The Canadian Journal of Higher Education La revue canadienne d'enseignement supérieur Volume XXVI-1,1996 Research at Two Small Canadian Universities: The Views of Faculty DAVID FURROW Mount Saint Vincent University COLIN TAYLOR Trent University Abstract Faculty members at t w o small Canadian universities were sent a ques- tionnaire in w h i c h they w e r e asked about research activities a n d prefer- ences, views factors which they Respondents of themselves felt either were as r e s e a r c h e r s , constrained highly or and views facilitated c o m m i t t e d to research, about research though activities. gave teaching an equally high priority. V i e w s o f influences w e r e similar across sities, w i t h non-teaching commitments, teaching commitments, ability o f graduate students, and availability o f library holdings most detrimental. were s e e n as p o s i t i v e i n f l u e n c e s . W e Personal motivation affect university policy and suggest, and university consider h o w among univeravailseen research faculty views other things, that offices might universi- ties m i g h t w a n t to d e v e l o p a f o r m a l p o l i c y in w h i c h i n d i v i d u a l f a c u l t y a l l o w e d to specialize to s o m e extent in research or as be teaching. This research was supported by the Research Offices at Mount Saint Vincent and Trent Universities, of which the authors were the Director and Associate Dean, respectively. Thanks to all faculty members who took the time to respond to our questionnaire, and especially to Renee Dankner and Joe Muldoon for their assistance. 58 D. Furrow & C. Taylor Résumé L e s professeurs des d e u x petites universités canadiennes o n t r é p o n d u à q u e s t i o n n a i r e p o r t a n t sur leurs activités et p r é f é r e n c e s d e r e c h e r c h e , représentations d'eux-mêmes comme un leurs c h e r c h e u r s et leurs p e r c e p t i o n s des f a c t e u r s q u i a i d e n t o u g ê n e n t les activités d e r e c h e r c h e s . Les accordent une l'enseignement. g r a n d e priorité à la recherche ainsi q u ' à professeurs P e u d e d i f f é r e n c e s s o n t o b s e r v é e s d a n s les p e r c e p t i o n s des p r o f e s s e u r s d e u x u n i v e r s i t é s . L e s p l u s g r a n d s obstacles s o n t les f o n c t i o n s d e t i o n à l ' u n i v e r s i t é , les charges d ' e n s e i g n e m e n t , ants des d e u x i è m e et t r o i s i è m e c y c l e s participa- la disponibilité des étudi- et la d i s p o n i b i l i t é d e s l i v r e s à b i b l i o t h è q u e . L a m o t i v a t i o n d e s c h e r c h e u r s et les b u r e a u x d e la l'administra- tion de la recherche sont perçus de manière positive. L e s auteurs p a r l a suite d e la f a ç o n d o n t les r e p r é s e n t a t i o n s affecter les p o l i t i q u e universitaires. des traitent des professeurs peuvent Ils suggèrent, par e x e m p l e , que les u n i v e r s i t é s p u i s s e n t a u t o r i s e r les p r o f e s s e u r s à c o n s a c r e r p l u s d e t e m p s à la recherche ou à l'enseignement. Factors affecting Universities (Bélanger, several research have 1989; reasons and research received particular Ingalls, for an 1982; attention Owen, especial funding focus in over 1992; Perkin, here. O n e small the past 1985). has (Owen, 1992). Further, there receive a disproportionately research grants. Faculty council members the small n u m b e r Sciences lower success and rate Humanities than their Council those w h o graduate are n o t o f universal ( S S H R C ) A s O w e n (1992) or 1989; O w e n , concern, argued, the enjoy 1992). and teaching and research a n d b u i l d u p t h e r e s e a r c h e n t e r p r i s e at s m a l l u n i v e r s i t i e s ( p . Canadian Journal of Higher Education Vol. XXVi-1,1996 3)". to under- linked and therefore "the debate should not focus on whether faculty small universities should participate in research, but o n h o w to a While they are troubling feel that small universities h a v e a role to p l a y b e y o n d teaching. w h o at l a r g e r u n i v e r s i t i e s , smaller proportions o f them apply (Bélanger, these circumstances that federal at s m a l l u n i v e r s i t i e s Research colleagues sense fact of apply to the N a t u r a l Sciences and Engineering Council ( N S E R C ) Social are institutions is t h e e n d u r i n g small universities decade There been a m o n g m a n y c o m m e n t a t o r s that t h e r e s e a r c h c l i m a t e at s m a l l is c o n s t r a i n e d Canadian are at maintain Faculty Views sions o f university administrators o f the factors responsible Views have been prominent in for the research disadvantage discusat universities and w h a t should be done about them. Perkin (1985) on the need for funds for "teaching-oriented" for research research teams. O w e n administrators (1992), at 2 5 small focused research and o n the building small 59 on need (1982), rank order view, constraints quate research few facilities, lack o f a research tradition, were graduate universities had s e v e n possible constraints o n research activity. I n his respondents' the strongest to weakest Canadian Ingalls heavy students, inadequate teaching loads, little internal secretarial support, inade- funding, and limited contact w i t h others in the field. B é l a n g e r ( 1 9 8 9 ) h a d noted m a n y o f these constraints, along w i t h the "stigma o f the small university". His assess- m e n t o f t h e s i t u a t i o n i n w h i c h f a c u l t y m e m b e r s at s m a l l u n i v e r s i t i e s