Research policy increasingly encourages academics to undertake different activities, such as research, teaching and academic service, yet academic time remains finite. Using the introduction of tuition fees in 2012 as a natural experiment within the UK, Francesco Rentocchini and Ugo Rizzo argue that the implicit focus fees introduced on teaching, limited English and Welsh academics’ wider engagement compared to their Scottish counterparts.

In his celebrated biography of Albert Einstein, Walter Isaacson revealed that the brilliant scientist dedicated an impressive ten hours a day, six days a week, to his work for several years. Before becoming a lecturer at the University of Bern in 1908, Einstein worked at the Swiss patent office in Bern. After completing his official duties, he would shift his attention to his scientific endeavours.

Unfortunately, most of us don’t possess the same intellectual prowess and unwavering determination as one of history’s most esteemed scientists. However, it seems that in today’s world, a university professor’s commitment to academic activities is quite similar to Einstein’s, ranging from 54 to 61 hours per week, depending on the study.

So, how do modern academics allocate their increasingly demanding work hours among the various tasks they undertake? Let’s take a closer look at the distribution of time across three main activities: teaching, research, and service. Although the largest portion of time is dedicated to conducting research, teaching and service have garnered more attention in recent years. This shift primarily stems from administrators and policymakers placing greater importance on these aspects of the academic work.

The term “service” broadly refers to what is sometimes called the “third mission” of universities, or impact. This entails engaging with the broader community, participating in outreach programs, and contributing to societal development. Academics are expected to not only focus on research and teaching, but also play a crucial role in shaping the world around them. This means that it is essential for academics to make a societal impact and collaborate with significant external partners, such as industry professionals, policymakers, think tanks, local communities, and society at large.

In addition to the challenges associated with work-life balance, as well as biases related to gender and position, there exists a more subtle “class conflict” that often goes unnoticed. This conflict arises as administrators and policymakers increasingly prioritise service and teaching over research, whereas academics themselves tend to favour research and the independence it offers.

This divergence in priorities has led to tensions within universities. On one hand, administrators and policymakers recognise the importance of providing high-quality education and engaging with the broader community through service activities. They believe that these aspects are essential for securing funding, maintaining a positive reputation, and adhering to government regulations.

On the other hand, many academics are passionate about their research and see it as the driving force behind their careers. They value the freedom to explore new ideas, engage in cutting-edge research, and make significant contributions to their fields. For these academics, the increased emphasis on teaching and service can feel like a constraint on their intellectual pursuits.

But how do these “conflicting logics” reconcile with one another? It’s a challenging question to answer. University administrators and savvy policymakers might argue that academics can only benefit from increasing their focus on teaching and community service. After all, this strengthens the connections between institutions and the communities they serve. Not only, engaging with students and the community can offer fresh perspectives, inspire new research questions, and enhance the sense of commitment that comes from making a tangible impact on people’s lives.

But hold on, when we consider this more carefully, it also seems logical that the more time academics devote to teaching activities (such as preparing and delivering lessons, grading, and supervising students), the less time they’ll have for other activities. In fact, increased attention to teaching also means more micro-management-related duties. This involves adhering to and reporting on new, formalised administrative routines, facing increased scrutiny of teaching quality, and dealing with added pressure from student unions and families, among other things. When faced with these additional responsibilities and having to decide between research and the third mission, academics are likely to prioritise publishing over engaging with the external environment.

When faced with these additional responsibilities and having to decide between research and the third mission, academics are likely to prioritise publishing over engaging with the external environment.

A recent study supports this view and suggests that an increased focus on teaching following the rise in tuition fee caps in England and Wales has a negative effect on third mission activities. In 2012, English and Welsh universities raised their tuition fees from £3,000 to £9,000, while this change did not occur in Scotland. Following the intense debate surrounding this reform, universities began to put more emphasis on teaching activities. Not only did it benefit central government’s budget, but it also responded to the growing concern from external stakeholders about the rising costs of attending university. The study relies on a dataset from UK Research and Innovation (UKRI), available on the Gateway to Research (GtR) website, comprising information on publicly funded collaborative research projects. Detailed information on project outcomes is available, including information on the knowledge exchange activities carried out within each project’s remit. By comparing the outcomes of collaborative research projects between English-Welsh and Scottish universities, the study estimates the effect of increased attention toward teaching on the level of third mission activities. The findings suggest that this heightened focus on teaching had unintended consequences, leading to a reduction in third mission output from collaborative research projects: academics felt compelled to prioritise their time on teaching and research at the expense of external engagement and societal impact.

Figure 1. Average number of engagement activities before and after tuition fee increase.

Figure 1 shows the average number of engagement activities, such as talks, exhibitions, access to external facilities, and podcasts, for each university before and after the reform. While the difference between English-Welsh and Scottish universities is barely noticeable before the reform, it significantly increases soon after. As a result of the heightened emphasis on teaching, academics seem to refrain from expanding the number of external activities they pursue.

Figure 2. Variety of knowledge exchange activities before and after tuition fee increase.

Figure 3. Intensity of knowledge exchange activities before and after tuition fee increase.

However, it’s important to note that the number of engagement activities might not be the most comprehensive measure in this context. After all, academics engage with the external environment through a diverse range of channels, such as discussions with policymakers, sharing research tools and methods, providing artistic and creative products, and establishing spin-outs. Figures 2 and 3 offer more suitable measures that encompass the vast array of channels available to academics for external engagement: the variety and intensity of knowledge exchange activities. The variety of knowledge exchange activities refers to the average number of distinct categories of collaborative research project outcomes (up to 11) for a university. In contrast, the intensity of knowledge exchange activities builds upon this by weighting it for the significance of each research project outcome. These measures display a similar pattern to that observed in Figure 1, further supporting the notion that academics are more likely to reduce their efforts on outcomes related to third mission activities following the reform.

The essential takeaway is that universities and policymakers must proceed with caution regarding their goals. Academics often work an extensive number of hours per week and, as a result, even minor adjustments in time allocation across one of their core activities can lead to unintended consequences for the other two. It is therefore crucial for universities and policymakers carefully evaluate the potential impacts of any changes they implement. Striving to maintain the right balance between the needs of all the stakeholders involved is the correct way forward. After all “Life is like riding a bicycle. To keep your balance you must keep moving” (Albert Einstein, in a letter to his son Eduard, February 5, 1930).

This article draws on the authors’ article, “The impact of teaching on third mission activities of higher education institutions: evidence from the UK”, recently published in Studies in Higher Education.

The content generated on this blog is for information purposes only. This Article gives the views and opinions of the authors and does not reflect the views and opinions of the Impact of Social Science blog (the blog), nor of the London School of Economics and Political Science. Please review our comments policy if you have any concerns on posting a comment below. Francesco Rentocchini is currently an employee of the European Commission. The views expressed are purely his personal views and may not in any circumstances be regarded as stating an official position of the European Commission.

Image Credit: LSE Impact Blog via Canva.