Individual and organisational factors influencing academics` decisions to pursue the scholarship and teaching of ICT

This paper focuses on Information and Communication Technology (ICT) academics' perceptions of factors that promote and inhibit their pursuit of scholarship in their teaching work. It identifies critical factors that influence academics' attitudes, orientations and behaviours in respect to the scholarship of teaching, and from these builds a framework for understanding the interaction between these factors. We have named this framework the Scholarship of Teaching Support Framework.

During 2001 and 2002 a national project investigated teaching and learning initiatives in the major discipline of lCT in Australia's universities. As part of this project a mini-conference program was devised to elicit academics' perceptions of the factors influencing their teaching work and their participation in scholarly activities around this work. In total 83 ICT teachers from 29 universities participated in the mini-conference program. Attendees included staff members from a range of academic levels.

In discussions of aspects of the scholarship of teaching at the mini-conference participants referred to both attributes and responses of both university teachers and the university institutions. We have categorized these factors into those that relate to the individual academic (Individual domain) and those that relate to the tertiary institutional system (Organisational domain). Many contributions highlighted the interaction between these two domains.

Within the Individual domain, two key factors described by participants as affecting the pursuit of the scholarship of teaching were teachers' motivation towards, and their capabilities in, scholarly activities surrounding their teaching. Within the organizational domain two influential factors also emerged. These were the organizational support provided through allocation of resources and symbolic support reflected in an institution's systems, policies and processes.

Our findings indicate that both the Individual and Organizational domains contribute to university teachers' decisions to pursue (or not to pursue) the scholarship of teaching.

These two domains were seen by participants to interact within university environments to influence whether a particular environment is supportive or unsupportive in terms of the pursuit of the scholarship of teaching. Factors both from and within the individual and the organizational domains were seen to interact with each other forming a web of interrelated factors that appear to influence individuals' decisions to pursue, or not to pursue, the scholarship of teaching. From this complexity four theoretical extremes emerged providing the dimensions and components of the Scholarship of Teaching Support Framework.

We argue that responsive and innovative approaches to university teaching are best supported by academics undertaking scholarly activities around their teaching work, yet this article presents a picture of a university work environment where scholarly activities that focus on teaching and learning are seen as generally unsupported and unrewarded. This perception was identified as commonalities across a university system. Although some exceptions were noted, participants generally agreed that the organisational domain of Australian universities was largely unsupportive of the pursuit of the scholarship of teaching. Similarly, in general, university ICT teachers were not thought to have the backgrounds and capabilities necessary for pursuing the scholarship of teaching, such as familiarity with literature on teaching and learning and skills in educational evaluation. However, despite perceived inhibitors in universities' organisational culture and allocation of resources, and a perceived lack in individuals' skills, participants agreed that scholarly activities and innovation in university teaching and learning do take place, These are largely driven by the intrinsic motivation of individuals. It was recognised that further work is necessary to explore how motivation can be engendered and encouraged.

The Scholarship of Teaching Support Framework is a useful tool for examining how conducive a given university teaching context is to the scholarship of teaching and, therefore, can be used for review purposes within both research and policy contexts. Such tools will become increasingly important as policy changes begin to affect practices in how university teaching work is managed, supported and encouraged.

Not just social work academics : the involvement of others in the assessment of social work students

University regulations typically assume that the assessment of students is essentially a task for paid academic staff. However, this is a far cry from much of the current literature about assessment in social work education, of which one of the distinguishing features is the not infrequent references to stakeholders beyond the individuals who are to be assessed and the academic staff employed to teach them. This paper reviews some of the recent literature on the involvement of persons other than social work academics, including students, practice teachers and service users, in assessing students studying in social work programmes. Implications for programme providers of using non-academic assessors are explored.

Women in research? Investigating research opportunities for female academics in Australia

Women continue to be surprisingly under-represented in academia, given the increasing numbers of female postgraduate students and the flexible working conditions offered by most Australian Universities. To date, research has emphasised multiple causes for the 'gender gap' in academia, including the structural characteristics of the university system, cultural and societal barriers to the advancement of women, the influence of marital status on the productivity of women academics and the interaction of cultural, social and personality factors on women's professional careers. However, the implications of a 'gender gap' in academic rank reach beyond arguments of equality between sexes, to questions regarding consequences of a male-dominated professoriate to the nature and subjects of academic research in Australia. The aim of this paper is to investigate the factors that determine the rank of Australian academics and in part, to investigate whether there is a gender gap of rank or authority, through an analysis of data collected on all Australian academics by the Federal Department of Education, Science and Training. The implications of these findings on opportunities for female academic researchers and for research outcomes will be discussed.