themselves was Right with from two context, find frank: the start the strikes their small universities against them, emphasis find themselves as a r e s u l t o f t h e i r o n the student-teacher historical relationship, their isolation f r o m the large population centres, and the ple fact that they are small in size. (p. Researchers' views of problems though Adair and Davidson have sim- 19) been less f r e q u e n t l y In a sur- v e y o f s o c i a l s c i e n c e s a n d h u m a n i t i e s f a c u l t y at b o t h s m a l l a n d l a r g e uni- versities, they had ( 1 9 8 3 ) did sample their opinions. cited, respondents "other") possible impediments choices, were the top teaching rank four impediments load, order the top five to research activity. F r o m administrative picked by small responsibilities, a n d b e i n g too critical o f one's o w n w o r k - of 13 (plus amongst university these faculty insufficient funds, a list s i m i l a r to that o f their larger university colleagues. A d a i r a n d D a v i d s o n concluded that lack t i m e w a s p e r c e i v e d to b e the single greatest obstacle to research In the research presented here, w e look at small university faculty's wished views to take a m o r e o f the factors activity. detailed influencing research. T h e i r perceptions could f o r m an important part o f a n y strategy for i m p r o v i n g research conditions. W e w e r e interested not only in views o f w h a t c o n s t r a i n e d r e s e a r c h b u t a l s o in f a c t o r s s e e n to facilitate it; often o n l y the negative alternative has been offered. O u r of too comprehensive Canadian Journal of Higher Education Vol. XXVI-1,1996 60 D. Furrow survey & C. examined Taylor institutional, f a c u l t y m e m b e r s cum personal, and motivational factors. research administrators, w e took an especial est i n researchers' v i e w s o f o u r A s inter- offices. The Questionnaire A l l faculty m e m b e r s eligible for S S H R C universities and Trent naire. were (Mount University A t Mount sent out Trent, they August. Saint Vincent in Peterborough, Saint Vincent in m i d were f u n d i n g at t w o s m a l l University M a y sent out Ontario) University 1994, in Halifax, were ( M S V U ) sent a the Canadian N o v a Scotia question- questionnaires and accepted until the end o f July; in m i d June and accepted until the end T h e questionnaires asked about the highest degree obtained t h e a m o u n t o f t i m e at t h e u n i v e r s i t y , r e s e a r c h activities a n d to either constrain or facilitate research activities. focused on issues p r e v i o u s l y (see especially Ingalls, were not anonymous tionnaire was external 1982, and Harris & T h e questions influences Kaine, holder on 1994). but w e r e guaranteed confidentiality. returned, grant s e e n as i m p o r t a n t the past three years, felt asked research Respondents Once information about the respondent's over of and preferences, v i e w s o f o n e s e l f as a r e s e a r c h e r , a n d v i e w s a b o u t f a c t o r s w h i c h w e r e 1 at a ques- status as an or not the whether respondent held an internal grant over the past three years, the sex o f the respondent, and whether or not he or she w a s f r o m a humanities, social sciences, or professional department w a s a d d e d to the responses. W e had intended to consider M S V U and Trent separately, as case studies o f f a c u l t y v i e w s . T h i s s e e m e d all the m o r e desirable m a n y o f the departments Gerontology, M S V U responses (Business H u m a n came from Administration, Ecology, however, were aspects o f each separately. o f analyses have Consequently, data. within university were considered. Where W e professional Public Studies, Relations, pointless to discuss in what it w a s M S V U follows, the appropriate, responses. all majority analyses w i l l first o f all report o n graphic characteristics and consider overall Canadian Journal of Higher Education Vol. XXVi-1,1996 of Youth T h e responses f r o m s o s i m i l a r t h a t it w a s combined and Office Administration, T o u r i s m ) a n d Trent has n o such disciplines. and Trent, members Child two because demo- Faculty Views 61 Characteristics of the faculty members who responded A t M S V U , members, (88.9%) 120 questionnaires of which 67 were sent to SSHRC-eligible ( 5 5 . 8 % ) were returned completed. grant holders responded, as d i d Sixteen o f 15 o f 19 ( 7 8 . 9 % ) applicants and 36 o f 93 ( 3 8 . 7 % ) non-applicants. A t Trent, naires were (71.0%) ful sent out, with 72 (44.7%) completed. response and rate 43 o f o f 4 9 . 5 % 111 ( 3 8 . 7 % ) is w i t h i n 161 question- Twenty-two non-applicants. acceptable summer, place. after e x a m s Response had statistics m a k e respond because they were data collection ended standards on and graduation no allowance of overall for survey during ceremonies for those sabbatical or o f f c a m p u s who taken did not throughout the period. R e s p o n s e rates w e r e p a r t i c u l a r l y h i g h f o r g r a n t h o l d e r s at b o t h v e r s i t i e s a n d u n s u c c e s s f u l a p p l i c a n t s at M S V U . selective may 31 unsuccess- The research, a n d w a s satisfying g i v e n that the survey w a s conducted the o f those disposed t o w a r d research. T h e s a m p l e is The therefore non-applicant also be a relatively selective one, w i t h those w h o uni- sample chose to respond b e i n g a m o n g those m o r e interested in research since they troubled to out the There were demographic and