University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Perception of barriers: the experiences of lecturers in adapting to changing institutional expectations in upgraded private technological university in Taiwan

(USC Thesis Other)

Perception of barriers: the experiences of lecturers in adapting to changing institutional expectations in upgraded private technological university in Taiwan

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

PERCEPTION OF BARRIERS: THE EXPERIENCES OF LECTURERS IN
ADAPTING TO CHANGING INSTITUTIONAL EXPECTATIONS IN UPGRADED
PRIVATE TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY IN TAIWAN

by
Nan Nan Chiang

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

May 2011

Copyright 2011 Nan Nan Chiang
ii

Acknowledgments
I am grateful to thank my chair, Dr. Melora Sundt, and the professors on my
committee, Dr. Gilbert C. Hentschke, and Dr. Reynaldo Baca for their support and
guidance. I am also heartily thankful to Dr. Linda Fischer from the Doctoral Support
Center whose encouragement and supervision enabled me to complete my dissertation. I
also owe my deepest gratitude to my father, Chih Ping Chiang who is 97 years old and
gave me moral support and my deceased mother, Ta- Ming Chang who has cared and
loved me.
I also wanted to offer my regards and blessing to all of those who supported me in
any respect during the process and completion of the dissertation. Mrs. Lily Chen and
Mrs. Kristeen Cu took good care of me while I was preparing for the oral defense; Dr.
Guadalupe Garcia did an excellent job editing my paper. Mrs. Pei Wen Tsai helped me
with recording equipment and in typing out the Chinese interview dialogue. Dr. John Wu
and Assistant Professor Hsi Nao Tsai helped me collect Taiwanese data. I thank the 42
lecturers and administrators who agreed to participate in the study from both sample
institutions; my husband, Spencer Lin who assist me to research my literature; and my
children, Daniel and Rachel Lin who were understanding and patient with their mother’s
long process of writing the dissertation. Finally, I owe my greatest gratitude to God who
is my shepherd and always guides me along the right path, whose goodness and love will
follow me all the rest of my life.

iii

Table of Contents
Acknowledgments ...............................................................................................................ii

List of Tables ...................................................................................................................... vi

Abstract ..............................................................................................................................vii

CHAPTER ONE: Introduction ............................................................................................ 1
Research Questions ........................................................................................................ 12
Importance of the Study................................................................................................. 13
Limitations ..................................................................................................................... 15
Delimitation ................................................................................................................... 16

CHAPTER TWO: Understanding Taiwan’s Faculty Reward System .............................. 18
Establishing Common Productivity Measurements across Teaching, Research, and
Service ........................................................................................................................... 23
The Challenge of Ascribing Individual Credit to Jointly Produced Work .................... 25

CHAPTER THREE: Review of the Literature on Faculty Research Productivity ........... 38
Introduction.................................................................................................................... 38
Factors Affecting Faculty Promotion to Higher Ranks in Taiwan ................................ 38
Government Administration .......................................................................................... 39
Institutional Factors ....................................................................................................... 39
Monetary Support from the MOE: Holistic Development Subsidies ............................ 40
Support and Strategies for Faculty Pursuing Doctorates ............................................... 41
Superiority of Research Productivity in Public Institutions .......................................... 43
Expanding of Institutional Mission from Teaching to both Teaching and Research .... 45
Reward System Promotion Criteria ............................................................................... 46
Discipline Factors .......................................................................................................... 48
Personal Factors ............................................................................................................. 50
Comparison of U.S and Taiwan’s Reward System ....................................................... 53
Factors in Common........................................................................................................ 56
Institutional Support ...................................................................................................... 56
Unproductive in Both Teaching and Research .............................................................. 59
Discipline Factors .......................................................................................................... 61
Personal Factors ............................................................................................................. 63
Other Aspects Found in U.S. Research ......................................................................... 65
Rank ............................................................................................................................... 71
Age ................................................................................................................................. 73
Relationship between Duration of Stay in one Rank and Desire for Promotion ........... 77
Summary ........................................................................................................................ 78

iv

CHAPTER FOUR: Methodology ...................................................................................... 82
Introduction.................................................................................................................... 82
Research Questions ........................................................................................................ 82
Research Strategy .......................................................................................................... 83
Strengths of Qualitative Interviewing ............................................................................ 84
Weaknesses of Qualitative Research ............................................................................. 85
Sample and Population .................................................................................................. 86
T University ................................................................................................................... 86
S University ................................................................................................................... 86
Sample selection ............................................................................................................ 87
Selection of Lecturers .................................................................................................... 89
Accessing the Sample .................................................................................................... 90
Selection of Administrators ........................................................................................... 91
Instrumentation .............................................................................................................. 93
Data Collection .............................................................................................................. 95
Interviews ...................................................................................................................... 95
Document Review ......................................................................................................... 97
Triangulation.................................................................................................................. 97
Data Analysis ................................................................................................................. 98
Summary ...................................................................................................................... 100

CHAPTER FIVE: Findings ............................................................................................. 102
Introduction.................................................................................................................. 102
The Selected Departments for T University ................................................................ 103
Administrators ............................................................................................................. 105
Lecturers ...................................................................................................................... 106
The Selected Departments for S University ................................................................ 106
Administrators ............................................................................................................. 108
Lecturers ...................................................................................................................... 109
Findings for Sub-Questions One, Three and Four ....................................................... 109
Inadequate Research Support ...................................................................................... 110
Comparing Administrators and Lecturers’ Perspectives ............................................. 120
Work Adjustment from Teaching and Service to Teaching, Research and Service .... 120
Barriers to Publishing Papers in Prestigious International Journals/Periodicals ......... 126
Difficulty Using Technical Reports to Earn a Promotion to Associate Professor ....... 132
Timeframe to a Doctorate in Humanities and Social Sciences
versus other Disciplines ............................................................................................... 135
Age ............................................................................................................................... 137
Family Responsibility .................................................................................................. 140
Findings for Sub-Question Two and Four ................................................................... 142
Institutional Support Strategies Identified as Helpful ................................................. 143
Extent of Lecturers/Administrator Placing Responsibility on External Factors ......... 148
v

CHAPTER SIX: Summary of Findings ........................................................................... 152
Introduction.................................................................................................................. 152
Recommendations for Policy ....................................................................................... 158
Recommendations for Research .................................................................................. 160
Conclusion ................................................................................................................... 161

References........................................................................................................................ 163

References (Chinese Bibliography) ................................................................................. 170

Appendices ...................................................................................................................... 173
Appendix A: Sub-Research Question and Interview Protocol Correlation Grid ......... 173
Appendix B: Lecturer Experienced Barriers in Promoting to a Higher Rank ............. 176
Appendix C: Interview Protocol and Literature Review Correlation .......................... 177

vi

List of Tables
Table 4.1: Proposed Departments from which lecturers will be selected 90
Table 4.2: Distribution of Sample for Administrators 92
Table 5.1: T University Selected Departments 104
Table 5.2: S University Selected Departments 107
Table 6.1: Barriers 153

vii

Abstract
In 1996, the Ministry of Education in Taiwan adopted a policy to allow technical
and vocational junior colleges to become four-year colleges. In order to strengthen the
faculty’s structure, the institutions expected the lecturers to seek and earn promotion to
higher rank as soon as possible. After a decade, there were still a great number of
lecturers who remained at the same rank. This study aimed to learn from un-promoted
lecturers and their administrators about the lecturer’s experiences with changing work
expectation and the lecturer’s difficulties with promotion. In-depth qualitative interviews
were conducted with 32 lecturers and 10 administrators at two private upgraded
vocational higher institutions.
Seven barriers were found for lecturer’s difficulties in conducting research and
getting promoted to higher rank and there was much agreement in the categories
mentioned by lecturers and administrators. The seven barriers identified were inadequate
research support such as research equipment, funding, library database, and research
assistants; work adjustment from teaching and service to teaching, research and service
due to changing workload; barriers of publishing in prestigious international journals due
to inadequate research and English skills; difficulty of using the authoring of specialized
publications and technical reports to earn a promotion to associate professor due to
unclear expectations from the Ministry of Education; longer timeframe required to earn a
doctorate in the humanities and social sciences versus in other specialized disciplines;
age, especially in that lecturers over 50 had less tolerance of long hours of research and
viii

study; and family responsibility, such as taking care of small children and sick parents for
lecturers of both genders.
It was further found that both the lecturers and the administrators perceived the
lecturers should be mainly responsible for the success of their promotion to higher rank
because the institutions had policies in place to encourage lecturers to promote to higher
rank. Though both the administrators and the lecturers perceived lecturers’ barriers to
promotion as less related to problems such as inadequate research equipment and funding
and more related to personal problems such as age and family responsibility, there are
still some improvements the institutions can make to increase the promotion rates for all
lecturers. The recommendations provided in this study can not only be helpful in
improving lecturers’ promotion rates but can also enhance mutual understanding between
institutions and lecturers.

1

CHAPTER ONE: Introduction
In 1996, the Ministry of Education (MOE) in Taiwan adopted a new policy to
allow technical and vocational junior colleges to become four-year colleges (The
Legislative Yuan Gazette, 1995). As the technical and vocational junior colleges changed
status, the expectations for faculty work also changed. Faculty’s work expanded from
teaching only to both teaching and research (Lee, 2000). When institutions were at the
status of vocational junior college, lecturers accounted for more than 70 percent in the
faculty structure.
However, in order to become four-year colleges, the MOE required technical and
vocational junior colleges to improve their faculty structure by increasing the percentage
of instructors at the rank of assistant professors and above (MOE, 2006). Since lecturers
were the majority of the faculty structure for technical and vocational junior colleges, the
institutions expected lecturers to seek and earn promotion to assistant professor or above
in a timely manner (Lin, 2003).
The most common ways to get promoted were through conducting and publishing
specialized research, or pursuing further study to earn a doctoral degree (Lin, 2003).
These changes were communicated to the lecturer on various occasions through meetings
at the departmental level, and at the institutional level. The lecturer understood that, to be
promoted, s/he needed to adapt (Lee, 2000). After a decade, there were still a great
number of lecturers who remained at the same rank. On the one hand, these lecturers
encountered difficulties in getting promoted to a higher rank because they had to adjust to
2

an increased work load as a result of the institutional change. On the other hand, they
needed to publish papers or study for a doctoral degree in order to be promoted to a
higher rank. Lecturers were challenged to manage their time and effort adequately in
order to achieve promotion and meet institutional expectations concerning work
adjustments (Lee, 2000).
This study explores the perceptions of the lecturers and of the administration of the
barriers and facilitators to lecturers’ adapting to these changes in institutional
expectations. Research in this area may enable administrators to understand ways
lecturers perceive institutional practices or policies as interfering with their progress. The
study may also reveal a gap between administrators’ expectations of lecturers and the
lecturers’ understanding of institutional expectations, highlighting areas for potential
changes in the institution’s policies and reward systems.

