140 Book Reviews Blackburn, / Comptes Robert Motivation, T., & Rendus Lawrence, Expectation, Janet H . Satisfaction. H o p k i n s University Press, pp. focus o f this book Baltimore Faculty M D : at work: T h e Johns xviii-389. Reviewed by Cheryl Amundsen, McGill T h e (1995). is t h e University. motivation o f faculty and h o w it expressed in the w o r k faculty do, specifically in the three required is areas o f r e s e a r c h , t e a c h i n g a n d s e r v i c e . T h e m a j o r i t y o f t h e b o o k is d e v o t e d a theoretical f r a m e w o r k survey the o f the Lawrence, survey decades; studies. challenge s u c h as: the q u a l i t y two to and the studies conducted to validate the f r a m e w o r k a n d a discussion results Janet o f faculty motivation and productivity, The the validity of academic faculty publish authors, publications less o n c e Robert of some Blackburn c o m m o n of and perceptions has decreased in the they are p r o m o t e d ; and p r e f e r t e a c h i n g t o r e s e a r c h m o r e o f t e n t h a n m e n b e c a u s e o f its last women nurturing role. T h e authors are to b e c o m m e n d e d for the t h o r o u g h n e s s w i t h which t h e y treat e v e r y aspect o f their w o r k . would Replication o f these studies c e r t a i n l y n o t b e a p r o b l e m . T h e c o m p r e h e n s i v e r e v i e w o f the r e l e v a n t literature a l o n e m a k e s this a v e r y useful reference b o o k . O n the other hand, t h i s b o o k is n o t a n e a s y r e a d p r e c i s e l y b e c a u s e o f t h e d e t a i l e d m a n n e r in w h i c h it is w r i t t e n . they propose " m o d e l s b o t h i m m e d i a t e a n d f u t u r e p r o d u c t i v i t y as a f f e c t e d b y The ongoing interactions b e t w e e n individual faculty m e m b e r s a n d their w o r k environ- ments" authors (p. 26). suggest The that the theoretical framework is m a d e u p o f s e v e r a l c o n s t r u c t s are related in m o r e direct o r less direct w a y s : environmental knowledge, response, socio-demographic social k n o w l e d g e , framework behavior, environmental which conditions, characteristics, career, social contingencies and selfprod- ucts. M o s t o f these constructs are self-evident; h o w e v e r , the m e a n i n g of t w o o f t h e m , s e l f - k n o w l e d g e a n d social k n o w l e d g e , m a y not be obvious. S e l f - k n o w l e d g e according to the authors contains a n u m b e r o f variables i n c l u d i n g faculty interest in a n d preference for a particular role, commit- m e n t to various aspects o f faculty w o r k , a n d efficacy or c o m p e t e n c e influence. of various Social knowledge aspects is d e s c r i b e d b y t h e a u t h o r s as o f the w o r k Canadian Journal of Higher Education Vol. XXVI-1,1996 environment" (p. 99). and "perceptions They go on to 141 Book Reviews explain: " F a c u l t y f o r m beliefs from / Comptes Rendus experiences with colleagues, adminis- trators, c o m m i t t e e decisions . . . T h e s e beliefs constitute their social edge" (p. 99). I n the f r a m e w o r k , socio-demographic characteristics career aspects h a v e an m a j o r influence o n self-knowledge. conceptualize thought social knowledge (self-knowledge), as the k e y and Self-knowledge in turn has a m a j o r influence o n social k n o w l e d g e . E n v i r o n m e n t a l also has a m a j o r influence o n social k n o w l e d g e . T h e knowl- response authors explain, link between " W e self-referent the other individual variables, a n d behavior" ( p . 2 7 ) . B e h a v i o u r o r f a c u l t y a c t i v i t y is, o f c o u r s e , d i r e c t l y l i n k e d to the products the of work. In Chapters 2 and 3, the authors further define constructs a n d associated variables o f the f r a m e w o r k a n d discuss the rele v a n t literature. I n the three chapters that f o l l o w , the authors present procedures, analyses a n d results o f several large s u r v e y studies the which t h e y c o n d u c t e d t o test t h e f r a m e w o r k i n t e r m s o f p r o d u c t i v i t y i n r e s e a r c h (Chapter 4), teaching (Chapter 5), and service (Chapter 6). T o the authors' credit, they discuss the limitations o f survey data, in general and s p e c i f i c t o t e s t i n g a f r a m e w o r k w h i c h is i n h e r e n t l y l o n g i t u d i n a l . S o m e the overall findings o f these studies are briefly discussed of below. Research T h e variables in the f r a m e w o r k predicted over fifty percent o f the ance in t w o - y e a r However, the publications variables rates in the v a r i o u s which produced institutional significant changes e x p l a i n e d v a r i a n c e w e r e n o t identical f o r all institutional types, ing "that one needs to take into account w h e r e faculty varitypes. in members work w h e n m a k i n g inferences regarding their motivations t o w a r d research publishing" (p. 143). Generally, self-knowledge and social ucts than socio-demographic or career variables. The study conducted to determine gender In addition, o f prod- course, productivity. differences in research p r o d u c t i v i t y w a s limited to a small s a m p l e o f faculty in the sciences showed reported few significant more) findings. Effort directed toward a n d past publication records and knowledge variables were better predictors o f faculty behaviours and research p a s t p e r f o r m a n c e e m e r g e d as a s t r o n g i n d i c a t o r o f the suggest- (men were and research (men stronger here) Canadian Journal ofHigher Education Vol. XXVI-1,1996 142 Book Reviews contributed / Comptes significantly Rendus to the comparison of m e n with H o w e v e r , the authors suggest that w h a t this s t u d y i m p l i e s ". w o m e n . is: . . i f one wants to understand better w h a t explains the ductivity of female academics, one must investigate female a c a d e m