Trent. W e differences between our faculty h a v e already n o t e d that m a n y samples o f the respondents w e r e f r o m professional disciplines: 20 w e r e f r o m the ities, 1 6 f r o m the social sciences, a n d 3 1 f r o m professional Mount human- departments. F r o m Trent, 35 w e r e f r o m the humanities a n d 3 7 f r o m the social sciences. T h e r e w e r e also sex differences across the universities, w i t h 38 o f 6 7 M o u n t respondents being w o m e n , but only 21 o f 7 2 f r o m Trent. A proportion of Trent longer longer (16.79 faculty (16.33 vs. vs. 12.57 had a Ph.D. 11.61 years). years), M a n y (.90 vs .81), and had been h a d their at the were excluded. N o = 14.56) between with at u n i v e r s i t y the humanities Ph.D. ( M S V U = and social .94), though ( M S V U M = 16.25) science faculties nor sex greater highest differences departments differences in t i m e since highest degree ( n e w and time of university o f these d e m o g r a p h i c disappeared w h e n M o u n t faculty members f r o m professional M fill questionnaire. from M S V U degree 18 unsuccessful g r a n t h o l d e r s r e s p o n d e d , as d i d s e v e n o f 1 9 ( 3 6 . 8 % ) applicants faculty were in differences remained M S V U found proportion (18 of 36 Canadian Journal ofHigher Education Vol. XXVI-1,1996 62 D. Furrow were w o m e n & C. Taylor at M S V U ) . T h e core o f M o u n t Saint Vincent University's m i s s i o n s t a t e m e n t is its c o n c e r n p r i m a r i l y w i t h t h e e d u c a t i o n o f a commitment surely related to the higher representation women, of women on its f a c u l t y . Faculty views Beyond demographic questions, we asked how the respondent choose to spend w o r k i n g time o n teaching, research, and other bilities, and what the respondent thought the university would responsi- administration e x p e c t e d i n t h o s e s a m e t h r e e c a t e g o r i e s . T a b l e 1 lists m e a n r e s p o n s e s each university. Overall, research ( 4 5 . 0 0 % ) and teaching ( 4 2 . 4 8 % ) chosen the same percentage o f time, w i t h departmental, other duties lagging far b e h i n d (12.67%). w a n t time spent on teaching ( 5 2 . 2 4 % ) or other duties ( 2 4 . 5 6 % ) . universities. A (multivariate F ulty had 1.62, 2 (F = 4.56, 2 university as o p p o s e d to r e s e a r c h higher = no significant comments on seen effect o f estimate o f the university's these percentages q u e n t l y expressed v i e w (see, e.g., S m i t h , between university First, the based on studied, research oriented statistics faculty members. S S H R C reported at t h e Research at fac- Bélanger's Canadian Journal of Higher Education Vol. XXVi-1,1996 the sup- to teaching, research, and service ( 5 2 % , what Small percentage o f eligible 30%, (1989) know responded. Secondly, faculty's v i e w o f w h a t the university w a n t e d w i t h to in g r a n t s , t h e n it s e e m s r e a s o n a b l e t o h o w larger university faculties w o u l d have compared Given 1994), had p o s e it is t r u e f o r s m a l l u n i v e r s i t i e s t h r o u g h o u t C a n a d a . W e d o n o t be our small universities, w h i c h highest (Trent) and second highest ( M S V U ) holding are applica- even though Conference held in Charlottetown ( S S H R C , ulty members fre- 1 9 9 1 ) that faculty m e m b e r s t h a t t e a c h i n g i n t e r e s t is s t r o n g at t h e s e t w o calculations for only considered. seem in order. ble in either o f the small universities that w e Universities fac- desire i n t e r e s t e d i n r e s e a r c h t o t h e e x c l u s i o n o f t e a c h i n g is c l e a r l y n o t samples were biased toward to (30.00%) 0 3 5 ) , t h o u g h this t o o disappeared w h e n humanities and social science faculty m e m b e r s w e r e T w o was and 15). O n univariate comparisons, M S V U = a significantly other w o r k showed were committee T h e s e p e r c e n t a g e s d i f f e r e d v e r y little M A N O V A = The for & 25%, sample respect respectively) of Vice can Presidents Faculty Views 63 Table 1 Mean faculty responses to questionnaire items by university Mount Saint Vincent Trent Overall 44.58 42.72 12.73 28.20 53.19 27.40 45.39 42.26 12.61 31.68 51.37 21.92 45.00 42.48 12.67 30.00 52.24 24.56 The time you spend on non-teaching commitments* 1.55 The time you spend on teaching commitments 1.93 The availability of graduate students* 1.96 Availability of library holdings 2.33 Your family responsibilities 2.37 The availability of secretarial support 2.37 The availability of research assistance 2.47 The availability of researchers with similar interests 2.54 2.36 The availability of research space* 2.54 The availability of research equipment* The availability of computer user services 2.55 The availability of computer hardware* 2.69 The research incentives provided by the university 2.76 The university research culture* 2.79 The research orientation in your department* 2.80 The availability of congenial colleagues 2.98 Your knowledge of important techniques 3.12 Your personal health 3.15 Your ability to get an external grant 3.19 Your ability to have completed research published3.73 Your ability to get internal grant funds 3.79 Your ability to find topics to do research on 3.98 Your freedom to design your own research program 4.04 Your motivation to carry out research 4.11 1.84 2.00 2.42 2.34 2.58 2.65 2.63 2.69 2.93 2.77 2.87 3.06 3.14 3.20 3.31 3.21 3.16 3.20 3.20 3.66 3.65 4.10 4.28 4.41 1.70 1.96 2.20 2.33 2.48 2.52 2.55 2.62 2.65 2.66 2.72 2.88 2.96 3.00 3.06 3.10 3.14 3.18 3.20 3.69 3.72 4.04 4.17 4.26 Choose research time Choose teaching time Choose dept, comm., other university time Administration wants research time Administration wants teaching time Admin, wants dept, comm., other university time Influences on Research *means differed across universities, g < .05 Canadian Journal ofHigher Education Vol. XXVI-1,1996 64 D. Furrow (Academic) 20%, & C. at s m a l l respectively). Taylor universities said they expected (54%, 26%, and It seems faculty m e m b e r s h a v e a reasonable idea u n i v e r s i t y expectations, t h o u g h there are indications that t h e y feel worked. W h e n responses to the three questions regarding over- university w a n t s are totalled, t h e y s h o w that faculty felt m e e t i n g u n i v e r s i t y tations w o u l d require 1 0 6 . 