Background of the Problem
There are seven events in the history of Taiwan’s higher education system that
provide background to our understanding of the problem of lecturer promotion. Each of
these is presented in detail below.

Expansion of Taiwan’s Higher Education System
While in some countries, the central government exercises only limited authority,
in Taiwan, the government has unilateral control of the nation, with specific control of
3

education policy governed by the Ministry of Education (MOE). In Taiwan, the higher
education system consists of two tracks: (a) university education, and (b) technological
and vocational education (Clark, 2002). Prior to 1992, the vocational track had only one
four-year higher institution run by the government that awarded bachelor and higher
degrees. The rest were lower level technical and vocational junior colleges.
Taiwan’s political reform started in 1987, when Taiwan began a transformation
from a totalitarian regime into a more democratic state (Lin, 2003). As part of that
transformation, in 1996 the MOE adopted a new policy to allow independent technical
and vocational junior colleges to become four-year colleges. This strategy began in part
as a response to public demands for more opportunities in higher education and to
cultivate more high-level technicians and managerial personnel for economic
development (Lin, 2003).

Large Quantity of Promoted Technical and Vocational Junior Colleges
The expansion of vocational junior colleges into four-year colleges was rapid and
great in number. According to the MOE’s statistics, from 1995 to 2006, 57 out of 74
vocational junior colleges were promoted to four-year technological institutions or
technological universities (Lin, 2003). Although the expansion of higher education on the
vocational track met the needs of both the government and the people, the growth in
quantity caused concern about the quality of education among government officials, the
public, and scholars (Liu, 2007). In addition, a survey conducted by the National Youth
4

Commission of Executive Yuan also showed that about 30% of employers were not
satisfied with either the abilities or level of professional knowledge of graduates from
institutions of higher education in recent years (Liu, 2007).

Amendment of The University Act in 2005
As a result of the concern mentioned above, in 1994 and 2005, the University Act
was amended to improve higher education quality and enhance institutions’ managerial
efficiency. For example, the amendment of the University Act in 2005, Article 5
stipulated that Universities shall regularly carry out self evaluation of teaching, research,
services, instruction, academic affairs, administration, student participation and other
proceedings (Regulations Governing the Screening of Qualifications on Teachers of
Junior Colleges and Higher Level). Article 5 also stated that the Ministry of Education
should organize an Evaluation Committee, entrust academic organizations or professional
evaluators to carry out regular evaluation on the universities and publish the results as
reference for educational subsidies from the government and the allowance of students
enrolled and development of universities.
Faculty were requested to improve accountability in their work, as the amendment
of the University Act, Article 21 stipulated that ―institutions should establish the teacher
review system for review of the achievement of teaching, research, and service as
important reference for upgrading, reengagement, long term suspension, refusal of
reengagement and encouragement of teachers‖ (MOE, 2007).
5

When the vocational junior colleges changed their status, the expectations for
faculty work also changed. The amendment of the University Act officially incorporated
these changing expectations for faculty members into the evaluation system. As a result,
faculty were expected to make adjustments in teaching, research, and service to reach the
standard and evaluation criteria effective with the institution’s change in status.

Characteristics of the Changing Institutions
When an institution was a technical junior college, students enrolled in either a
five-year or two- year program. The faculty structure consisted of mostly lecturers (Lin,
2003). The highest degree the lecturers earned was a master’s. The majority of the
students who were enrolled in the five-year programs were junior high school graduates.
Students who were enrolled in the two-year programs were vocational senior high school
graduates. The degrees awarded were similar to the associate’s degree granted by U.S.
community colleges.
After being promoted to four-year institutes of technology, institutions’ programs
transitioned to bachelors and even graduate degrees. The expectations for the lecturers
were to participate in professional development for the purposes of improving their
teaching ability and to enhance their professional practical ability (Tseng & Ho, 2003).
The lecturers were also expected to conduct professional research and publish their work
or pursue a doctoral degree in order to get promoted (Tseng &Ho, 2003). Moreover, due
6

to the difficulty in student recruitment for certain disciplines, the lecturers were expected
to study for a second specialization (Lee, 2000).

Increased Diversity among the Students Attending the Promoted Institutions
The student body for the institutes included both full-time and part-time students.
The average age of the student body was older than when the institution was a technical
junior college (Lyua, 2002). Some promoted institutions maintained a junior college
section, creating a wide range in student age and programs within one institution.
Moreover, due to governmental policy, senior high school graduates from both
vocational and academic tracks could enroll in vocational higher institutions (Lyua,
2002).

Expectation of Adjustment in Teaching
Due to the various changes in students’ characteristics, degrees awarded and
programs provided after an institution’s promotion, instructors needed to make
adjustments not only in their teaching and curriculum design, but also in their methods
for supporting students of various ages and backgrounds (Chen, 2002). Since the students
had become more diverse and their average age had become older, compared to junior
college students, the traditional patriarchal counseling style was not always suitable for
teaching those mature students. As a result, instructors were expected to make
adjustments in their approach to advising students. (Chen, 2002).
7

Expectation of Adjustment in Service
In recent years, the extension of education and cooperation between institutions
and industries has become an important part of faculty work in terms of institutional
services (Zhen, 2007). Faculty members are expected to engage in more service in areas
of the extension of education and cooperation between the institution and industries (Shu,
2003; MOE, 2002). Cooperation between the institution and industries increases the
professors’ practical working experience and the chances of conducting more pragmatic
research instead of academic research in vocational higher education (Zhen, 2007).

Expectation of Adjustment in Research
After technical and vocational junior colleges were promoted to a higher status,
college administrators expected their instructors to conduct more research, particularly
research that addressed social or practical needs (Tseng & Ho, 2003). While institutions
were at junior college level, teaching was the faculty’s main function. When institutions
changed their status to a higher level, research became another main component of
institutional expectations for the faculty (Chen, 2002). Hone (2005) notes a concern
among business and industry professionals that what students were learning and the
research the faculty conducted did not meet their business needs.
In 2005, the MOE adopted a policy for facilitating collaboration between industry
and higher education (Du, 2007). To reinforce their expectation of cooperation, the MOE
included the promotion of an institution’s co-operation with industry as one criterion in
8

their evaluation. The promoted institutes of technology and universities of technology
therefore expected faculty members to conduct more practical research focusing on
technical innovation and industrial development in order to meet the needs of the
industry and MOE’s evaluation requirement (Liu, 2007).

Statement of the Problem
Lecturers are the majority in the faculty structure for the institution at the
vocational junior college status. While the junior colleges upgraded their status, most of
the lecturers remained with the institutions (Lin, 2003). In order to strengthen the
faculty’s structure and enhance their research ability, the institutions intended to promote
lecturers to a higher rank as soon as they qualified.
According to MOE’s regulations for faculty promotion, the faculty could be
promoted to a higher status by either conducting more research and getting that research
published or pursuing further study and earning a doctoral degree. The technical
instructors could also apply for promotion through proof of achievement, or technical
reports.
In recent years, the MOE and many vocational higher institutions have developed
supporting policy to encourage lecturers to pursue further study and conduct more
research. For example, Chang Gung Institute of Technology provided a maximum of
NT$ 100,000 per year for the first two years, which is about US$ 3,333 (Office of
Personnel, Chang Gung Institute of Technology, 2006). In the 1997 academic year,
9

lecturers in higher vocational and technological institutions accounted for 66. 22 % of all
faculty. After a decade, in the 2006 school year, lecturers in vocational and technological
institutions accounted for 47.24% of all faculty. Though the data show that many
lecturers have been successfully promoted to a higher rank in the faculty structure (or left
higher education), there are still many lecturers remaining in the same rank after many
years since institutional promotion ( MOE, 2007a). These remaining lecturers may be
having difficulties in being promoted to a higher rank because they had to adjust their
duties due to the institutional status change on the one hand, and they also needed to
publish papers or pursue a doctoral degree in order to be promoted to a higher rank, on
the other. These lecturers may face the challenges of managing their time and effort
adequately in order to achieve promotion and meet institutional expectations about work
adjustment.
Moreover, compared to public vocational institutions, private vocational
institutions have a greater proportion of un-promoted lecturers ( MOE, 2008). In Taiwan,
private vocational institutions play a major role in providing vocational higher education
to the students, in that there were only 17 public vocational institutions but as many as 60
private vocational institutions in the school year of 2006-2007 (MOE, 2007a).
Nevertheless, compared to private institutions, public institutions not only provide better
facilities and equipment, but they also have a higher percentage of professors in their
faculty structure. For example, if we exclude the vocational junior colleges, the public
technological universities and technological colleges had 905 lecturers while the private
10

technological universities and technological colleges had 8025 lecturers in the school
year of 2006-2007 (MOE, 2007a).
One of the ways to enhance the competitive strength of private vocational
institutions was through increasing the proportion of assistant and higher ranking
professors in the faculty structure. The high proportion of professors in the institutional
faculty structure was regarded as an important criterion for institutional quality and
standard by the government and the public, including parents and students. Therefore,
private vocational institutions want to encourage the existing lecturers to get promoted to
higher rank since the lecturers would remain in the institutions after these promoted to a
higher status (Lee, 2000).

