Hi,

Both functions are important, but for promotion purposes the university committees consider research as more important.

My understanding is that it really depends on the institution, but in general, research tends to be valued more. One contributing factor is probably that success in research leads to promotion, reputation, recognition, and access to funding. And while success in teaching can give a sense of personal satisfaction, it doesn’t tend to promote one‘s career the way success in research does. Personally, I think stronger incentives to promote quality teaching would be a good thing, though I can see how it could be difficult to quantify and measure such a thing objectively.

Thank you Avishag and Kris.

Both are important in a university institution. In my experience, teaching is nourished by research and allows you to discriminate what to give more emphasis in your classes, so that your students achieve better learning. However, there are aspects of teaching itself that are crucial to generate quality learning opportunities such as the atmosphere of trust you generate with your students, the quality of the evaluations to be carried out to certify what they have learned, the type of feedback you give them.

Research helps your conceptual mastery of what you teach to be up-to-date, but mastering the pedagogical content of what you teach is very relevant as well.

I think the mistake is to put research and teaching as antagonistic elements in the work of a teacher, instead of looking at them as complementary aspects of a good academic.

Thanks Carla for your thoughtful observations. Another problem I see is the disproportionate focus sometimes given to one or the other- especially the neglect of teaching in favor of research.

No one is more important then the other. What you teach is what your research and what you research is what you teach.

I agree with carla madam views But research provides innovativeness in teachings learning process. Promotions may be given not only on seniority base but notable credit also given in recruitment and promotion

Definitely teaching and it should be based on research because teaching is an on going process and it may be changed time time based on the research result.

On the other hand, without good research , a teaching will not be effective.

Shouldn't all your suggestions mean universities cannot sideline teaching in the name of conducting research?

Research and Teaching are two inseparable side of EDUCATION.

Depending on Funding Research can be;

1. Applied Research

2. Basic Research

Institute should go out of four walls of class room to Industry and find their problem and do research both at Institute and Industry - this is applied research, in the process may lead to some question / query for basic research.

I believe in research-based teaching, otherwise how we can find out what to teach and how to teach. However, your follow-up question itself is not a question for teachers. Rather, it is a question for management or administration. Sadly, some of us are in the same situation.

The answer is much related to where the universities are located.

If universities are found in developed affluent countries, then you may find them defining their institutions as teaching & research centers providing adequate resources to carry out both in a pertinent arrangement.

If universities are located in developing poor countries, then teaching ought to be of prime importance because there are no appropriate means to support a good quality research. In some 3rd world universities, one will scientifically doubt if there is genuine research in spite of the "claimed" publications. There are American & European departments who know very well what really goes on in these universities but they have postponed exposing the perpetrators for some time.

As my knowledge, universities or educational institutions may give equal importance to research and teaching. But after some level, some of committees give priority to research in higher level.

Both, and especially research based teaching.

Personally, both research and teaching are siamese twins that are inseparably important in changing the conditions and persons in our societies for the better. Universities must pursue these relevant activities with equal attention.

To answer the question directly, I would say both. However, I would rather move away from teaching versus research, debate and would like to succeed linking them creatively. We have still much to learn as to how to set up these links or connections. For me, teaching and research are complementary to one another, each in some synergistic way building on and supporting the other in some form.

As my personal view both are important, It depends on institutions .

I think about research-based teaching to help students think and learn like researchers. Problem based learning and inquiry enhance critical thinking. Students are more involved and more responsible of their learning. They will also more prepared after graduation.

I am sharing my article about research-based teaching.

Hello,

Both teaching and research are important and could be linked together by different ways. The following link provides four different approaches for research-teaching nexus:

https://sc.edu/about/offices_and_divisions/cte/teaching_resources/maintainingbalance/link_teaching_research/

There are two options given research or teaching . What it means is that one is supposed to choose between those options. I am of the opinion that research should assume more importance in universities. Universities should be generators on new knowledge hence this should be acquired through research.