8 % o f w o r k i n g All remaining questions were expec- hours. answered on a 1-5 Likert scale, and w e r e o f three types: a) those asking about the influence o f factors o n quality of and/or quantity o f research, (b) those asking researchers to themselves, a n d c) those asking about the influence o f the research the rate office o n various aspects o f research.2 Influences on research. as a n e g a t i v e i n f l u e n c e , O n the influence questions, 1 was 3 as n o i n f l u e n c e , a n d 5 as a p o s i t i v e defined influence. I f r e s p o n s e s a v e r a g i n g less t h a n 2 . 5 are c o n s i d e r e d to i d e n t i f y a negative f a c t o r , 2 . 5 - 3 . 5 as n o t i n f l u e n t i a l , a n d o v e r 3 . 5 as a p o s i t i v e f a c t o r , 5 of 24 factors were negative ones (see T a b l e 1). F r o m then the greater to lesser (i.e., f r o m l o w e s t to highest m e a n ) , these negative influences were time com- spent on non-teaching mitments, the availability commitments, o f graduate time spent o n teaching students, availability of h o l d i n g s , a n d f a m i l y r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s . T h i s list o f c o n s t r a i n t s w a s ably constant across universities, with both f o u r f a c t o r s as t h e greatest i m p e d i m e n t s . faculties having library remark- the same Indeed, the only difference of n o t e in the t o p t e n constraints at e a c h u n i v e r s i t y w a s that space w a s a rela t i v e l y m o r e i m p o r t a n t constraint at M S V U (fifth) than Trent (eleventh). T h o u g h n o t d i r e c t l y c o m p a r a b l e w i t h t h e list w h i c h O w e n ( 1 9 9 2 ) research administrators generate, our findings highlight some f a c u l t y c o n c e r n s . T h e p r i m a r y c o n s t r a i n t w a s seen as n o n - t e a c h i n g m i t m e n t s , a factor not p r e v i o u s l y identified. W e believe that ing c o m m i t m e n t s " refer to university service, a n d informal had different com- "non-teach- conversations w i t h r e s p o n d e n t s s u g g e s t t h a t is h o w it w a s i n t e r p r e t e d ( t h o u g h , g i v e n importance this factor a s s u m e d , ambiguous wording). this needs further e x p l o r a t i o n w i t h less ( 1 9 9 2 ) had both internal funding and univer- sity research culture listed a m o n g constraints, t h o u g h neither w a s viewed as d e t r i m e n t a l by O w e n the our respondents. Indeed, ability to get internal funds w a s v i e w e d as a p o s i t i v e i n f l u e n c e , w h i l e r e s e a r c h c u l t u r e w a s n o t s e e n as Canadian Journal of Higher Education Vol. XXVi-1,1996 Faculty Views a n i n f l u e n c e at all ( t h o u g h see later f o r u n i v e r s i t y d i f f e r e n c e s o n O n e ing culture). o f the advantages o f our m e t h o d o l o g y w a s that, b e y o n d r a n k factors, it a l l o w e d assessment of perceived 65 magnitudes, order- showing t h e s e t w o " c o n s t r a i n t s " w e r e n o t p e r c e i v e d as o b s t a c l e s at all. Faculty viewed five factors as p o s i t i v e research, the strongest being the motivation lowed by f r e e d o m to design one's o w n influences ( M > 3.5) on to carry out research, research program, fol- the ability to f i n d research topics, one's ability to get internal funds, a n d one's ability to get research published. The same five factors, in almost identical w e r e i d e n t i f i e d at e a c h institution. is r e a s s u r i n g , T h e high level o f research suggesting that faculty m e m b e r s order, motivation are ready to take advan- tage o f w h a t e v e r strategies m i g h t b e i m p l e m e n t e d to facilitate research. W h i l e the similarities in responses b y faculty o f the t w o institutions w e r e impressive, there w e r e also differences. T h e s e w e r e not obvious t h e r e l a t i v e a s s e s s m e n t o f i n f l u e n c e s , t h o u g h as w e h a v e s e e n s p a c e a r e l a t i v e l y g r e a t e r c o n c e r n at M S V U , influences. items F = ing A across M A N O V A universities 1 . 9 8 , j2 = with means sity research showed .009). Univariate F variables, M S V U comparing M S V U culture, ratings significant on all 2 4 differences seeing o f nonteaching and research orientation greater (multivariate constrain- impediments. commitments, in one's univer- department, w e l l as the a v a i l a b i l i t y o f g r a d u a t e students, space, e q u i p m e n t , a n d p u t e r h a r d w a r e w e r e all l o w e r t h a n t h o s e at T r e n t . T h e greatest w a s i n t h e m e a n f o r s p a c e ( 2 . 