Purpose of the Study
T University (TU) and S University (SU) are two typical private vocational
institutions which were promoted from vocational junior colleges to four-year
technological colleges in 2000 and 1999, respectively, and continued to upgrade to
become technological universities in 2007 and 2005, respectively. According to the
MOE’s data, both institutions reduced their lecturers from 82.7% (TU) and 75.5% (SU)
in the school year of 1997-1998 to the present 47% (TU) and 41% (SU) in the school
year of 2006-2007. Both institutions had already met MOE’s minimum requirement in
the faculty structure for the fourth year after upgrading, which states that, in the fourth
year after a vocational institute of technology has upgraded to university status, it should
11

to have at least 50% of its faculty at assistant professor status and the ranks above (MOE,
2005).
Nevertheless, compared to the public National Taipei University of Technology
(10.9% lecturers), or the private Southern Taiwan University of Technology (28.3%), the
two private institutions, TU and SU, still carry a high percentage of lecturers in their
faculty structure according to the data for the school year of 2006-2007. Southern Taiwan
University of Technology was one of the first three private vocational institutions that
passed MOE’s evaluation and upgraded from a junior college to an institute of
technology in 1996. SJU further upgraded to a technological university in 1999.
As noted earlier in order to improve the competitive strength of TU and SU, the
institutions could enhance their faculty structure by motivating the existing lecturers to
become eligible for promotion to a higher rank. Therefore, this study explored the
perceptions of both lecturers and administrators regarding lecturers’ difficulties in
seeking promotion and adjusting to the changing work expectations.
According to Fairweather (2005), research productivity traditionally is a universal
expectation for promotion and tenure. Studies in the U.S. and Taiwan show that research
productivity can relate to institutional factors such as institutional research facilities,
reward system, and institutional type. Studies in both countries also demonstrate that
research productivity can relate to personal factors such as the faculty member’s gender,
rank and age (Sax, Hagedorn, Arredondo & Dicrisi, 2002; Tien, 1994; Blackwin &
Blackburn, 1981; Teodorescu, 2000; Fox, (2005). This study aimed to explore the
12

perceptions of the lecturers and of the administration of the barriers and facilitators to
lecturers’ adapting to these changes in institutional expectations. Research in this area
may enable administrators to understand ways lecturers perceive institutional practices or
policies as interfering with their progress. Therefore, both lecturers and administrators
may be contributing to the present situation. The results of the study could help these and
other institutions to identify strategies for more successful faculty transitions in the
process of institutional status upgrading.

Research Questions
This study asked the following questions:
1. What can we learn from un-promoted lecturers and their administrators about
the lecturers’ experiences with changing work expectations (across teaching,
research, and service) and lecturers’ difficulties with promotion that would
help S University, T University and other institutions planning a transition?

Sub questions (for lecturers):
1. What challenges/barriers do un-promoted lecturers identify to seeking
promotion?
2. What strategies of the institutions do they identify as helpful? To what extent
do lecturers place the responsibility on external factors outside of their control?

13

Sub questions (for administrators):
3. What do administrators perceive as the reasons for the barriers of un-promoted
lecturers seeking promotion?
4. How were perceptions of these barriers and support similar or different
between administrators and lecturers across different institution? Across and
within key disciplines? By gender? By age group?

Importance of the Study
This study will help administrators understand the barriers to promotion as
perceived by lecturers. The study will also help distinguish the degree to which these
barriers are within the control of the lecturer (i.e., a problem of time management) or are
within control of the institution (i.e., placing conflicting demands on lecturers). Ideally,
as a result of this study, the administrators will be able to understand the gap between
their expectations and the lecturers’ perceptions of the changing work expectations.
As a result, the study may reveal ways administrators can reduce discovered
institutional barriers, such as modifying their communication skills with the faculty;
making changes to the institution’s policies; or designing a reward system to support and
motivate the faculty to align their work efforts to reflect the institution’s changed status.
Better institutional support could then enhance the overall quality of the faculty’s
performance, and the entire institution’s overall competitiveness.
14

Further, the study sought to present a clearer picture of un-promoted lecturers’
conditions. Administrators may be able to use this information as a reference for
engaging in long-term human resource planning to support their institution’s
development and transition.
Finally, in Taiwan, the majority of technological colleges and universities are run
by the private sector and there is limited research that examines the problems un-
promoted lecturers may encounter across teaching, research, and service and related
difficulties with promotion. While the data will not be generalizable, this study can
provide a reference for other private technological colleges and universities dealing with
similar issues. In the end, the study may contribute to the improvement overall of faculty
performance and the quality of education in private four-year vocational institutions.

Definitions of Terms
Un-promoted lecturers: Faculty members who did not get promoted to a higher rank
after their technical and vocational junior colleges were promoted to a higher status.

Upgraded Private Four-Year Technological College/Technological University:
Privately-run four-year technological colleges or technological universities promoted by
the government from technical and vocational junior college status. Both four-year
technological colleges and technological universities offer programs for bachelor’s and
master’s degrees. The bachelor’s programs offer two year and four year options. Two-
15

year programs admit junior college graduates while four-year institutes admit senior high
school graduates. The difference between a four-year technological institute and a
technological university is that a technical university must have at least three schools.
Also in a technological university, the proportion of professors at the rank of assistant
professor and above is higher than in a technological institute.
For example, according to MOE’s regulation, junior colleges need to have a
minimum of 21% of full-time faculty who are at least assistant professors and above
when applying for a status upgrade (MOE, 2008). The MOE requires continuous
improvement of the faculty structure for upgraded four-year technological institute, such
that at least 25% of faculty members are assistant professors or above by the fourth year
after initiating change of status. For a four-year technological institute to upgrade and
change its name to ―technological university,‖ the MOE requires that at least 40% of its
faculty be assistant professors or above during the first year of applying for that upgrade
(MOE, 2008). In the fifth year after that upgrade and name change, the university needs
to have at least 50 % of its faculty at the assistant professor rank or above (MOE, 2008).

Limitations

1. This study was limited to the number of lecturers and administrators participating
in the study.
2. This study was limited to private technological universities, so the intentional
sampling procedures reduce the generalizability of the findings.
16

3. The researcher was familiar with one of the sample institutions in the study.
Though the researcher has the advantage of an inside perspective, there is a
limitation that the interviewees may have been reluctant to openly share their
answers with someone familiar to their colleagues and supervisors.
Delimitation
The study will confine itself to interviewing forty- two lecturers and
administrators in two promoted technological universities in Taiwan.

Organization of the Study
Chapter 1 of the study presents the introduction, background of the problem,
statement of the problem, purpose of the study, research questions, importance of the
study, definition of terms, limitation and delimitation, and organization of the
dissertation.
Chapter 2 is the first half of the review of the literature, and describes the
essential characteristics of the Taiwanese reward system which provide important
background information for chapter three. Chapter 3 is the second half of the review of
the literature of both U.S. and Taiwanese studies, and highlights the factors influencing
faculty research output and their intention to conduct research in order to be promoted to
a higher rank.
17

Chapter 4 presents the methodology used in the study, including a description of
the research strategy, the rational for the sample selection, the description of instrument
development and the method of data collection and analysis.
Chapter 5 presents the findings of the study, including a description of the
selected departments, administrators, and lecturers. The chapter describes the findings
for sub-questions 1, 3,and 4 regarding lecturers’ and administrators’ perceptions of
challenges/barriers faced by un-promoted lecturers, plus the institutional strategies the
lecturers identified as helpful in seeking promotion and the extent to which the lecturers
placed responsibility on factors outside of their control.
Chapter 6 is the summary of findings, and includes a comparison of seven
barriers, recommendations for policy, recommendations for research, and the conclusion
to the study.

18

CHAPTER TWO: Understanding Taiwan ’s Faculty Reward System
Introduction
The review of the literature in chapter two highlights the essential characteristics
of Taiwan’s faculty reward system, an important influence on a lecturer’s intention to
conduct research, pursue an additional degree or attend professional development. Two
essential characteristics of Taiwan’s reward system will be examined: the concept of
permanent employment and the standardized pay schedule. Next, the researcher reviewed
the impact of the amendment of the University Act on improving institutional
effectiveness and faculty work performance. Connections between the faculty reward
structure and the faculty review system were explored, with a focus on the reward
system’s emphasis on research, and productivity measurement problems. This chapter
will also discuss concerns associated with quantitative versus qualitative assessments of
faculty research, the institution’s research orientation, and the reported negative impact
of research acting on teaching. Finally, it will examine what Clark (1983) refers to as the
―academic drift‖ of vocational institutions, scholars’ and governmental support for
adding a new rank of assistant professor between lecturer and associate professor to
motivate faculty to conduct more research, governmental support for international
standards of research, and the Ministry of Education’s endeavor to refocus on teaching
and service.

19

Permanent Employment and Standardized Pay Schedule
In Taiwan, higher education institutions use a standardized schedule of pay,
which applies to faculty by virtue of employment at the institution (Tien,1994). Through
this standardized pay schedule, faculty members receive across-the-board increases
according to number of years of service, highest degree received and rank, without regard
for the quality or quantity of their teaching or research (Tien, 1994). The problem with a
standardized pay schedule is that, since all faculty members receive the same treatment,
the schedule does not motivate performance beyond routine requirements (Katz and
Kahn, 1966).
Further, somewhat like the practice of tenure in the United States, in Taiwan’s
higher education reward system, dismissing a hired faculty member is difficult. However,
the protection of employment begins with the initial hire --once a faculty member is
recruited, regardless of their rank, the possibility of dismissing a full-time teacher is very
slim (Hou, 2005). Teacher employment rights are well protected by the Teacher’s Act,
which states that unless the faculty member commits a serious crime, dismissal of a
teacher is not appropriate (Liu, 2000).
Moreover, the most common form of evaluation in Taiwan’s higher education
institutions is student ratings of instructors (Hou, 2005). The results of these evaluations
are treated informally, with the main purpose being to provide feedback to faculty for
self-improvement in their teaching. Since the evaluations are not officially connected to
the reward system, the instructor’s future employment and/or promotion are not affected
20

by the results. Since employment is secure and stable, there is concern that this sense of
security contributes to the overall lack of competitiveness at the university level (Hou,
2005).
Institutions of higher education in Taiwan are under pressure by an unprecedented
influx of internal and external competition. They face three contemporary challenges in
particular: globalization in the twenty-first century, competition from mainland China
and other countries after Taiwan entered into the World Trade Organization, and the
difficulties of student recruitment due to declining birthrates (Tseng, Ho, 2004). There is
also a concern about education quality, especially after the expansion of the higher
education system among government officials, the public, and scholars (Tseng, Ho,
2004).
As a result of these pressures, it was apparent to the government that the reward
system and employment policy in Taiwan’s institutions needed to adapt (MOE, 2001).
The adaptation of the faculty reward and employment policies are also important for
improving and accelerating reform within the system of higher education in Taiwan,
generally (Hou, 2005). In response, in 1994, the government amended the University Act
to grant institutions more autonomy and flexibility in institutional management. To
enforce evaluations at various levels, the amendment of the University Act officially
created governmental, institutional and faculty evaluations (1994 and 2005 respectively).
For example, the amendment of the University Act of 1994, Article 5, stipulated that
―universities shall regularly carry out self evaluations on teaching, research, service,
21

instruction, academic affairs, administration, student participation and other proceedings.
The regulation for the evaluation shall be formulated by the universities‖ (p.2).

