studies in Comparative Education, 27(1), 47–76.Google Scholar
  12. Cummings, W. K. (2012). The rise of Asian research universities: Focus on the context. The changing academic profession in ASIA: Contexts, realities and trends. The paper presented at the International Conference on the Changing Academic Profession Project (hosted by Hiroshima University, Feb. 2011).Google Scholar
  13. Dowd, K. O., & Kaplan, D. M. (2005). The career life of academics: Boundaried or boundaryless? Human Relations, 58(6), 699–721.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Evans, C. H. (1995). Faculty development in a changing academic environment. Academic Medicine, 70(1), 14–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Horta, H., Dautelc, V., & Velosob, F. M. (2012). An output perspective on the teaching–research nexus: An analysis focusing on the United States higher education system. Studies in Higher Educations, 37(2), 171–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Jung, J., Kooij, R., Teichler, U. (Forthcoming). Internationalization and the new academic generation. In M. Finkelstein, F. Huang, & M. Rostan (Eds.), The internationalization of the academy: Changes, realities and prospects. Springer.Google Scholar
  17. Katz, J. S., & Martin, B. R. (1997). What is research collaboration? Research Policy, 26(1), 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kehm, B. (1999). Higher education in Germany. Developments, problems, and perspectives. Bucharest: The Institute for Higher Education Research, Wittenberg and the UNESCO European Centre for Higher Education.Google Scholar
  19. Kugal, P. (1993). How professors develop as teachers. Studies in Higher Education, 18(3), 315–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kuhn, T. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  21. Kyvik, S. (2003). Changing trends in publishing behavior among university faculty, 1980–2000. Scientometrics, 58(1), 35–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lee, S. (1989). The emergence of the modern university in Korea. Higher Education, 18, 87–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Marsh, H. W., & Hattie, J. (2002). The relation between research productivity and teaching effectiveness: Complementary, antagonistic, or independent constructs? Journal of Higher Education, 73(5), 603–641.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Merton, R. (1972). Insiders and outsiders: A chapter in the sociology of knowledge. The American Journal of Sociology, 78(1), 9–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Ministry of Education, Science and Technology (2010). Annual Educational Statistics. Korea.Google Scholar
  26. Muis, K. R., Bendixen, L. D., & Haerle, F. C. (2006). Domain-generality and domain specificity in personal epistemology research: Philosophical and empirical questions in the development of a theoretical model. Educational Psychology Review, 18(1), 3–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. O’Meara, K. A. (2005). Encouraging multiple forms of scholarship in faculty reward systems: Does it make a difference? Research in Higher Education, 46(5), 479–510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. O’Meara, K. A., & Rice, R. E. (2005). Faculty priorities reconsidered: Rewarding multiple forms of scholarship. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  29. OECD. (2011). R&D expenditure by performing sectors, 2009. OECD Science, Technology, and Industry Scoreboard.Google Scholar
  30. Shin, J. C. (2009a). Building world-class research university: The brain Korea 21 project. Higher Education, 58(5), 669–688.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Shin, J. C. (2009b). Classifying higher education institutions in Korea: A performance-based approach. Higher Education, 57(2), 247–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Shin, J. C. (2010). Impacts of performance-based accountability on institutional performance in the U.S. Higher Education, 60(1), 47–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Shin, J. C. (2011a). Teaching and research nexuses across faculty career stage, ability and affiliated discipline in a South Korean research university. Studies in Higher Education, 36(4), 485–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Shin, J. C. (2011b). A world-class university: Who pays? The paper presented at the annual conference of the Consortium for Higher Education Researchers (hosted by University of Iceland in June 2011).Google Scholar
  35. Shin, J. C. (2012). Higher education development in Korea: Western university ideas, Confucian tradition, and economic development. Higher Education, 64(1), 59–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Shin, J. C., & Cummings, W. (2010). Multilevel analysis of academic publishing across disciplines: Research preference, collaboration, and time on research. Scientometrics, 85(2), 581–594.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Shin, J. C., & Jang, Y. (2013). World-class university in Korea: Proactive government, responsive university, and procrastinating academics. In J. C. Shin & B. M. Kehm (Eds.), Institutionalization of world-class university in global competition. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  38. Smeby, J. C., & Try, S. (2005). Departmental contexts and faulty research activity in Norway. Research in Higher Education, 46(6), 593–619.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Sungkyunkwan University http://www.skku.edu/eng
  40. Teichler, U. (2011). Germany: How changing governance and management affects the view and work of the academic profession. In W. Locke, W. K. Cummings, & D. Fisher (Eds.), Changing governance and management in higher education: The perspectives of the academy. Dordrecht/New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  41. Tien, F. F., & Blackburn, R. T. (1996). Faculty rank system, research motivation, and faculty research productivity: Measure refinement and theory testing. Journal of Higher Education, 67(1), 2–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of EducationSeoul National UniversitySeoulSouth Korea
  2. 2.The University of Hong KongHong Kong SARChina

Personalised recommendations