3 6 at M S V U ; were not considered. social cranky disparity sciences positive at M S V U influence we rated ability to get internal funds on their research bly differences were f o u n d those in the humanities than their Trent in faculty perceptions as a and more counterparts. other differences o n positive influences occurred in either The M S V U L e s t it b e t h o u g h t t h a t f a c u l t y at t h e M o u n t t h a n at T r e n t , N o analysis. across universities are proba- a reflection o f the d i f f e r i n g c i r c u m s t a n c e s at the t w o c a m p u s e s . e x a m p l e , at M S V U , as com- 2 . 9 3 at T r e n t ) . M o s t o f t h e s e d i f f e r e n c e s r e m a i n e d e v e n w h e n p r o f e s s i o n a l f a c u l t y m e m b e r s at just more of influence tests s h o w e d d i f f e r e n c e s o n respondents for the influences was but in the assessed m a g n i t u d e mean in research space (and office space, for that matter) b e e n at a p r e m i u m , a n d essentially n o f a c u l t y m e m b e r i n S S H R C For has eligible Canadian Journal of Higher Education Vol. XXVI-1,1996 66 D. Furrow disciplines has & C. individual e.g., the ten m e m b e r o f their own Taylor dedicated research space. Some departments, s o c i o l o g y d e p a r t m e n t , h a v e n o space at all offices. Trent has not experienced the same outside widespread shortage. U n i v e r s i t y differences in faculty's perceptions o f the availabil- ity o f g r a d u a t e students are l i k e w i s e easily a c c o u n t e d for. A t M S V U o n l y graduate p r o g r a m s are in E d u c a t i o n a n d H u m a n E c o l o g y . A t most faculty members Trent has one single- would have discipline and/ or humanities. to graduate graduate program also three inter- disciplinary M . A . ences access programs These programs level Trent, activity. (Anthropology), and span the social sci- an opportunity for which provide m o s t f a c u l t y m e m b e r s t o b e i n v o l v e d i n g r a d u a t e studies as thesis v i s o r s , m e m b e r s o f s u p e r v i s o r y c o m m i t t e e s o r as i n s t r u c t o r s i n level courses if they research in m a n y choose. This involvement super- graduate has been a stimulus feel they help and our questionnaire. establish the validity The remaining points o f faculty differences perceptions o f difference between u n i v e r s i t i e s are either less easily translated into o b s e r v a b l e factors teaching c o m m i t m e n t s , university culture, departmental research t i o n ) o r r e q u i r e d a t a less r e a d i l y a v a i l a b l e ( o n e q u i p m e n t a n d resources). W e to cases. W e h a v e detailed the circumstances u n d e r l y i n g these t w o because w e the think our respondents' perceptions the (non- orientacomputer o f these also reflect real differences across universities, t h o u g h w e will not share o u r specu- l a t i o n s . W e w o u l d s u g g e s t , h o w e v e r , t h a t it is n o t c o i n c i d e n t a l t h a t Trent faculty had overall m o r e positive perceptions o f influences, a m o r e posi- tive perception o f research culture, faculty w i t h research Self ratings. personal of eligible grants. Overall, motivational and a higher percentage respondents factors w e rated themselves asked about. Again highly on considering the mean r e s p o n s e s a b o v e 3 . 5 as h i g h , t h e n r e s p o n d e n t s r a t e d t h e m s e l v e s as on compe- (ordered from highest to lowest) commitment to research, t e n c e a n d a m b i t i o u s n e s s as r e s e a r c h e r s , a n d i n interest i n g e t t i n g for research low (see T a b l e 2). A s a group, did not differ the ordering o f these ratings, nor w e r e there a n y differences in the comparing universities on the 10 self rating items Canadian Journal of Higher Education Vol. XXVi-1,1996 money t h e y d i d n o t rate t h e m s e l v e s o n a n y o f the ten things asked about. Universities (a M A N O V A high as in means showed Faculty Views 67 Table 2 Mean Faculty Responses to Questionnaire Items by University Mount Saint Vincent Trent Overall Self-ratings C o m p e t i t i v e n e s s as a researcher 2.63 2.83 2.73 Preference for short t e r m o v e r l o n g t e r m projects 2.94 2.73 2.83 P r e f e r e n c e f o r research as o p p o s e d to t e a c h i n g 3.00 3.11 3.06 P r o d u c t i v i t y as a r e s e a r c h e r 3.16 3.28 3.22 Satisfaction w i t h research 3.24 3.47 3.36 Interest in getting m o n e y to support research 3.64 3.63 3.63 A m b i t i o u s n e s s as a r e s e a r c h e r 3.51 3.78 3.65 C o m p e t e n c e as a researcher 3.81 3.93 3.87 C o m m i t m e n t to 3.97 4.24 4.11 Research achievements research Office Influence o n y o u r research focus 3.42 3.25 3.33 Influence o n y o u r research productivity 3.46 3.25 3.35 Influence o n y o u r research motivation 3.54 3.49 3.51 Influence on external application decision 3.64 3.40 3.52 Influence o n internal application decision 3.67 3.57 3.62 n o overall effect [ F = 0.87, p = .567] nor any significant univariate Fs). F a c u l t y at b o t h u n i v e r s i t i e s h a d a n e q u a l l y p o s i t i v e v i e w o f t h e i r r e s e a r c h potential and ambitions. ambition I t is s t i l l c l e a r , h o w e v e r , in research w e r e that c o m m i t m e n t not to the exclusion o f teaching: the and average r a t i n g f o r " p r e f e r e n c e f o r r e s e a r c h as o p p o s e d to t e a c h i n g " w a s 3 . 0 6 . 