Connection of Faculty Reward Structure to Faculty Review System
The amendment of the University Act in 2005, Article 21, included, for the first
time in Taiwan, the establishment of official teacher review systems in all institutions.
The results are used in determining teachers’ promotions and continued employment as
Article 21 states that ―all higher institutions should establish a review system for
reviewing teacher’s work between teaching, research, and service as an important
reference for upgrading, rehiring, long term suspension, refusal of reengagement and
encouragement of teachers‖ (p.7).
The establishment of the instructor review system was such an important step in
enhancing the overall quality of higher education in Taiwan that the MOE planned in
2007 to reach the goal of having more than half of all universities utilizing a teacher
review system to eliminate disqualified teachers. This amendment, on paper, ended the
concept of life-time security of employment for instructors (Hou, 2005).
In addition to the implementation of an instructor review system in Article 15 of
University Act mentioned above, Article 19 regulated that universities can formulate
stipulations for the suspension or refusal of continued employment of instructors
according to the requirements or needs of an institution’s development. According to the
Teachers Act, article 15, in the case of low enrollments, the adjustment of departments or
22

the dissolution of schools, the institutions can, after getting approval by the MOE,
dismiss instructors who do not have sufficient work to do. As a result of these articles,
instructors can no longer obtain permanent employment as easily as before.
While the MOE has amended the University Act to improve faculty work
performance by connecting the faculty reward structure to the faculty review system,
there is still the problem that the reward system places greater emphasis on research than
teaching and service. the following section addresses the problem of emphasis on
research.

Emphasis on Research and Productivity Measurement Problems
In Taiwan’s reward system, research is the most important criterion for
determining a faculty member’s promotion (Chen, 2004). Promotion in rank is an
important reward for past accomplishments (Tien, 1994). Promotion is also an incentive
for faculty to remain productive throughout their career (Tuckman, 1976). Various
promotions in rank preceding the professorship constitute rungs on the ladder of
achievement that serve to motivate faculty and to recognize their accomplishments
throughout their career. According to the Regulation Governing the Screening of
Qualification of Teachers of Junior Colleges and Higher Levels ((MOE, 2007) in 2007,
teaching and service accounted for 20-30% and research accounted for 70-80% in the
total score calculation for an instructor’s promotion. The emphasis on research in
23

Taiwan’s reward system may relate to productivity measurement problems among faculty
work. I will discuss these problems under four topics in the following section.
There are three essential characteristics to look at in the discussion of the
productivity measurement. These characteristics are based on related findings from
research in the U.S. since little research has been conducted on the productivity
measurement problem in Taiwan’s higher education system. The three characteristics are
(a) establishing common productivity measurements across teaching, research, and
service; (b) over-emphasizing the quantity of research, teaching and service; and(c) the
challenge of ascribing individual credit to jointly produced work.

Establishing Common Productivity Measurements across Teaching, Research, and
Service
For this section, the generalizations for common productivity measurement are
made based on research from the U.S. faculty members who have traditionally been held
responsible for performance in teaching, research, and service (Fairweather, 2002).
According to Fairweather (2002), productivity is a core part of faculty evaluations for
promotion and tenure, merit pay, and post-tenure review. Instructional productivity is
commonly measured by hours spent teaching in the classroom per week, total hours
worked per week, and percent of time spent on teaching and instruction (Fairweather,
2002). Regardless of institutional type, research is the most prestigious form of faculty
productivity (Fairweather, 2002). Common measurement of research productivity
24

includes the number of books or articles produced, Institute for Scientific Information
(ISI) citations, peer ratings, and research grants received (Blackburn & Lawerence,
1995). Although service is not as valuable as research or teaching in the reward system, it
is an important part of the faculty position (Fairweather, 2002). According to
Fairweather, service productivity is measured by participation in an administrative role,
serving on various committees, contributing to professional associations and to the
community at large.

Over-Emphasizing the Quantity of Research, Teaching and Service
According to Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching (1990), the
number of books or articles produced in prestigious or referred journals is a stronger
determiner of a favorable promotion or tenure decision than the impact of scholarship, as
review committees are often more impressed by quantity of publications rather than their
quality or significance (Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, 1990).
This practice is particularly unjust for those fields with very few referred journals from
which to choose (Amey, 1992). The over-emphasis on the number of referred journal
articles in faculty promotion and tenure decisions may be due to the fact that counting the
number of journal articles faculty have published is much easier than assessing impact
and research quality since the latter require peer review (Fairweather, 1992). There is
also criticism of the over-emphasis of the quantity of funded research dollars in
considering tenure and promotion (Fairweather, 1992). As a result, Amey (1992)
25

observes that faculty members may look more for any work that is fundable instead of
looking for ways to carry out work that is central to their interests.
Service and teaching are often not strong factors in tenure and promotion
decisions because the process is difficult to document and access (Kezar, 2000). Also,
due to the emphasis on the number of referred journal articles in faculty evaluation,
teaching and service are always underestimated (Glassick, Huber& Maeroff , 1997). In
teaching, this has caused excessive emphasis on student course evaluations, which
provide a lot of statistical comparisons and measures. Professional service is often under-
evaluated because virtually no institution has come up with a method to quantify such
work (Glassick, Huber, and Maeroff , 1997). Public service and consultation have been
ranked extremely low as factors used in quality evaluation of faculty in liberal art
colleges (Glassick, Huber, and Maeroff , 1997).

The Challenge of Ascribing Individual Credit to Jointly Produced Work
According to Hopkins (1990) and Layzell (1999), productivity means the way in
which a firm transforms inputs including labor and capital into outputs. The focus for the
business sector is unit cost and profit maximization. In higher education, productivity
means an increase in educational outcomes such as more students served, improved
instructional results and a better value mix of service relative to cost. The focus is on
quality of faculty research and student learning maximization (Hopkin, 1990; Layzell,
1999).
26

Nevertheless, Layzel (1999) suggests that the current measures focus too much on
inputs and too little on outcomes. For example, a study of weekly contact hours or
average student credit hours tells little about the quality of teaching and what students
ultimately learned. Moreover, unlike business sectors, it is difficult to capture the
intangible inputs and outputs of higher education in productivity. Examples of the
intangible inputs of higher education are the quality of new students and the faculty, and
the quality of instruction provided in courses (Layzel, 1999). Examples of the intangible
outputs are the knowledge gained by students over their college career, and the quality of
faculty scholarship (Layzel, 1999). Any measure of faculty instructional productivity
may not reflect student-learning productivity. Though there are various theoretical
frameworks developed to incorporate these intangible aspects of productivity, no
empirical studies show the explanatory usefulness of these frameworks (Gilmore & To,
1992).
The work of higher education is often jointly produced among teaching, research,
and service. The faculty’s roles are sometimes integrated so that faculty occasionally
engage in activities that accomplish teaching and research goals at the same time
(Colbeck, 1998). The resulting measure of productivity would not be accurate when
evaluating one specific aspect of production without controlling for the other activities
the faculty is engaged in (Colbeck, 1998).

27

Quantitative vs. Qualitative Measurements in Research
Since quantitative measurement is the predominant method for analyzing research
quality at both the institutional and governmental level in Taiwan, there is concern
among scholars about the quality of research in Taiwan. Chen (2004) as cited in Hong
(2000) noted that though from 1987 to 1998, the total number of research papers
published in Taiwan with the Science Citation Index (SCI) increased from 32
nd
place to
19
th
place in the world list, the relative citation impact (RCI: the individual impact of
publications compared to the average impact of journals where the publications
appeared) was only 1.5 for Taiwan, which is below the world average of 3.3.
As noted earlier, the productivity measurement problem has lead to an emphasis
on research in the Taiwanese reward system. The following section addresses the impact
of over-emphasis on research in the reward system, which has caused all types of higher
institutions to want to become research oriented (MOE, 2001).

Institution Orientation to Research
According to Shu (2003), in Taiwan, higher education institutions generally are
classified into comprehensive, research, teaching, and community institutions. Each
category of institution should have distinct functions and goals for development.
Nevertheless, in the recent decade, especially after the expansion of the higher education
system, every type of institution has tended to work above all for recognition on a par
28

with research or comprehensive universities regardless of their inferior infrastructure in
terms of equipment, facilities and financial resources (MOE, 2001).
Liu (2000) reports that the higher education academic circle complained that there
is too much similarity between common universities and institutes of technology or
technical universities in their establishment of schools or departments, qualification and
selection of faculty candidates, research agendas, teaching method and curriculum design.
There are several reasons for this phenomenon. First, the research university is
considered the most prestigious by society and is always the first choice of students and
parents in the higher education market (Shu, 2003). The governmental provision of large
amount of subsidies to research projects at research universities attracts the attention of
other types of institutions to work towards obtaining the status of a research institution
(Shu, 2003). This is what Clark (1983) calls academic drift. The government subsidy
acts like additional income, which releases some of the financial burden for the
institutions (Shu, 2003).
Moreover, in the MOE’s evaluation of institutions, the number of faculty
members with doctoral degrees, the quantity of research papers published especially in
prestigious periodicals, and the number of National Science Council research proposals
adopted account for a high percentage of the institution’s score, regardless of type of
institution (Chen, 2004). As a result, institutions of all types such as the normal
university and technical university reward faculty members highly if they are able to get
a NSC research grant; or get their research paper published in a prestigious periodical,
29

especially international periodicals such as Social Science Citation Index (SSCI), and
Science Citation Index (SCI), or present their research at an international conference
(Chen, 2004).

Negative Impact on Teaching
As noted earlier, each type of institution should have different functions and goals
for development (Shu, 2003). If all the institutions follow the norms of valuing research
more than student learning, undergraduate study would be affected. For example, the
original purpose of the normal university has formally changed. The normal university
has begun to shift its focus to reward research highly in faculty’s work (Chen, 2004).
Additionally, many Taiwanese professors would prefer to teach graduate level classes
instead of undergraduates because the graduate students assist the professors with
research (Chen, 2004). Besides the negative impact research has brought to the teaching
function, another problem introduced in the next section is that because the newly
recruited faculty members are research oriented, the mission of the vocational institutions
has drifted to be more research-like.

Academic Drift of Vocational Institutions
There is pressure on vocational junior colleges to improve their faculty structure
in order to upgrade to a higher status. According to the MOE’s requirement, the
vocational junior colleges need to have at least 21% of full time faculty who are at least
30

assistant professors or the rank above when applying for a status change. In view of the
fact that there is a shortage of people with doctoral degrees at the vocational higher
institutions (MOE, 2006), the vocational junior colleges are most likely to find their
faculty among those graduating from the research university. As a result, the new faculty
is less likely to have the field-based experience expected among vocational instructors.
Because these new faculty were trained in the research context, it is likely that the focus
of academics at the vocational higher institutions would drift to become more like
research institutions (Shu, 2003).