i c s as f e m a l e a c a d e m i c s , n o t i n c o m p a r i s o n w i t h I t is t i m e t o set a s i d e t h e n o t i o n t h a t t h e e x i s t i n g , male model w o m e n men. essentially . . . W e h a v e also learned that m a n y m a l e attributes d o not predict for w o m e n " (p. is t h e s t a n d a r d t o m e a s u r e pro- by 163). Teaching The authors turn n e x t to e x p l o r i n g h o w well their f r a m e w o r k explains faculty a n d the teaching role. T h e y use the w i d e l y accepted a r g u m e n t that the o u t c o m e s o f t e a c h i n g are n o t as easily d e t e r m i n e d as the o u t c o m e s of research to justify their use o f the variable "effort g i v e n to teaching" as their principal o u t c o m e measure. This chapter was a disappointment t h o u g h the authors readily admit that m e a s u r i n g the effort g i v e n to ing p r o b a b l y will not lead to further understanding o f quality in There teaching. does exist a small, but g r o w i n g literature c o n c e r n i n g expertise teaching w h i c h the authors might have of elementary and secondary teachers, there seek to describe the e v o l v e m e n t are several o f teaching training frameworks expertise (thinking a n d a c t i o n s ) i n h i g h e r e d u c a t i o n ( s e e , f o r e x a m p l e , S h e r m a n et al., Schulman, 1987; Ramsden, ically these f r a m e w o r k s interesting to base at least s o m e these frameworks. most evolved concerned 1992; Kugel, For o f the outcome example, level o f teaching about what 1 9 9 3 ) . E f f o r t s to test 1987; systemat- is o n l y b e g i n n i n g ; h o w e v e r it w o u l d h a v e from as o n e students have variables on all o f the f r a m e w o r k s in w h i c h been concepts view t h e i n s t r u c t o r is to learn in relationship problems (Ramsden, sider h o w considers 1992, with p. removed teaching learning 114). This may this m o d e to be it, d i r e c t t h e m e t h o d s seem like c o m m o n o f operating the transmission Canadian Journal of Higher Education Vol. XXVI-1,1996 is f r o m the most to h o w should b e taught. In other w o r d s , "the content to be taught, a n d the dents' in consulted. W h i l e it is t r u e t h a t t h e b u l k o f t h i s l i t e r a t u r e f o c u s e s o n t h e which even teach- he or she it stu- uses" sense, yet con- the professor who of information from expert 143 Book Reviews (him/herself) to the largely passive student. A still w e l l r e m o v e d , / Comptes Rendus more evolved position, but w o u l d be the professor w h o considers her/his role be the facilitator o f student activities driven b y the belief that active dents are better than passive of what from would thoughts require surveyed. change and actions that not o n l y Certainly would often, be, behaviours professors their syllabus rather than k n o w l e d g e stu- w i l l encourage the desired learning. T o create an o u t c o m e measure teaching students, to who admittedly, but reasons expend o f effort given to teaching, on teaching. on the f r a m e w o r k ing (personal preference for teaching and process of the in accounted (transmitting demonstrating a scholarly process)" (pp. teach- scholarship), the for that: cation to teaching (concern for students), a n d the and teaching Some ". . . personal beliefs matter, especially c o m m i t m e n t to content be teaching. 5 4 % o f the variance explained. T h e authors conclude o f and L a w r e n c e studies reported this b o o k m i g h t correlate w i t h h i g h e r quality In terms a lot o f t i m e and read books o u t c o m e measures used in the B l a c k b u r n & a challenge for behaviours dedi- importance discipline and 216-217). Service The authors consider the service role o f faculty in terms o f their professional and institutional service. The framework did not m u c h o f the variance in quantity o f service, the p r i m a r y o u t c o m e The one predictor o f service involvement which was public, explain measure. significant institutional types w a s being a m a l e full professor. Reassuringly, in all faculty's b e l i e f that they c o u l d h a v e an influence o n unit decisions w a s a significant predictor o f time given to service in seven o f the institutional types. The final tive views study focused o n the comparison o f faculty and concerning, for example, the characteristics administra- of valued faculty m e m b e r s , the influence o f faculty o n departmental a n d institutional sions, and conditions for student learning. In research and doctoral institutions, there w e r e significant differences in the perceptions o f the g r o u p s . T h e a u t h o r s ' d i s c u s s i o n o f w h y t h e s e d i f f e r e n c e s e x i s t is decitype two interest- ing reading. Canadian Journal of Higher Education Vol. XXVI-1,1996 144 Book Reviews / Comptes Rendus I n t h e last c h a p t e r , t h e a u t h o r s r e t u r n to their initial d i s c u s s i o n s o f v a r i ous theories relevant to faculty m o t i v a t i o n a n d discuss h o w their frame- w o r k m i g h t be i m p r o v e d . T h e y also return to the limitation o f s u r v e y a n d the n e e d f o r l o n g i t u d i n a l d a t a in all areas o f f a c u l t y w o r k . They c l a i m initial success w i t h their f r a m e w o r k a n d state: " B e h a v i o r v a r i a b l e s w e r e s t r o n g p r e d i c t o r s , as w o u l d b e c o n s i s tent w i t h our theory. Faculty good at ( s e l f - c o m p e t e n c e ) , them (interest and percentage do what devote they believe they energy to w h a t o f effort preferred), are interests engage in a c t i v i t i e s i n w h i c h t h e y c a n i n f l u e n c e o u t c o m e s ( e f f i c a c y ) . I t is not surprising then, that the corresponding behavior - d o i n g research - results in publications" (p. 2 8 1 ) . Canadian Journal of Higher Education Vol. XXVI-1,1996 • say, data do