1 3 9 responses to this question, 4 2 w e r e a b o v e the m i d d l e response a n d 3 6 w e r e b e l o w it. T h i s o v e r a l l l a c k o f p r e f e r e n c e is c o r r o b o r a t i n g dence for the percentages reported earlier o n h o w faculty m e m b e r s like to divide their w o r k i n g time. T h e archetypical faculty m e m b e r w a n t s t o d o r e s e a r c h a n d n o t t e a c h is n o m o r e f r e q u e n t l y f o u n d i n universities than those keen to devote themselves to O f option evi- would who small teaching. Canadian Journal ofHigher Education Vol. XXVI-1,1996 68 D. Furrow & C. Taylor T h e research office. F a c u l t y at b o t h u n i v e r s i t i e s r e p o r t e d favourable influences f r o m their research offices (see T a b l e 2). M e a n s o f greater than 3.5 w e r e f o u n d for their influence o n decisions about applying for an intern a l g r a n t a n d f o r a n e x t e r n a l g r a n t , as w e l l as their i n f l u e n c e o n research motivation. T h e remaining factors, influence o n research focus or research productivity, were in the u p p e r reaches o f the n o influence A s s e s s m e n t s o f research office influence did not differ across (multivariate F = 1.54, p = .183, and no univariate F s were The high regard accorded the research office range. universities significant). at b o t h institutions s h o u l d b e h e a r t e n i n g n e w s f o r t h o s e w h o v i e w s u c h a n o f f i c e as a n gral part o f a n y 1989; Ingalls, administrative 1982). A t strategy to p r o m o t e M S V U , research there has been a full time Director Research for the past three years, t h o u g h the office has been in since the early is a s s i s t e d b y maintaining 1 9 8 0 s (see Ingalls, a three-quarters with for faculty members, university policies be for research, that S S H R C since among a full other things. time grants h e l d at M S V U the n u m b e r of N S E R C o f funds who is c h a r g e d encouraging and approving grant applications, and developing noting sources of existence 1982). T h e Director o f Research, time office administrator, and disseminating inte- (Bélanger, Director Incidentally, was appointed, it m a y worth the n u m b e r of rose dramatically (there w a s n o change grant holders). A t Trent the Associate Dean in of R e s e a r c h a n d G r a d u a t e Studies has similar responsibilities to those o f the D i r e c t o r o f R e s e a r c h at M S V U ulty research, activities. A and in terms o f institutional support for is a l s o r e s p o n s i b l e f o r c o o r d i n a t i n g graduate fac- studies full time position o f University Research Officer w a s estab- lished eight years ago, a n d since that time the n u m b e r o f faculty holding S S H R C number r e s e a r c h g r a n t s at T r e n t h a s i n c r e a s e d f r o m 6 to 2 3 . T h e of N S E R C N S E R C grants has i n c r e a s e d less d r a m a t i c a l l y , b u t the total v a l u e grants a n d scholarships has g r o w n b y the second highest of propor- t i o n in C a n a d a . U n i v e r s i t y i n v e s t m e n t in this area has certainly p a i d off. General Discussion O u r major views purpose in undertaking o f factors w h i c h this study was to highlight faculty influence research in the small university. d o i n g , w e h o p e d to i n f o r m strategies for facilitating research in o u r Canadian Journal of Higher Education Vol. XXVi-1,1996 In so own Faculty a n d other small institutions. which necessarily small universities. account A s It w a s not our intention to identify for differences O w e n Views (1992) in funding recognized, across opinions factors large explain institutional differences. After all, p e r s o n n e l found when surveying humanists and social fashion scientists at in either context. O n the other hand, the both research similar, w i t h t e a c h i n g l o a d i d e n t i f i e d as far a n d a w a y the impediment and Davidson types o f institutions. O v e r a l l , faculty v i e w s o f obstacles to their were per- in small l a r g e u n i v e r s i t i e s m i g h t i d e n t i f y t h e s a m e f a c t o r s , as A d a i r a n d (1983) and about c e i v e d constraints in small universities cannot b e u s e d in simple to 69 greatest similarity responses across large and small universities does not eliminate a of factor f r o m potentially e x p l a i n i n g the differences either, particularly w h e n only r a n k o r d e r i n g a n d n o t m a g n i t u d e o f a n y g i v e n c o n s t r a i n t is m e a s u r e d . Bélanger (1989) universities, documented differences in a direct c o m p a r i s o n in teaching loads do exist, o f large and along with differ- ences in graduate student/ professor ratios, and research resources. m a y therefore account for institutional differences, w h a t e v e r in faculty opinions across institutions exist. W e These similarities cannot agree with O w e n ( 1 9 9 2 ) t h a t s i m i l a r i t i e s i n v i e w p o i n t s o n t e a c h i n g m a d e it " p r o b a b l e that other factors in the institution's culture or infrastructure m a y place tional barriers in the path o f researchers A s small at s m a l l e r institutions addi- (p. r e a s o n i n g w h i c h led h i m to focus o n research climate a n d not the 5)", teach- i n g c o n s t r a i n t w h i c h w a s r e c o g n i z e d as p r i m a r y b y h i s r e s p o n d e n t s . s a f e s t c o n c l u s i o n t o b e d r a w n is t h a t v i e w s o f r e s e a r c h c o n s t r a i n t s no conclusions about the source o f differences, but m a y allow be useful i n f o r m i n g the debate o n h o w to strengthen research in small If we The in