Good teachers are essential and often good teachers put in great energy to preper teaching that little time is left for research. One way out of the dilemma is to create teaching intensive and research intensive positions. Those who do not do much research should teach more. The big challenge is to find a just formular that does not lead that the teaching intensive staff are assigned so much teaching obligations that they are in constant stress.

Good teachers are essential and often good teachers put in great energy to preper teaching that little time is left for research. One way out of the dilemma is to create teaching intensive and research intensive positions. Those who do not do much research should teach more. The big challenge is to find a just formular that does not lead that the teaching intensive staff are assigned so much teaching obligations that they are in constant stress.

if teaching and research go hand-in-hand, the knowledge dissemination would be more pragmatic and the students can understand the intricacies of real life applicaitons of their knoweldge. Hence, advanced learning institutions, give equal importance to teaching and research.

However, it is also importance to see that the faculty members of the instituion should be provided conducive environment for research by giving them reasonable number of classes per week, training in research methodology etc.,

Expecting maximum output from both teaching and research is practically very difficult. hence, balancig these two aspects is crucial for the success of an instituion.

It depends on what they teach. In fact, some teachers do more research than teach, while others vice versa. It is a matter of curriculum design what courses should be taught, and who is eligible to teach articular courses. Actually, in that curriculum some courses might be offered online even by other providers (other universities). That's totally ok. More than that, poor teachers should better be replaced by alternatively available high quality online courses where it is possible. But as I said, usually there's place for teachers who can perfectly well provide basic courses, while not be too active as researchers.

Good teachers can deliver the required knowledge and skills in a good way. They can facilitate the class and help students to learn from each other and from different sources. Therefore to teach you need to be good teacher.

I would focus on the question which the colleague asks:

"Should universities lose such teachers just because their research performance is below the expected level?"

The search for answer here is complicated, multidimensional. E.g., what kind of university? What kind of funding it has? Does it apply principle as "small number of students / large tuition fee" (paid either by government or student /own or loan/)? Can it afford highly selective policy regarding student admission & enrollment, or not (or, absolutely not)!?

Because if a university has solid funding which allows both (1) small number of students, (2) selected by high learning potential - then it can afford to keep small number of academics under high requirements for publication record. They will not have much teaching duties but could be put under pressure for keeping high academic rating by intensive publishing in impact factor journals. And the teaching duties will be more on a consultation basis (i.e. the main emphasis is on independent student worlkload, high degree of self-preparation, individual learning, etc.) - assuming student selection with high intelectual capacity that can hadle complicated scientific matter.

On the other hand - imagine a university pressed to operate a massivicated enrollment (principle "large number of students / low to economically insignificant tuition fee") - by a populist public policy. In this case, we have substantial "student diversity" regarding the capabilities to handle any complicated matter (tertiary level). So, the need here of "very good lecturer" (capable in explaining a scientific matter in a simple way, understandable by much wider audience) is essential - someone who (1) will have to allocate most of her/his time on lecturing, tutoring, etc., however, (2) not doing much research - even if s/he is actually capable - which in this case is not essential and not financially motivated, e.g. no policy to clearly recognize and reward this by university (and/or state) governance.

So, the answer of the question depends on the policies and targets - governmental, organizational - which are set and implemented regarding the academic staff - depending on regulations, financial status, etc. I am sure that there are also other distinct cases that can be presented in order to describe situation unter which universities "should" or "should not lose such teachers just because their research performance is below the expected level"...

In general I completely agree with Boshnakov's answer. I would only add that even in universities deeply committed to research, some people has to be nonetheless mainly devoted to teaching. Many years ago I was at the Littauer building (where it is located the department of economics of Harvard University). The colleague who was with me pointed at the list of faculty staff and waited for my reaction. I recognized a number of Nobel prizes and other internationally renowned scholars, but also a number of totally unknown people.(at least to me). I asked "who is who?" apropos of them. His reply was: "Somebody who teaches to undergraduates there must be even at Harvard". Clear?

I think it depends on the mission of the specific university, if the university is research-oriented, then we have to accept the loss of those do not have good research record

The opposite can also be asked.In my mind, i think that both have their importance.So,it will not be usefuled to fire a teacher because he has poor research background. Somehow, some are called to teach and others to do research.

From a theoretical point of view it is argued that a good researcher can teach students the most updated knowledge in the discipline. That is why good research is argued to be a requisite for teachers.

However, in my personal experience, it is difficult for a good researcher to ba a good teacher. In most cases, s(he) is boring at classes and/or has no interest in teaching.

On the contrary, there are many very good teachers who are very poor in their research production.

As a matter of fact, teaching and research require different skills. So, it is only by coincidence that a good teacher is a good researcher and viceversa.

I think that only for graduate courses a good research production should be a requisite for teachers.

It depends on the university. Some universities concentrate on research much more than teaching. At a research university, the faculty member's research is much more important then their teaching ability. In fact, the graduate students do most of the teaching. However, there are "Teaching" universities, where the teaching ability is much more important than research. I happen to work at a "Teaching" university. I have seen faculty members get fired because they weren't very good teachers, but they had excellent research published. If you are a very good teacher, but don't shine at research, then I would encourage you to seek employment at a "Teaching" university, rather than at a "Research" university.

It depends on the definition of good teaching and good research.

If we define good teaching as the ability to generate good contemporaneous reviews from students, then I would doubt that these good teachers with poor research records should be retained. If, on the other hand, good teachers are ones who contribute meaningfully to the successes of their students, then retain those teachers. How can you tell whether a teacher has made such contributions? Well, you can poll students after 5 years have passed. Or you could do an econometric study of it. The dependent variable would be a measure of success and the explanatory variables would be the number of hours with the teachers in the subject institution as well as test scores on entry to the institution.

So what is good research? Good research, in my estimation, is research that contributes to the function to which it is intended. If the most important function is teaching, then reviews of the literature or textbooks might be the best sort of research. Using this measure of research, academics who stay away from the cutting edge of their discipline should still find a place at the university.

Good teachers are assets of universities. If a professor can not be good researcher as well, i think universities should not loose that person. Because both, teaching and research are different streams. Good teaching is a skill which every teacher does not have neccessarily.