Scholars and Governmental Support Increasing Ranks to Improve Research Performance
From the factors described above, we know that research is a main focus in
Taiwan’s reward system. The MOE in order to further enhance research productivity of
the faculty members, modified the rank system in 1997. In March 1997, the rank of
assistant professor was added to the system (Tien 1994). The concept of adding a new
rank of assistant professor between lecturer and associate professor was first suggested
by some legislators and scholars prior to the reauthorization of the University Act in 1982
but was rejected by the Ministry of Education at that time (Tien, 1994). In 1988, the
Ministry of Education reversed its position and agreed with the creation of the new rank.
After years of debates and discussions, in 1994, the legislature adopted the proposal to
increase the number of ranks in faculty rank system (University Act, 1994). ―The reason
for adding a new rank of assistant professor was that the policy makers and scholars
31

believed that changes in the structure of the rank system would produce renewed vitality
though there is little empirical evidence to support the position‖ (Tien, 1994, p.9). The
policy makers and scholars also believed that, apart from enhancing research and
publishing productivity, the new rank system conformed better to the modern rank
system implemented in U.S. institutions of higher education and other developed nations
(Liu, 2000).

Governmental Support of International Standards for Research
Initially, Taiwan’s rank system consisted of the four levels: teaching assistant,
lecturer, associate professor, and professor. In addition to implementing the new rank
system to adapt to that of developed nations, the MOE also supports an international
standard for research to gain recognition from the mainstream academic social groups in
the west. All institutions in Taiwan reward research, especially if faculty members can
get their research paper published in international journals or periodicals, as mentioned
above. The National Science Council (NSC) was the first to use the international standard
of the Science Citation Index, (SCI), Social Science Citation Index, (SSCI), and
Engineering Index (EI), imported from the United States for academic evaluation
(Chen,2004). In the NSC’s opinion, the number of papers the applicant published in these
international periodicals is an important factor in determining whether the applicant
should be awarded funding for his or her research project (Chen, 2004). In view of the
fact that Taiwan’s measurements of academic productivity have followed the U.S.
32

standard (Chen, 2004), these international indexes soon became popular in Taiwan’s
higher education institutions, which in turn has influenced Taiwan’s academic
development.
Moreover, due to the trend of globalization and marketization, institutions not
only in Taiwan but also Mainland China and Hong Kong attempted to use international
standards to measure faculty research performance and enter the realm of international
academia (Chen, 2004). In recent years, with the intent of building a global first class
university, the MOE encouraged Taiwanese faculty members to publish their research
papers in international periodicals (Fu, 2003). One of the strategies the MOE took to
accelerate the building of a global first class university is that in 2003, it released the
ranking of universities in Taiwan based on the number of papers published in SSCI, SCI,
and EI for each university (Fu, 2003).
The MOE’s announcement received much criticism from scholars in the higher
education circle of Taiwan. Chen (2004) pointed out that it was inappropriate to blindly
follow western norms to determine if a Taiwanese faculty member’s research production
is of a high standard or not. According to Chen (2004) citing Yea in 2003, today,
Taiwan’s academic world is filled with the idea, ―in search of excellence.‖ This idea has
inspired academic leaders to welcome and apply the Western academic norm of ―publish
or perish‖ as a basic evaluation criterion for Taiwanese faculty members’ work. These
leaders further emphasize the importance of entering the western academic world in order
to gain recognition in a particular discipline (Chen, 2004). Therefore, in Taiwan, the
33

presence or absence of a scholar’s research in a foreign periodical especially the SSCI,
signals the quality of the research. It also determines if the scholar is respected
professionally in his or her discipline of study.
According to Chen (2004), in the development of global higher education today,
academies from both east and west have invested resources to gain recognition from the
mainstream academy in the west. In order to ―measure up to the advanced standard,‖
many nations, including those that came late in participating in the western academic
social world, not only requested that their scholars write their papers according to the
U.S. standard, but also that they choose a topic of study or research related to trends in
the U.S. academic market, regardless of the fact that local academic study was unable to
prove theory developed through western academic study‖ (p. 5). Chen (2004) pointed out
that ,while many countries have fewer academic resources as compared to the U.S., they
support the academic topics or issues studied in the U.S. Research has always been the
focus in Taiwanese reward system. However, in order to balance the functions of
teachers’ work, the MOE has endeavored to refocus on teaching and service in higher
institutions, which is introduced next.

34

MOE Endeavors to Refocus on Teaching and Service
Inclusion of Teaching and Service in Screening for Promotion
In the past, teaching and research were not included as criteria in faculty
screening for promotion at the MOE’s level in Taiwan. However, in order to alleviate the
phenomenon of over-focusing on research, in 2006 the Ministry of Education began to
include teaching and service in the faculty promotion screening criteria in the Guidelines
for the Screening of Qualification on Teachers of Junior Colleges and Higher Level
(MOE-Council of Academic Review and Evaluation, 2007). Although teaching and
service still account for a smaller percentage than research in the screening process, they
nevertheless reflect an effort the MOE made to return balance among research, teaching,
and service.

Teaching Excellence Award Program
In 2004, the MOE enacted the Teaching Excellence Program to enhance the
overall teaching quality and performance of higher institutions in Taiwan (Department of
Higher Education, 2006). The program was also intended to alleviate the imbalance
between teaching and research, and stimulate the development of different university
classifications in the higher education system. In the 2006-2007 academic year, the MOE
provided an annual governmental budget of Taiwanese dollars, NT$ 5 billion which is
about US$ 167,000, to subsidize higher education institutions in improving overall
35

teaching quality and constructing better organizational systems to facilitate and motivate
the faculty’s work in teaching (Department of Higher Education, 2006).
In order to win the teaching excellence award, institutions need to pass two levels
of evaluation. At the first level, the institutions propose their plan for enhancing teacher
and student quality, curriculum design, and control mechanisms for improving teaching
quality and solidifying teaching resources. At the second, the MOE examines the
strategies to execute their plan. The MOE also examines the activities for enhancing
teaching quality and the improvement measures for the organization of a teaching
system. Further, the MOE examines planning for curriculum design in general and
professional subjects, tracing the effectiveness of student learning and the graduate’s
competitiveness in their job, establishment of teacher evaluation and dismissal systems,
and the proposed plan for spending of the subsidies (MOE, 2006a).

Promotion of Cooperation between Industry and Institution
The MOE also made an effort to improve cooperation between industry and
institutions. Cooperation between industry and institutions is helpful not only in
establishing good relationships between the two sectors but also in increasing professors’
practical field-based experience and the chances of conducting more pragmatic research
instead of academic research in vocational higher institutions. Cooperation between
industry and institutions is also essential for Taiwan’s special economic and industrial
environment, as explained below.
36

In Taiwan, small or medium size enterprises account for 98% of Taiwan’s
industry (Zhen, 2007). Due to the limitation of capital that these small or medium size
enterprises can provide, it is difficult for these enterprises to set up research and
innovation centers comparable to large enterprises (Zhen, 2007). There is, however, a
high potential for research and innovation capability embedded in higher education
institutions. Therefore, if the institutions can help these enterprises with technical
improvements and innovation, the productivity of the small enterprises could be
enhanced.
In order to promote cooperation between industry and institutions, the MOE
provided more than NT$ 40 million (about US$ 1.2 million) in subsidies to institutions
and enterprises (Zhen, 2007). Due to the motivation of the MOE, cooperation between
industry and the institutions became a focus of development for each technical
institution. The institutions that cooperate with industry increase their research funding
resources, and that cooperation also is one of the examination items in the MOE’s
evaluation of technical higher education institutions. Since the MOE’s evaluation results
determine the distribution of the MOE’s subsidies, and establish or terminate schools or
departments in each institution, the technical institution places a lot of importance on
cooperation with industry (Zhen, 2007).

37

Summary
Chapter two introduced the essential characteristics of Taiwanese reward system
in higher institutions. The essential characteristics include a faculty reward structure
which is connected to the faculty review system for determining faculty promotion to a
higher rank or continued employment and which places greater emphasis on research
than teaching and service. Moreover, the quantity of faculty’s work is much more heavily
emphasized than the quality of the work in the reward system. To balance the importance
of the faculty’s work in teaching, research, and service, the MOE of Taiwanese
Government has implemented a Teaching Excellence Program to enhance faculty’s
teaching performance. Also to promote faculty’s service in the institution, the MOE
provides subsidies to accelerate cooperation between industry and the higher education
institutions.
The next chapter discusses factors that influence the faculty’s research
performance and promotion to a higher rank as they relate to the reward system in higher
education institutions.

38

CHAPTER THREE: Review of the Literature on Faculty Research Productivity
Introduction
This section will look at factors that influence faculty research productivity and
promotion to higher rank. It is important to review these factors because faculty’s
research performance is the major determinant in the reward system in higher education
institutions. As a result of the focus on research performance in the reward system, the
faculty’s ability to conduct research and produce scholarly papers becomes essential to
their promotion to a higher rank in the reward system. By looking at what influences
faculty research productivity, the reader will have better insight into the challenges the
Taiwanese faculty encounter in the process of their promotion to a higher rank. First, this
chapter will explore Taiwanese research concerning factors affecting faculty’s
conducting research and promotion to a higher rank. Then, it will provide a comparison
of the U.S. and Taiwanese reward systems with a discussion about the factors they have
in common which relate to faculty promotion to a higher rank. Finally, this chapter will
investigate the research in the U.S about factors related to faculty research productivity
that could not be found in the Taiwanese research.

Factors Affecting Faculty Promotion to Higher Ranks in Taiwan
There are four major areas of influences that affect faculty promotion to a higher
rank. They are the government administration, institutional factors, discipline factors, and
personal factors.

39

Government Administration
In1995, the MOE allowed the vocational junior colleges that had passed their
evaluation to become four-year vocational colleges. About four years later, Lee (2000)
conducted a quantitative study on in-service training and the professional development of
622 teachers among 18 of the promoted institutes of technology in Taiwan. According to
Lee (2000), the policy permitting the upgrade of vocational junior colleges to a higher
status was the most important factor influencing institutional policy. Policy changes
included encouraging faculty members to pursue doctoral degree study, conduct research
or study for professional growth to get promoted to a higher rank or improve their
professional knowledge.