universities. accept the faculty's v i e w that the factors m o s t constraining research are t i m e spent o n n o n t e a c h i n g a n d teaching c o m m i t m e n t s , to what is t o b e d o n e ? F r o m o n e p o i n t o f v i e w , n o t h i n g . T e a c h i n g , r e s e a r c h , and s e r v i c e a r e a l l p a r t o f a f a c u l t y m e m b e r ' s r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s , a n d t h e r e f o r e it should not be overlapping) surprising that they place c o m p e t i n g demands on time. O n (though sometimes t h e o t h e r h a n d , p e r h a p s it is t i m e to r e t h i n k the d e g r e e to w h i c h universities require all faculty m e m b e r s to do all things. Institutions other t h a n universities h a v e seen m e r i t in ing job increas- s p e c i f i c i t y as a r e s p o n s e to a r a p i d l y e x p a n d i n g k n o w l e d g e base Canadian Journal of Higher Education Vol. XXVI-1,1996 70 D. Furrow & C. Taylor and increased need for m o r e and more specialized knowledge, (1983) and Gross compete (1963) for external h a v e pointed out. Researchers research funds are h a n d i c a p p e d as Keller in a position by being "in a w k w a r d p o s i t i o n o f h a v i n g to p e r f o r m i n c r e a s i n g l y as v e r s a t i l e increasingly for specialized research, publications, and national rewards attention as i n d e p e n d e n t p r o f e s s i o n a l s " ( K e l l e r , p. 2 4 ) . T h e u n i v e r s i t y ' s status f e r s w i t h t h a t o f its s c h o l a r s . T h i s q u o t a t i o n f r o m K e l l e r , h o w e v e r , policies that w o u l d formally acknowledge divisions to fear the general- ists f o r t h e i r i n s t i t u t i o n s w h i l e r e c e i v i n g t h e i r status a n d f i n a n c i a l the v e r y premises w h i c h cause most faculty m e m b e r s to suf- reflects supporting o f labour amongst f a c u l t y m e m b e r s o n t e a c h i n g , r e s e a r c h , a n d s e r v i c e ; t h a t r e s e a r c h is most h i g h l y v a l u e d , a n d t h o s e n o t s p e c i a l i z i n g i n it w o u l d b e c o m e s e c o n d class citizens w i t h i n the university context and their profession. W e h a v e n o satisfactory a n s w e r to this objection, t h o u g h w o u l d O'Neill's (1993) cogent argument note that the notion that research a n d t e a c h i n g is r e w a r d e d b y u n i v e r s i t i e s is a m y t h . In practice, not universities d o r e w a r d t e a c h i n g , as t h o s e w h o h a v e h a d e x p e r i e n c e w i t h t h e t e n u r e promotion committees at either o f o u r small universities could W h i l e w e w o u l d n o t like to see a n y faculty m e m b e r b e c o m e relieved t e a c h i n g , research, o r service duties entirely, w e w o u l d like to see a tem which formally a preference for teaching ( 2 5 . 9 % o f our sample) would happily others w i t h more time research result. W e to focus on grant numbers Informal allowing it. Strengthened within arrangements a preference research the small university already have been told, for example, e x i s t at s o m e that at s o m e time to research projects. tive would efforts, w e prefer a university concen- for research productivity well be small universities. institutions faculty While wide applauding policy positions or teaching oriented, but rather w o u l d give faculty members Canadian Journal of Higher Education Vol. XXVi-1,1996 allowed. mem- co-opera- which w o u l d b e d e s i g n a t e d as o f specializing to the extent that circumstances the colleagues would e n s u r e that all r e c e i v e a p p r o p r i a t e r e c o g n i t i o n f o r their efforts. W e not favour a system whereby and might bers are a s s u m i n g extra teaching duties to a l l o w departmental to allocate m o r e of expressing trate m o r e effort there, of sys- a c k n o w l e d g e d specialization. W i t h the assurance f o r m a l r e c o g n i t i o n f o r t h e i r e f f o r t s , it s e e m s l i k e l y t h a t t h o s e or attest. would research the option Faculty A s Views a n a s i d e , it is w o r t h n o t i n g a n i n c i d e n t a l t h o u g h i m p o r t a n t 71 advan- tage w h i c h might be realized if specialization were allowed. U s i n g son-environment fit theory, stress i n f a c u l t y m e m b e r s Blackburn and Bentley (1993) as t h e d e g r e e to w h i c h t h e r e w a s per- measured a mismatch b e t w e e n the percentage o f time they w a n t e d to give to research a n d what t h e y felt the institution w a n t e d f r o m them. T h e y f o u n d that personal, e n v i r o n m e n t a l , variables w e r e the m o s t effective mediators o f a t i o n b e t w e e n stress a n d p r o d u c t i v i t y . T h e y ... i f a n i n s t i t u t i o n w a n t s correla- suggested: to increase research output but r a i s e f a c u l t y stress t o a d y s f u n c t i o n a l l e v e l , it n e e d s t o ine the possibilities a n d costs o f interventions. not exam- Environmental variables are m o r e easily c h a n g e d than are personal attributes, b u t , as seen, the o n e s u s e d h ere are n o t effective. A supportive c l i m a t e h a s n o t r e m o v e d t h e strains f a c u l t y e x p r e s s as a con- sequence o f not allocating their research effort in either their personal preferred way institutions desires, (p. A not flexible system or in their perceptions o f specialization s u c h as w e have both increase overall research productivity and reduce Such quickly. a controversial More of