Divided Loyalties: Induction to Changing Expectations\nThe Perceptions of a Group of Recently Appointed University Faculty about the Expectations for Teaching and Research in the Performance of their Professorial Roles.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
University professors are under growing pressures to perform multiple roles with excellence. The changing landscape of education in the 21st century increasingly calls for professors to excel in both the craft of teaching and research scholarship in their fields of scholarship. In their core vision and purpose statements research universities are recommitting to achieving excellence in student engagement in learning by promoting scholarship and performance in teaching and by developing in-service education programs to assist faculty in meeting these expectations. However, how do faculty view the increasing commitments to excellence in instruction?This study reports on the perceptions of a group of faculty recently appointed to positions in a large research university regarding their understandings of the roles and expectations associated with their new positions. Findings were derived from in-depth semi-structured interviews with nine full-time faculty members at a public university in Western Canada. All interview participants had been hired within five years of the study’s commencement in the summer of 2013. Faculty perceptions of expectations and responsibilities for instruction, research, and service, were contrasted with their lived experiences of induction processes, institutional support, and the relative priorities seen as being attached to performance in research and teaching roles.Participating faculty reported a variety of experiences in their orientations and inductions by the university and their respective departments as new appointees. Participants described perceiving a sense of competing priorities between the pursuit of research in their disciplines and the demands of teaching. They also expressed beliefs that research activities are given greater weight than teaching performance in assessments for contract renewal, tenure, and promotion. Faculty hired specifically as Lecturers, without the expectation of developing research careers, expressed greater clarity regarding role expectations, although some still wished to conduct research as an optional extension to their job descriptions. The study offers suggestions for improvements to university induction practices and suggests that while induction and orientation are often focused on the early stages of an appointment to a new position, there is a need for on-going professional development directed both at teaching and research roles throughout the careers of university professors.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".