Institutional Factors
The discussion of institutional factors covers a total of six aspects. They are
monetary support from the MOE -- annual holistic development subsidies from the MOE;
support and strategies for faculty pursuing doctoral studies; superiority of research
productivity in public institutions; expanding of institutional mission from teaching to
both teaching and research; reward system- promotion criteria; and promotion review
steps.

40

Monetary Support from the MOE: Holistic Development Subsidies
Holistic development subsidies are an important subsidy that the MOE provides
to private vocational higher institutions every year (Lee, 2000). Part of the fund is used
to improve teacher quality by subsidizing teachers in their attempt at promotion to a
higher rank, in conducting research, and in pursuing professional development. The
amount received by each institution is different depending on the result of MOE’s
evaluation of these institutions every year.
Since the 1990s, the M.O.E. began to provide large amounts of holistic
development subsidies annually to private technological and vocational higher
institutions. The provision of holistic development subsidies is intended to balance the
difference in educational cost spending between private and public institutions, enhance
overall institutional development, improve teachers’ work and, ultimately, increase the
quality of these private technological and vocational institutions (Lee, 2000; Fann, Liang
& Wu, 2006).
In the 2004 academic year, the holistic development subsidies received annually
by a private technological or vocational institutes in Taiwanese dollars was NT$
48,720,745 (about $ 1,476,386). However, compared to the previous five years, the total
subsidies received for each private technological and vocational higher institution
decreased (Fann, Liang, & Wu, 2006). The decline is due to budget constraints in recent
years and a redirection of attention by the government towards pre-k, primary, secondary
and aboriginal education that had been neglected in the past (Fann, Liang, & Wu, 2006).
41

According to Application Criteria of Holistic Development Subsidies for Private
Vocational Higher Institutions, the holistic development subsidies are categorized into
general expenditures and capital expenditures (MOE. 2008). Forty percent of the total
development subsidies received (excluding the amount of project rewards subsidies
received), should be used for the general expenditure category while 60% should be used
for the capital expenditure category. Of the funds in the general expense category, the
MOE orders that at least 30% be used for activities related to improving teaching by
subsidizing or rewarding faculty members who conduct research, pursue a higher degree
or professional studies, attend or conduct workshops and seminars, review promotion,
and author published research papers. The estimated amount each institution received for
these activities related to improving teaching, conducting research, pursuing a degree,
promotion, etc., was about $ 177,166.32 in the 2004 academic year (Fann, Liang, & Wu,
2006).

Support and Strategies for Faculty Pursuing Doctorates
According to the MOE’s measures, there are three ways for lecturers to obtain a
doctoral degree. The first is full-time study with monthly compensation. The second is
full time study without monthly compensation. The third is part time study with monthly
compensation (Rules Governing pursuing further education for faculty members, 2007).
The amount of subsidy and support provided by each institution for faculty pursuing
further study varies depending on the rewards and subsidies guidelines of each
42

institution. For example, at the Chang Gung Institute of Technology, a faculty member
involved in the first type of study receives subsidies for tuition, miscellaneous expenses,
and travel to and from the country the faculty wanted to study (Chang Gung Institute of
Technology, 2007). Those engaged in the second type (full time study without monthly
compensation) pay for their own tuition and this is the most expensive strategy for the
faculty member compared to the other two types. Nevertheless, some institutions provide
a small amount of subsidy for a limited period of time. The criterion for filling the
qualification of the first type of study is more stringent than the other two types. Faculty
qualified for the first type need to study towards their doctoral degree in the specialized
field that is considered important for institution’s future development by the faculty
member evaluation committee of the institution (MOE, 2007).
The third type, part-time degree study with monthly pay, is a popular strategy
among the faculty because faculty can continue to work while getting their monthly
compensation. The subsidy varies by institution. For example, in 2006, Chang Gung
Institute of Technology provided a maximum of NT$ 100,000 (about US$ 3,333) per
year for the first two years (Office of Personnel, Chang Gung Institute of Technology,
2006). Meanwhile, in 2006, Tung Nan Technical Institute of Technology offered NT$
60,000 (about US$ 2,000) per year (Office of Personnel, Tung Nan Technical Institute of
Technology, 2006), and Southern Taiwan Technical University offered NT$ 50,000
(about US$ 1,666) per year (Office of Personnel, Southern Taiwan Technical University,
2006).
43

In order for faculty members to concentrate on their studies, many institutions
have a support policy. For example, Chang Gung Institute of Technology allows their
faculty to teach only the basic course load without participating in any administrative
work or serving as a student mentor (Chang Gung Institute of Technology, 2007).
Minghsin University of Science and Technology allows their faculty to reduce three
hours of the basic course load for a maximum of two years (Minghsin Unversity of
Science and Technology, 2007). Faculty members can also choose other schedules for
pursuing their degree, such as weekend classes and summer or winter breaks. The
allotted time for degree study varies by institution from about two to five years.
To ensure the smooth operation of the institution, each institution usually
regulates that the percentage of faculty pursuing a degree, across all three types, cannot
exceed 10% of all full-time faculty (MOE, 2008). There is also a designated ratio for
participation in advanced degree programs among faculty members teaching in
professional disciplines versus faculty members teaching general knowledge disciplines
for every institution. Those ratios are an important reference in determining the number
of faculty allowed to seek promotion or pursue higher study in each rank or discipline.

Superiority of Research Productivity in Public Institutions
According to Tien (1994), the superiority of faculty productivity in public
institutions as compared to private institutions is due to public institutions having better
facilities, research equipment, library holdings, lower teaching loads, student selectivity
44

and faculty quality, in terms of the percentage of faculty with a Ph.D. Therefore, in the
reviewing process for promotion, the research work of faculty from private institutions is
much more likely to be reviewed by senior faculty from public institutions, while the
work of faculty from public institutions is seldom reviewed by faculty from private
institutions.
Tien (1994) concluded in her study about the relationship among promotion,
motivation, and faculty research productivity in a Taiwanese setting that private
institutions’ faculty took longer to reach the full professorship than public institutions’
faculty. She explained that private institutions may restrict faculty promotion as a means
of balancing their budgets. In the promoted vocational institute of technology or technical
university, although it is the administrators’ expectation that lecturers be successful in
being promoted as soon as they qualify in order to adapt to the institution’s change of
status, with the promotion comes an increase in salary (and, therefore, cost to the
institution), so promotion generates budget considerations for personnel expenses,
especially among private institutions.
More specifically, it would be a competitive advantage if an institution were
composed of a high percentage of professors in faculty structure. The high percentage of
professors also means high personnel costs. For private institutes of technology that have
budget considerations, the administrators need careful deliberation about the appropriate
percentage of lecturers to promote, balancing the goal of strengthening the faculty
structure with placing no significant financial burden on the institution.
45

Expanding of Institutional Mission from Teaching to both Teaching and Research
When the institution is a vocational junior college, teaching is the primary
function of the faculty. After their institution is promoted to an institute of technology or
university of technology, the faculty’s work expands to include both teaching and
research. The expansion will be challenging if the lecturers are not used to the new
content of work. Moreover, the added responsibility will be problematic if faculty have
inadequate ability to conduct research, especially when they are expected to do so in
order to get promoted to a higher rank (Lee, 2000).
Lee (2000) conducted a study of 18 promoted institutes of technology in Taiwan.
She explored in-service training and professional development. Lee found that, overall,
the promoted vocational institutes did not have a complete and integrated plan for
teachers’ professional growth based on the development needs of the school.
Moreover, Tien (1994) does not think that teaching and research are mutually
exclusive missions for universities, nor does she think a faculty member can exhibit
excellent teaching performance without the experience of conducting one’s own research.
She suggested that under the circumstances of budget restraint and resource limitation, a
university can set its own priorities and investigate the effect of its limited resources on
those priorities (e.g. developing a reputation for good teaching for private institutions).
After these priorities have been achieved, then institutions can set new priorities such as
improving their reputation for conducting research (p.211). Both Lee’s findings and
46

Tien’s views highlight the importance of understanding the challenges both institutions
and the faculty face in becoming promoted to a four- year college.

Reward System Promotion Criteria
There are several ways through which the lecturers can be promoted to a higher
rank: authoring specialized publications, obtaining a doctoral degree, authoring technical
reports, and other proof of achievement. Most lecturers’ seek promotion by authoring
specialized publications and by obtaining a doctoral degree (the Statues Governing the
Appointment of Educators; the Regulation Governing the Screening of Qualification on
Teachers of Junior Colleges and Higher Levels, 2007).
There are two major levels of review in the faculty promotion screening process.
The Teachers’ Review Committee at the respective institution does the primary review.
The main duty of the Teacher Review Committee is to screen applicants on the basis of
their performance in teaching, research, and service, using external scholars or experts to
examine the specialized publications or degree dissertations (the Statues Governing the
Appointment of Educators; the Regulation Governing the Screening of Qualification on
Teachers of Junior Colleges and Higher Levels, 2007). The respective institution then
submits, for those who successfully pass the preliminary review, the relevant documents
to the Ministry of Education for examination.
At the MOE level, the Academic Review Committee of the MOE submits the
applicant’s specialized publications or technical reports to three scholars for a second
47

screening. For lecturers who use proof of achievement, for example, works of art, the
Ministry submits the works to four experts for screening. Beginning in 1990, in order to
give universities more autonomy, the MOE authorized 10 universities to determine a
teacher’s promotion without going through the second level of MOE’s reexamination.
These universities had a high faculty approval rate at the MOE level and the MOE
considered these universities to have sufficiently stringent and complete reviewing
procedures for promotion (Tien, 1994; Liu, 2000).
In the traditional process for reviewing a teacher’s promotion, the total score of an
applicant’s work performance in teaching and service is used only as the minimum
criterion for determining if the applicant is qualified for promotion. If the applicant meets
that criterion, the institutions will submit his or her specialized publication for external
review and then send it to the MOE for reexamination. Whether or not a faculty member
can be promoted depends mostly on the score of his or her specialized publication or
degree dissertation determined at the MOE’s level in the second stage of reviewing
process (Regulation Governing the Screening of Qualification on Teachers of Junior
Colleges and Higher Level ). This emphasis on publication creates an imbalance in the
work of the faculty members.
In order to alleviate the imbalance between teaching, research, and service in
1998, the Ministry of Education began to allow institutions to include teaching and
service as a portion of the screening score in the promotion review process (Regulation
Governing the Screening of Qualification on Teachers of Junior Colleges and Higher
48

Level ). However, due to the fact that the score in teaching and service is determined at
the institutional level, the MOE requested that the faculty review system in these
institutions be reported, examined and approved by the MOE for the purpose of quality
control at the institutional level (MOE, 2007.).
For institutions that choose not to include a teacher’s work performance among
teaching, research, and service as part of score for promotion, the MOE regulated that,
for promotion, the lowest score of the specialized publication or technical report should
not be lower than 70%. For institutions that included teaching and service as part of
score for promotion, the MOE regulated that the lowest score for research should not be
below 65%.
The MOE allowed some flexibility for the percentage of calculation for
institutions that choose to include teaching and service as part of the score. The
respective institution is allowed to allot teaching and service at 30% or 20% and research
at 70% or 80% in the total score calculation.