what the 742) strategy immediate means will surely suggested could stress. not be implemented o f redressing the balance o f university r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s a r e a v a i l a b l e . I t is c l e a r f r o m t h e s u r v e y r e s u l t s t h a t ulty members view the time spent o n non-teaching fac- commitments as m a j o r i m p e d i m e n t to research a n d consider that d e m a n d s o f this t y p e excessive. with Both a view than M S V U . universities to decreasing Though we have undertaken their n u m b e r and are not u n a w a r e reviews size, o f the of Trent irony committees more recently of proposing " c o m m i t t e e o n c o m m i t t e e s " , w e suggest that all universities c o u l d from looking research and at this area w i t h the v i e w to freeing u p faculty a profit time for teaching. O u r data point out other w a y s in w h i c h research m i g h t be facilitated. W h i l e the abstract concept o f research culture w a s not a significant ence o n research in faculty m e m b e r s ' dismiss a are its i m p o r t a n c e . A s we minds, have noted, we influ- should not be quick the t w o faculties differed their perception o f culture, w i t h the faculty h a v i n g the m o r e positive to in view Canadian Journal ofHigher Education Vol. XXVI-1,1996 72 D. Furrow & C. holding proportionally specific ways Taylor the factors sense, more of improving that were seen research research grants. as i m p o r t a n t o u r list o f constraints O w e n culture, by and our (1992) suggested considered many respondents. as f a c u l t y p e r c e i v e d them In can be some seen prioritizing a m o n g the factors w h i c h he identified and o n w h i c h the research culture. the things (graduate readily acted u p o n secretarial Saint Vincent support improved. University. Space Universities was a major might O f programs, e.g., are not easily generated), our faculty w o u l d have library and as uni- versity needs to be seen to take action to i m p r o v e that c o u l d be m o r e of resources issue at consider w a y s Mount to ensure t h a t t h e i r p o l i c i e s a l l e v i a t e f a m i l y r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s as m u c h as is p o s s i b l e for an e m p l o y e r to Finally, dents we assigned do. would emphasize to their research again the positive offices. This influence confirms respon- the value that Bélanger, Ingalls, O w e n a n d others h a v e put o n the existence o f such office. W e an think that research officers m i g h t profit b y actively using the sort o f s u r v e y w e h a v e j u s t d i s c u s s e d , n o t j u s t t o set g e n e r a l p r i o r i t i e s but also to target efforts o n specific researchers. the specific characteristics prone to do research and apply most useful. W e Ultimately, o f faculty members for and receive knowledge which make them are c u r r e n t l y p r e p a r i n g a r e p o r t w h i c h w i l l l o o k at and h o w w e can predict w h o will more external grants m a y differentiates grant holders, unsuccessful applicants, and of be what non-applicants, apply. References Adair, J. & Davidson, R. (1983). Research activity in the social sciences: A review of funding, productivity and attitudes of university-based social scientists. Ottawa: Social Science and Humanities Research Council of Canada. Bélanger, C. (1989). University entrepreneurship and competition: The case of small universities. The Canadian Journal of Higher Education, 19, 13-22. Blackburn, R. & Bentley, R. (1993) Faculty research productivity: Some moderators of associated stressors. Research in Higher Education, 34, 725-745. Gross, N. (1963). Organizational lag in American universities. Educational Review, 33, 58-73. Canadian Journal of Higher Education Vol. XXVi-1,1996 Harvard Faculty Views 73 Harris, G. & Kaine, G. (1994). The determinants of research performance: A study of Australian university economists. Higher Education, 27, 191-201. Ingalls, W. (1982). Increasing research productivity in small universities: A case study. The Canadian Journal of Higher Education, 12, 59-64. Keller, G. (1983). Academic Strategy: The management revolution in American Higher Education. London: The Johns Hopkins University Press. O'Neill, G.P. (1993). Myths revisited. The Canadian Journal of Higher Education, 13, 108-113. Owen, M. (1992). Research at small Canadian universities. The Journal of Higher Education, 22, 1-14. Perkin, J. (1985). Research in small universities. The Canadian Higher Education, 15, 1-4. Smith, S. (1991). Report of the Commission of Inquiry on Canadian Canadian Journal of University Education. Ottawa: AUCC. Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council. (1994). Preliminary Program Statistics 1994-1995. Report prepared for the Small Universities Research Conference, UPEI, Charlottetown. Notes 1 A copy of the questionnaire is available from the authors. ^ The sections that follow report on average responses. Measures of variability have been omitted to make the presentation more readable. Responses ranged from 1 to 5 on all items, with the following exceptions: no-one rated time spent on teaching commitments or the availability of research equipment as a strong positive influence (5), and no-one rated her or his ability to find topics to do research on, or the influence of the research office on either research motivation or focus as a strong negative influence (1). A full listing of standard deviations is available from the authors. Canadian Journal of Higher Education Vol. XXVI-1,1996