I can only comment from aUK and Mexican perspective. In the UK higher education is a business and students are customers or clients, and pay the full cost of their education. I'm not sure that universities have adjusted fully to this relatively new reality, but failure togive value for money in supporting student learning may be commercially and legally disastrous . Research funding depends on quality Much ofuniversity funding in both the UK and Mexicorather crude quality indicators depends on in which research achievements feature strongly. Prudent administrtors attend to these indicatores at the expense of real quality, so that much research is short term, triviad fucusmore on measurable outcomes than

Universities can each have their own blend of research and education. However, where a university is providing education, it should require those teaching to be qualified to teach, regardless of their research status. Learning to teach makes a researcher a better teacher, as Bryant and Richardson found (2015).

Reference

Bryant, D., & Richardson, A. (2015). To be, or not to be, trained. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 37(6), 682-688. URL https://doi.org/10.1080/1360080X.2015.1102818

Apologies for my very garbled post- it wasn't me, it was the computer.... In summary, what I meant to say is: as a business, students are customers and are paying for teaching.University funding depends on meeting indicators. which prioritize measurable research outcomes. How universities deal with the conflicts that arise from these two aspects of their business varies, but in any case has nothing to do with real quality in either teaching or research.

For me, research should be given more weight than teaching because research is an application of someones' gained knowledge. Besides, anyone can teach but not everyone can do research. I noticed in the Philippines setting, many teachers pursuing MAs stopped after they completed their academic requirements because they thought doing research was difficult. Moreover, in teaching, we share knowledge on the other hand, in research, we dig and discover knowledge, explore new ideas, determine solutions to a certain problem, etc.

Ariel, I am not sure anyone can teach. I see eminent researchers who don;'t seem to know the first thing about teaching. Part of the problem is that they assume teaching is obvious and easy, so they don't do the training (which Australian universities provide free to their staff). As a result researchers teaching tend to make mistakes which, for a trained teacher, would be obvious.Some of the mistakes have seen are to provide far more content that it is feasible for students to do, to not have assessment related to the course content, to have multiple choice tests without randomized answers (so it is easy to cheat) and to change deadlines. Perhaps the biggest mistake is to not factor in the amount of work the teacher has to do in marking.

Research and teaching are two important key deliverables of universities. No research no teaching. To be progressive, you need research and versa verse. I was first trained as a teacher then becoming a researcher. So, the deal is what I teach is what I research and what I research is how I teach.

Tom, you can't disregard my view on "everyone can teach." As I mentioned, in Philippine setting, MA students who at the same time studying their MA's are hindered doing research. Why? because they seldom or never utilize their knowledge of research in doing their teaching. Thus, they can teach but not research. Well, our educational system is different. Personally, I am not an education major but before I go into research, I taught for 8 years. It was only when I indulged into research I grasped the essence of teaching and research. They intertwined.

Zeeshan, It is not what I preferred but it all depends on what is your intellectula project's purpose and research questions entails. I included some useful sources to clear some "muddy points" and can explore these two sources:

1] Creswell, W.J (2012). Educational Research Planning, Conducting and Evaluating Qualitative and quantitative research, 4nd ed, Pearson Education

2] Okeke, CIO and van Wyk MM (2015). Educational Research: an African approach (Chapter 10). Oxford University Press

I suggest, ask for Oxford University Press for a desktop copy.

both ,Research and teaching are two important key deliverables of universities .

The emphasis should be on research and to carry out research teaching is required so the ultimate goal will be achieved. But teaching may not lead to research.... SO RESEARCH should be first PRIORITY>>>>>>.......

Research should more focused upon.

IMHO, the level of the research is significantly higher than the level of teaching, but their importance is almost the same.

Research is the first priority.

You can switch from research important to teaching more improtant or vice versa depending on the students, the courses, the university public/private...

I have considered for some years (4 years) teaching as the most important when I changed the language of teaching from French to English.

I have considered management as the most important when I was Head of Department for 3 years. The reason was only to serve my colleagues, students and my institution correctly.

I have considered reseach more important for some years before being promoted and for the current years as I do not have new courses to teach...

Si it depends ...