Discipline Factors
There are two main points of interest concerning discipline factors. The first point
of these includes the imbalance of support between disciplines with more market value
versus disciplines with less market value. The second is how publishing norms vary by
discipline: natural science versus the social sciences and humanities (Tien, 2000).
49

In Tien’s (2000) study, noted above, she found that promotion rates vary by
academic fields and by rank level within most fields. For example, social science and
engineering faculty reach the associate professorship faster than humanities faculty. The
different promotion rate between various disciplines can be due to the imbalanced
support between disciplines and the publication style of different disciplines. Compared
with humanities and social science fields, natural science, engineering, and medical
science fields have a much better chance of having their research papers published in
prestigious international journals such as SCI and EI (Chen, 2005). This difference was
due to the fact that much of the humanities and social research in Taiwan focuses more
on local issues, culture, and domestic problems – not the more generalizable issues found
in the international journals. Also, as these studies are written in Chinese instead of
English, it is difficult to get these research papers published in the prestigious
international journals among education, arts, humanity, and social science fields (Chen,
2004).
In addition, university research has been guided to meet the country’s
development so as to enhance the national competitiveness of Taiwan (Chen, 2004).
Therefore, studies that are related to the latest trends such as biotechnology and nano-
technology are always promoted and supported by both government and the industry. On
the other hand, the study of humanities and social sciences are not directly related to
economic productivity and are considered to have less market value and practicality.
Therefore, engineering and medical science research receives the largest amount of
50

National Science Council (NSC) research grants, subsidies, and awards from both the
government and the industry while humanities and social science research are at a
disadvantage in obtaining monetary support (Chen, 2004).
According to Tien (2000), faculty in the natural sciences and engineering
disciplines publish more articles than the faculty in the social sciences and humanities
disciplines. The faculty in the social sciences and humanities disciplines nevertheless
publish more books than the natural sciences faculty. According to Tien’s analysis, in
Taiwan, faculty who publish books tend to value the sense of mastery more highly than
faculty who publish articles. Faculty who get the National Science Center Research
Outcome Grant have similar characteristics to the article-publishing faculty. Also faculty
who have a stronger desire for money are more likely to obtain a National Science Center
Research Outcome Grant. However, it is not clear if the success of faculty members’
promotion is related to the publishing norms of one’s discipline.

Personal Factors
There are three main points of interest concerning personal factors. They are
expectancy theory, extrinsic and intrinsic rewards, and personal attributes.
Tien (1994) conducted a study about the degree to which promotion motivates
and rewards faculty research productivity in a Taiwanese setting. In the study, she tested
expectancy theory (Vroom, Victor, H). Expectancy theory predicts that when one
considers promotion important (promotion valance) and when one believes the
51

environment rewards research productivity with promotion (instrumentality), one tends to
publish research. According to her findings the instructors and associate professors had a
higher promotion valance than full professors, which means that promotion was more
important and meaningful to faculty who need it. She also found that instructors and
associate professors who highly value promotion were more likely to publish articles than
their colleagues who said they cared less about promotion. She also found that promotion
decision favors men over women and favors older over younger faculty. Overall, she
concluded that the desire for promotion motivates faculty to publish, and the chances of
getting promoted depends on one’s research performance.
In Tien’s (1994) study, her empirical evidence showed that both extrinsic rewards
(increased income, recognition from peers, love from others, esteem from students, and
administrative mobility) and intrinsic rewards (demonstrated expertise, joy of
involvement, the sense of mastery over subject matter and satisfying curiosity) motivate
faculty research behavior. Her study showed that faculty published articles because they
desired the reward of promotion and the satisfaction of their intellectual curiosity. In
contrast, faculty published books to demonstrate their expertise. Faculty strived for the
NSC Research Grant in order to increase their personal income. It is not clear if the
success of faculty member’s promotion is related to availability of research funding.
Lee (2000) used different personal attributes such as sex, years of service, rank,
marital status and highest degree obtained to compare different causes of promotion-
seeking behavior in her study. She looked at psychological causes (esteem and self-
52

actualization needs etc.), economic causes (increase income etc.) and social causes
(obtaining higher social and professional status etc.). When she compared men and
women in their willingness to conduct professional development, she found that male
teachers were more affected by psychological causes, economic causes, and social
causes. According to Lee, the results may be due to higher expectations for males in the
society in Taiwan. Also, since male teachers are the main income providers in a family in
Taiwan, male teachers may be more willing to study for a higher degree in order to
achieve success and receive higher pay in their career path.
Comparing teachers of different marital status, Lee (2000) found no significant
difference among teachers of different marital status in contrast to all the factors that
affect teachers’ motivation for participating in in-service training and professional
development in Taiwan. Comparing teachers of different years of working experience,
the teachers with working experience between 11 to 20 years were more willing to
participate in in-service training and professional development, and they were more
easily affected by administrative and psychological causes than the teachers with only 1
to 3 years of service. According to Lee’s explanation, the longer the teachers work in the
environment, the higher the possibility that they will be affected by administration factors
such as institutional policy, which in turn psychologically affects the teachers.
Comparing teachers of different degrees and rank, teachers with master degrees and
lecturer’s rank were more easily affected by all the causes (Lee, 2000). According to Lee,
the reason for this is that the lecturers are under pressure to get promoted to a higher rank
53

for reasons discussed earlier. As a result, compared with faculty members of higher rank,
the lecturers with master’s degrees are more willing to pursue further or professional
study in order to meet the institution’s expectation to get promoted to a higher rank.
The first section of this chapter identified four major factors-- governmental
administration, institutional, disciplinary and personal –that influence faculty engagement
in research and success in getting promoted. These variables are pursued in this study.
There is much research about what influences faculty seeking promotion in the
U.S. In the following section, I will review that research to identify the factors that (a)
also appear in the research in Taiwan, or (b) do not appear in studies of Taiwanese
faculty, but may be relevant. To provide context for this discussion of the research, one
must first compare the reward system in the U.S. and Taiwan.

Comparison of U.S and Taiwan’s Reward System
As previously discussed, Taiwan’s reward system of higher education uses the
concepts of permanent employment and standardized pay. Just to review, faculty
members obtain permanent employment once they are recruited into the institution and
they receive the same amount of pay increases according to the number of years of
service, highest degree received and rank without differentiating among individuals
based on work performance. While recent legislation has weakened the permanent
employment system, making it possible to fire a faculty member, that is not the norm.
54

The U.S. reward system for higher education uses the concepts of tenure and
merit pay (Amey, 1992). Unlike permanent employment in Taiwan, before tenure is
awarded, the institution will employ a probationary period, ranging from 3 to 7 years, as
a type of proving ground for faculty candidates. One year before the end of the
probationary period, peers critically assess the faculty candidates for the purposes of
awarding promotion or tenure (Amey, 1992). Colleges and universities use teaching,
research, and service as the criteria for promotion and tenure review.
Merit pay is one form of achievement reward based on individual differences. It is
paid based on an assessment of quality and quantity of work performed, given annually
to some, but not all faculty (Katz and Kahn, 1966).
According to Amey (1992), citing Van Alstyne (1971), tenure provides formal
assurance of faculty’s professional security and academic freedom because faculty
employment is protected through adherence to due process. According to Amey (1992),
cited from Shulman in 1979, that tenure fosters non-productive scholar and ineffective
teachers because of the feeling that employment is secure.
Like Taiwan, it is hard to remove tenure in the U.S. because, in Taiwan, faculty’s
employment right is protected by the Teacher’s Act, while, in the U.S., tenure is adhered
to due process (Ho, 2005; Amey, 1992). Taiwan’s reward system is moving closer to that
of the U.S., except that permanent employment comes with initial hire, rather than on the
basis of a review of one’s work in the U.S. reward system.
55

For the purpose of improving faculty productivity, in Taiwan, the amendment of
University Act in 1994 requires the establishment of a system in higher institutions for
reviewing faculty members’ work in teaching, research, and service. The result of the
review will be a reference for continued employment of the faculty members. The
enjoyment of permanent employment of Taiwanese faculty members was also terminated
by article 15 in the Teachers Act, which states that an institution can dismiss faculty
members due to class reduction or adjustment of school or department.
Also, according to many U.S. and Taiwanese studies (Carnegie Foundation for
the Advancement of Teaching, 1990; Amey,1992; Fairweather, 1992; Gusvato, 2008;
Liu,2000, Shu,2003; Chen, 2004) productivity is the most important criterion for
determining a faculty member’s promotion. In the late 1980s and early 1990s, research
constantly showed scholarly publication productivity as the strongest correlate of faculty
pay (Fairweather, 2005).
In order to find balance between research and teaching and service, both countries
have put forth an effort to improve the problem. As previously discussed, Taiwan enacted
the Teaching Excellence Award Project. In the U.S., instead of the traditional definition
of scholarship as basic research, there is an expanded view to include scholarship of
teaching, scholarship of application, and scholarship of integration as part of research
work (Boyer, 1990). Boyer’s seminal work influences the policy conversation within and
outside of academe (Fairweather, 2005). Efforts such as Gene Rice’s American
Association of Higher Education Forum on Faculty Roles and Rewards have led to many
56

reforms in the assessment of faculty work (Fairweather, 2005). Legislative policies in
many states attach some public university resources to a commitment of teaching and
learning (Portillo, 1996). Federal agencies (NSF) and independent foundations such as
the Bush foundation have invested heavily in undergraduate teaching and professional
development for teaching.
According to Colbeck (2002) that legislative concern about improving instruction
has taken different forms in different states. In Florida, there is a mandate of post-tenure
review in state policy (Colbeck, 2002). In Ohio, the legislature passed a bill in 1993 that
requires faculty of public colleges and universities to increase the time spent on teaching
(Colbeck, 2002). In Maryland, there is a state mandate of more stringent workload
reporting requirements (Colbeck, 2002). In Tennessee, South Carolina and several other
states, there are policies that relate institutional l funding to performance indicators.

