Research-led institutions do not prioritise teaching:
A myth explored
Esat Alpay and Mervyn E. Jones
Faculty of Engineering, Imperial College London
How often do we hear the statement that Research-led institutions do not value or
recognise teaching? Perhaps all too frequently; however such a statement was
demonstrated to be very far from the truth at a recent meeting hosted by the Faculty of
Engineering at Imperial College London. 140 invited delegates drawn on an international
basis from both academia and industry attended the meeting entitled Educating
Engineering Leaders (E2L).
The drive for the meeting arose from some persistent concerns – exemplified here by
actual delegate comments at the start of the meeting:

academic staff have little interest or motivation in teaching:
“smart people lose interest in teaching undergraduates”;
“the best researchers get the funding to buy themselves out of teaching”

an educational attitude in which the elite status of the institution is seen to give
automatic credence to student recruitment and teaching practices:
“less needs to be invested in teaching because of the high quality of our students”

an increase in school to University transition difficulties because of a drop in
mathematical abilities, independent study skills and healthy motivations for learning:
“[our teaching practices are now] aimed at, and relevant to, a relatively narrow cohort of
students”
In engineering itself there has been a fall in the number of students wishing to study
engineering, as well as in those who then choose a professional engineering career after
graduation. At the same time, there is a growing need for globally astute graduates who are
appropriately skilled to tackle the very real challenges we face. Social responsibility and
sustainability, once perhaps the realms of philosophers and ‘whale-saving tree-huggers’,
are now rapidly becoming core curriculum. Can academic staff, some of whom have in
essence never left an educational environment, and may even suffer from what seems like
narcissistic research obsessions, be trusted with such an educational responsibility? Or will
they just carry on “spending too much time on research which addresses problems that
don’t matter”, “putting on vanity courses in their own subjects” and continue to rationalise
their “minimal appreciation for the practice of engineering”? Yes, these are what some of
our leaders in education, from around the world, are saying.
Then there’s the issue of increasing student fees. It is not rocket science to
recognise that this will lead to greater student (and fee payer) expectations and demands
for quality education. In fact, if it doesn’t, then perhaps we should be rather worried about
the passive and compliant nature of British society! Our top universities probably aren’t
unduly worried about increasing fees, in fact some may be very excited and relieved by the
prospect. However, what might be a worry is the greater transparency and accountability
that will be expected of the business of education. Have we, for example, been
inadvertently subsidising research, and the big-egos that go with it, through teaching
1
income? The E2L meeting was also about giving delegates an opportunity for an honest reappraisal of the teaching ethos and culture of research-led institutions. This is not an easy
thing to do of course with participants from institutions where international profile and
prestige are sacrosanct and so intricately woven with research status.
In reviewing some of the outputs from the meeting, what becomes apparent is not
only the widespread recognition of these issues, but more importantly a willingness at
senior levels to act to change them. Although the myth that “research-led institutions do not
prioritise teaching” may have some grounding, it is a bit like saying “Michelin-star fish
restaurants do not prioritise chips”. A clearer examination of the myth is needed to
appreciate the dilemma and efforts of our leading research institutions:
1. Financial imperatives. Even amongst elite research-intensive institutions, a
considerable proportion of income (if not at least half in some cases) comes from
student fees and related funding. Yes, perhaps this fact has been underplayed for many
years, and rationalised with rhetoric such as “we still don’t cover the cost of educating a
student” or “students are attracted to us because of our research reputation and the
privilege of studying in such an environment”. But this is serious money that institutions
cannot afford to lose; the business of education has perhaps seen a dawn where it is
recognised that customer demands need to be met.
2. Promotions and recognition. At early-career stages, promotions criteria generally give
balanced recognition to teaching quality. However, concrete measures of teaching
excellence, especially those that will lead to senior levels of promotion, can be difficult
to define and even seen as illusory. Moreover, the perceived value of teaching for
career progression remains problematic. However, the introduction by many
internationally renowned institutions of initiatives such as teaching awards, grants for
teaching development, formal teacher training programmes, ongoing peer observations
of teaching and regular student evaluation of the learning experience is helping to
change this culture.
3. Researchers as teachers. Teaching can often project the mindset of the researcher
leading, for example, to theory-laden courses, a disconnection with business and
professional skills related needs and, as mentioned above, offerings of pet courses at
the expense of career-enabling educational experiences. Like most healthy institutions
though, diversity is valued and is the ballast that often prevents extreme swings in
educational discourse and practice. Perhaps a minority of exceptional teachers have
been carting undue weight, but collegiate and cross-institutional collaboration in
educational development is now widening the support; indeed plans for the next E2L
meeting are underway.
4. Academic Staff Recruitment. Another message from the Imperial meeting was the need
for some reassessment of staff recruitment procedures. In reality, an expectation to
teach, and teach well, is clearly a part of selection criteria and procedures. But on
occasions research credentials, or even anticipated research potential, can haze the
teaching needs of employment. Good teachers emerge, irrespective of the research
pressures, but what is needed is some greater attention to diversity at the recruitment
stage, and of course, promotion routes that support diverse contributions to the
institution.
2
5. Management attitudes. Research work, and the innovations and entrepreneurial
activities to which this leads, is not only of institutional importance, but also of national
importance. However, without the training of future scientists and engineers, who have
been, for example, inspired by on-going research and developmental work, or who can
tackle the global challenges of today’s world, then research becomes an academic
exercise. The E2L meeting brought together international leaders in education,
including Directors of Studies, Heads of Departments, Deans and Vice Principals, to
talk about the concerns listed above. Other discussion topics, which demonstrate
forward-thinking and teaching-sensitive attitudes, included: student development in both
technical mastery and professional (transferable) skills; the needed changes to alleviate
the tension between research and teaching; and embedding hands-on and real-world
experiences into the curriculum, as well as issues of current concern to industry and
society.
What become clear from the discussions are the common strengths shared by
research-led institutions, namely: the quality of academic staff who are “committed to doing
things well”; the quality of students who are “motivated, flexible and capable”; an
international community and orientation; and strong industrial links. Teaching and research
may inadvertently have evolved as a tug-of-war, but in fact a major outcome of the E2L
meeting has been a commitment to identify and develop teaching and learning practices,
which capitalise on the institutional strengths. In other words, what more can we do to
engage employers in our teaching through the use of our research links with industry? How
can we utilise better the capabilities of students to create a community of shared learning?
How should we run our teacher-training induction programmes that account for the special
needs and interests of our researchers? How then, do we change the agenda from a tug-ofwar to a synergetic pull?
Where then does the myth stand? Research-led institutions do not prioritise
research, they just haven’t fully figured out how to integrate and accommodate both
research and teaching needs. In the meantime, no one is being complacent – the open
discussions that are taking place show a concerted and collegiate approach in tackling the
problems and ultimately providing value for money to our students.
(For further information on the outcomes of the E2L conference, please visit
www.e2limperial.co.uk)
3