Most of the researchers use to teach at university. In some careers, professionals who exert their profession without doing research share teaching spaces. When I was a chemistry student, 100% of my teachers were researchers ranging from PhD candidates to experts in their respective fields. While it may seem logical for researchers to be the best candidates to teach in fields such as chemistry or biology, what about healthcare-related fields like medicine, pharmacy, or biochemistry? Who is better suited to lead a class, a researcher or a professional, or both, each one in different subjects? We can distinguish between basic and clinical subjects. I am interested in hearing your thoughts on this matter.
Dear Dr. Cristián Quintero
Are the researchers better professors? Not necessary. You can have three groups.
a) One could be good at both.
b) One could be worse at both.
c) One could be a good researcher and a bad teacher and vice versa.
The skills required for both (research and teaching) are quite different. A researcher should possess deep knowledge about the subject, passion for science, and critical thinking skills, while a teacher should be excellent in communication skills, patience, teamwork, time management, listening to and inspiring students.
I know about researchers who possess both sets of skills. Such researchers can become good teachers. Researchers who are excited about their research achievements and if they possess the teaching skills, can surely become good teachers.
A professional is better suited to lead a class, but a researcher will perform much better than the professional if he/she possesses the teaching skills.
Regards,
Malcolm Nobre
Malcolm Nobre makes excellent points. But a key issue is that there is one thing necessary for both researchers and teachers: deep knowledge of the subject. This knowledge set is a moving target, since as science progresses what constitutes such knowledge evolves. Top researchers must keep up with this moving target to stay on top, and they know it. Those who only teach have much less motivation to keep up with the moving target. They can become static and then out of date. If someone taught biochemistry but their knowledge of biochemistry ended at 1980 it would miss a LOT. So, at a lower level where we mainly teach fundamentals that do not change so rapidly we can use people who teach and do not do research, to maintain relevance at higher levels we use people who do both. Some of them are not so good at the raw mechanics of teaching. But we put up with it because they stay current.
Thanks for your contributions.
I agree that any academic committee participating in a teaching competition should consider both criteria.
On the one hand, as Malcolm Nobre suggests, there are three possibilities to distinguish. On the other hand, as James E Hanson points out, research helps to stay updated with the literature and advancements in science.
However, being a great neuroscientist does not necessarily make one the best professor of neurosurgery, especially if their work is based solely on primary cultures of neurons, for example.
On the other hand, it depends a lot on the teaching position offered. While some universities have numerous candidates for a single position, others may have none or just a single one for the position.
Teaching is an art. At higher class at master's and Ph.D. level researchers are the best teachers, because the higher class don't require basics of any subject, they need advanced literature/ new findings which help them to update their knowledge and plan their research. That depends on the researcher, he/she always should teach or do research on the subject they teach., not forcibly teach new subject without having knowledge.
Research provides the field of specilization. So definitely researchers have more knowledge in their research area. But as far as good teaching is concerned these factors may be positively correlated but research doesn't guarentee good teaching. Teaching involves communication skills as to how you can make your lecture interesting for active participation of students. So a good teacher may not be a good researcher and vice versa.
Being a proficient researcher doesn't necessarily equate to being a better professor. While research expertise can enhance teaching by bringing current knowledge and real-world applications into the classroom, effective teaching requires distinct skills such as communication, empathy, and the ability to engage students.
A good professor balances both research and teaching responsibilities, tailoring their approach to meet the needs of their students while contributing to their field through research. However, being a successful researcher doesn't guarantee effective teaching, as teaching requires its own set of abilities and dedication.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Medicine
- Disease
- Infectious Diseases