New models for learning flexibility: νegotiated choices for both academics and students

‘Flexible learning’ represents a need associated with ‘lifelong learning’ and the equipping of graduates to actively engage in a ‘knowledge society’. While the precise meaning of each of these terms is not easy to discern, notions of flexible learning have progressed an evolutionary path that concentrates on students as though they are the only stakeholder group in the higher education environment that would benefit from choice. Academic discourse also presumes that all cultural groups making up the increasingly diverse student population aspire to engage in student-centred learning as a precursor to involvement in a knowledge economy. In this environment academics have been encouraged to embrace online teaching and promote a more student-centred learning approach when the natural inclination and talent of many academics may make this style of pedagogy so challenging that learning outcomes are compromised. We question this ‘one size fits all’ mentality and suggest a model that empowers both the students and academics by allowing them the ability to choose the approach that suits their educational philosophy and preferred learning/teaching approach. The model represents an innovation in flexibility that recognises initial embedded learning foundation abilities and reaches both teachers and learners by utilising their own frames of reference.

Plagiarism - the bane of academics lives

Despite lengthy explanations. and multitudes of examples describing what plagiarism is, isn't, how to avoid it, how to cite and reference correctly, students still do it! Why? No doubt we all have our theories. I'm probably stating the obvious here,-but nonetheless, here goes.

Academics' experiences of teaching Australian 'non-local' courses in Hong Kong

This paper reports on some research from an ARC funded project conducted by the authors into the ways in which Australian universities establish collaborations with partners in Hong Kong and Papua New Guinea to offer courses in those countries. The research used principally qualitative methods (interviews, observations, document collection and analysis) to develop case-studies of a range of partnerships in Hong Kong. The project commenced in 1999 and is in its final stages. The paper discusses the experiences of staff who developed, administered and taught courses offered in Hong Kong by Australian institutions in partnership with a local provider. It presents and discusses findings on their reasons for working 'off-shore' in Hong Kong, their engagement with local staff and students, and their experience of Hong Kong students' coping with Australian curricula, pedagogies and assessment.

Attitudes about work practices, time allocation and publication output: profiles of U.S. marketing academics

This study examines attitudes of U.S.-based Academy of Marketing Science members toward teaching, research, participation in administration (including service), and academic promotional issues. Individuals were grouped using Ward’s and K-means clustering procedures, which revealed four groups—established academics, research-focused academics, less satisfied midcareer academics, and satisfied teachers. Clusters were further profiled according to the amount of time spent on teaching, research, and administration; research output; and individual demographic and institutional characteristics. Overall, clusters were generally dissatisfied with a range of work-related issues, with workload stress appearing as an issue that needs to be addressed within marketing academia.

Attitudes about work practices, time allocation and publication output : profiles of Australasian marketing academics

The Australasian tertiary education sector has undergone significant organizational and cultural changes, which have increased pressures on academics to undertake a range of additional activities while at the same time improving research performance. These pressures impact on individuals in different ways, although there may be some groups or clusters of individuals within institutions with common characteristics. Managers may need to develop different sets of management strategies and policies to assist each group of academics to deal better with these pressures and improve their individual performance. The paper examines Australasian marketing academics’ perceptions of their work environments and whether these perceptions result in differing clusters of individuals who might also vary based on their research performance, time allocated to different academic roles, and their professional and demographic characteristics. Sixty-eight members of the Australian and New Zealand Academy of Marketing responded to a survey using a modified version of an instrument developed by Diamantopoulos et al. (1992). K-means clustering procedure identified four groups of academics – “Traditional Academics,” “Satisfied Professors,” “Newer Academics,” and “Satisfied Researchers.” While only a few significant differences among clusters were identified in relation to time allocated to academic activities and research performance, it appears that clusters differ on several professional and demographic characteristics.

Exploring multi-dimensional perceptual ranking of marketing journals by North American academics

This paper develops a weighted multi-dimensional perceptual rankings based on respondents evaluation of a journals prestige, contribution to theory, contribution to practice and contribution to teaching. Comparisons are made between rankings of individual criteria and composite rankings. Comparisons are also made to recent single dimension perceptual-based rankings and citation-based rankings.

Multi-dimensional examination of marketing journal rankings by North American academics

This paper extends the journal ranking debate by developing weighted multi-dimensional perceptual rankings based on respondents' evaluation of a journals' prestige, contribution to theory, contribution to practice and contribution to teaching. Spearman correlations indicate that journal rankings based on each of the evaluative criteria are statistically significantly correlated for all pairs of criteria, other than teaching and theory. The multi-dimensional evaluation is also statistically significantly correlated to all individual criteria, other than the teaching dimension. A cluster analysis of the journals using the four evaluative criteria identified that there are three groupings of journals: A, B, and C. In most cases, A journals are evaluated as performing better than B journals on each of evaluative criteria other than for the contribution to teaching where there are no difference in perceptions between groups. B journals are viewed to perform better than C journals on prestige, contribution to practice and contribution to teaching, but not based on their prestige of weighted evaluation. This suggests that there are differences in how academics view each group of journals, although these differences do seem to vary based on the grouping being considered (i.e., A, B, or C).

A grouping journals using multi-dimensional perceptual criteria of North American marketing academics

This paper seeks to develop groupings of journals (A, B, C) using multi-dimensional perceptual rankings, based on North American respondents’ evaluation of a journal’s prestige, contribution to theory, contribution to practice and contribution to teaching. Nonparametric comparisons of criterion mean values indicate that there are generally statistically significant correlations between criteria. Cluster analysis identifies A, B, and C 'categorisations' of journals are different in regards to all four evaluative criteria.