Factors in Common
Research on faculty productivity in the US reveals some of the same influences
discussed earlier as affecting faculty productivity in Taiwan: institutional, disciplinary,
and personal factors. The following section reviews these.

Institutional Support
Like Taiwan’s research, various scholars in the U.S. (Baldwin and Blackburn,
1981; Blackburn and Lawerence, 1995; Wood, 1990 Dundar and Lewis, 1998;
57

Fairweather, 1999; Gustavo, 2008) established the importance of institutional support to
encourage faculty to engage in research and seek promotion to a higher rank. Baldwin’s
and Blackburn’s study (1981) about faculty career development among 106 male faculty
members from 12 liberal arts colleges showed that institutional support such as funding,
facilities, release time for mid-career faculty and opportunity for growth and
advancement could generate new enthusiasm for research to prevent professional
―stuckness‖ which meant the faculty stopped seeking opportunities for professional
growth and advancement.
Dundar and Lewis (1998) conducted a study about the relationship between
academic research productivity and institutional factors in U.S. doctoral-level institutions
among four fields: biological sciences, engineering, physical sciences and math, and
social and behavioral sciences (data from 1993 National Research Council). They
concluded that universities with policies encouraging faculty to engage in grant-seeking
and research have higher research output. They found institutional expenditure for
libraries were significantly related to productivity because provision of better resources
in the infrastructure helps to improve research productivity.
Research conducted in Taiwan found that productivity in public institutions is
higher than in private institutions (Tien, 1994). Contrary to the findings in Taiwan,
Dundar and Lewis (1998) discovered that average faculty research productivity in public
universities tends to be significantly less than that in private institutions. Dundar and
Lewis explained that this difference could be due to the fact that private institutions rely
58

heavily on voluntary support and demand for their product in order to generate revenue.
Since high research performance enhances reputation and increases the influx of
resources into the institution, in order to survive, private institutions not only recruit
highly productive faculty to enhance their research performance but also provide better
incentive for faculty to improve their research productivity. It is important to find
whether institutional support in private institution is related to faculty member’s
promotion.
Wood (1990) conducted a qualitative study about factors influencing research
performance of university academic staff in Australia. The findings indicate that the
availability of funding, equipment, and support staff is critical in promoting research
performance. According to her investigation, inadequate funding led to undertaking less
challenging, and short-term projects and caused demoralization because of the need to
use outdated equipment and difficulties in retaining trained support staff. She also
discovered that, while faculty members considered it important that colleagues provide
stimulation and help, most faculty members still pointed out that, instead of cooperation,
colleagues sometimes competed with each other. For faculty in smaller departments, it
was difficult to find faculty members that shared similar areas of expertise. It is
worthwhile to explore if difficulty to find faculty members that shared similar areas of
expertise in one’s department is related to faculty member’s promotion.
Blackburn and Lawrence (1995) conducted a study about what motivated 4240
faculty to engage in teaching, research and service among institutions from nine Carnegie
59

classification categories. They concluded that it is important for an institution to establish
a supportive climate aligned with what it values if it wishes to achieve its goals. If the
organization wants increased faculty research output, there must be a clear message from
above that such is the case. Also, the institution must make it obvious that faculty
research is being rewarded. It is worthwhile to explore how expectations are being
communicated and rewarded.
Gustavo (2008) conducted a mixed method study to determine what
organizational and personal factors influence faculty research productivity at twelve
small-medium, private, doctorate-granting universities. He concluded that institutional
resources and facilities are an important component of scholarly productivity.
Leslie (2000) noted that if institutions did not pressure faculty members to
publish, faculty members would prefer to teach and be rewarded for teaching. With
reasonable level of security and compensation, faculty members did not seek opportunity
for higher pay if it meant doing more research and publishing.

Unproductive in Both Teaching and Research
Like the Taiwanese study, Baldwin and Blackburn (1981) found that it was
difficult for faculty to sustain productivity in both teaching and research. They
discovered that most faculty in their study agreed that the first few years of teaching and
periods of new or added responsibilities are difficult in their career evolution.
60

Fairweather’s research (1999) agrees that the assumption that teaching and
research are mutually reinforcing and faculty members can be productive in all aspects of
work is questionable. Based on this assumption, the reward system requires faculty
members to demonstrate their productivity in teaching, research, and put some emphasis
on service as well. Nevertheless, according to Fairweather (1999), Feldman’s review of
more than 200 research studies found little relationship between student ratings of
teaching excellence and various forms of research productivity.
Wood (1990) also found that the faculty have problems accommodating their
research with teaching and service. In general, due to the immediacy of teaching and
administration, faculty members can only do their research during the time left over.
According to faculty members’ comments, one’s teaching load is the major obstacle to
being able to accommodate research and other institutional demands. Fairweather’s
(1993& 1996) studies on time allocation and rewards fail to find support for the idea that
faculty can achieve research and teaching goals simultaneously. Fairweather (2002)
conducted a study to explore the percentage of faculty who were productive both in
teaching and research. They used data gathered in the 1992-93 National Survey of
Postsecondary Faculty. They found that only about 22% of faculty in four-year
institutions attain higher productivity in teaching and research.
Marsh & Hattie (2002) and Teodorescu (2000) found a different conclusion from
the studies discussed earlier. In Teodorescu’s (2000) cross national study of faculty
research, productivity among 10 nations including U.S., U.K. Australia, Japan, Israel,
61

Hong Kong, and some Latin America countries was examined. The results show that
dedicating faculty time to teaching did not hinder them from becoming research
productive (Teodorescu, 2000).
Marsh and Hattie (2002) conducted a study about relationship between teaching
and research with 182 samples at a large urban university in Australia that has both
teaching and research orientation. The result of their study showed that the teaching-
research relation is close to zero. Their findings demonstrate a consistent result with their
previous study conducted in 1996. Their study in 1996 is a meta-analysis of the relation
between teaching and research among university academics based on 58 articles.

Discipline Factors
Research looking at faculty in Taiwan found that there is a difference in faculty
promotion rates and publishing norms in different disciplines. As discussed earlier, for
example, social science and engineering faculty reach the associate professorship faster
than humanities faculty due to the imbalance in the research funding the faculty obtain
for various disciplines (Tien, 2000).
In the U.S., various studies (Wanner, Lewis, and Gregorio, 1981; Clark, 1987;
Dundar and Lewis, 1998; Fairweather, 1996; Clark, 2001) have also found that there is
wide variation in the patterns of interests, activities, and attributes of faculty doing
research in different academic disciplines.
Wanner, Lewis, and Gregorio (1981) conducted a study about research
productivity for sciences (physical and biological sciences), social science (economics,
62

psychology, political science, sociology etc), and humanities (language, history,
philosophy etc). They found that the features of individual academic careers and the
conditions of academic work which affect output are strikingly contrasted in the sciences
and humanities. Dundar and Lewis (1998) found that the average faculty member in the
social sciences wrote 2.5 articles between 1988 and 1991, whereas the average faculty
member in the biological sciences wrote 9 articles. According to the authors, this
difference may not reflect productivity differences between fields, but, instead, may
indicate differences in style and types of publications between fields. They also pointed
out that, though previous research is inconclusive about the relationship between rank
and productivity, they found that full professors (compared to other ranks) achieved
higher research productivity in all fields except social and behavior sciences.
Fairweather (1996) explored how to enhance the value of teaching in the faculty
role. He used the data of 1987-88 National Survey of Postsecondary Faculty for his
study. He found that both discipline and type of institutions shape the proportion of time
individuals spend on teaching and research. Clark (2001), based on his previous studies
that report the results of research on academic life in Europe and America, concluded
that disciplines show discernible difference in individual behavior and group action. He
pointed out that across the many fields of physical sciences, biological sciences, the
social sciences, the humanities, and the arts, face-to-face research of his previous studies
shows variation in work assignments, symbols of identity, and modes of authority, career
lines, and association linkages. He also concluded that great differences always appear
63

between letters and science departments. He also suggested that type of institutions and
academic disciplines exert ―centrifugal force‖ on the profession by drawing faculty into
separate worlds. It would be important to discover whether similar disciplinary
differences exist in Taiwan, and, if so, the extent to which they interact with faculty
efforts at promotion. It is also significant to discover if there is a difference in the
difficulty of faculty member’s promotion for different disciplines and different
institutions.

Personal Factors
Tien’s (1994) study conducted in Taiwan indicated that both intrinsic and
extrinsic motivations are important in influencing faculty members’ productivity and
promotion to higher rank. In the U.S., studies (Finkelstein, 1984; Horner, Rushton, and
Vernon, 1986; Fairweather and Rhoads, 1995; Blackburn and Lawerence, 1995; Perry et
al (2002) about the importance of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation are inconclusive.
Finkelstein (1984) mentioned that psychologists assume that behavior follows
from internal drives and interests, and faculty respond minimally to external rewards. In
other words, faculty may compete for prizes, but, if they enjoy doing the work, their
motivation will continue to last, and they will continue to spend their time on what they
like to do even if they do not get externally rewarded.
There are also indications that genetically influenced intellectual and personality
dispositions play important roles in production of the quantity and quality of research, as
64

effective researchers are ambitious, enduring, dominant, intelligent, aggressive,
independent and non-supportive (Horner, Rushton, and Vernon, 1986).
Perry et al (2002) conducted a study about perceived control and type of
institution in the research productivity of newly hired faculty. The sample of their study
included two hundred and fifty-nine newly hired faculty at five U.S. institutions.
According to Perry et al (2002), perceived control refers to an individual’s subjective
beliefs about his/her capacity to influence events throughout their development. They
assumed that some people have intrinsic motivation to believe they possess a greater
capacity to influence events than they have in reality and vice versa. They found that
perceived control plays a critical role in the research productivity of the newly hired
faculty. The newly hired faculty were more productive when they had a positive self-
perception about their ability to produce research.
Rodgers & Rogers (1999) conducted a study about the impact of the ―sacred
spark‖ on publication. Their sample consisted of ninety-one assistant professors
employed in sixty-eight public administration programs. According to them, the ―sacred
spark‖ is the intrinsic joy that some faculty members derive from doing research. Their
study showed that faculty who had a sacred spark for research were more likely to
become publishing celebrities. In their study, extrinsic motivation such as research
support had less impact on publications as compared to the ―sacred spark‖ factor.
In contrast to the studies discussed earlier, the studies that show extrinsic
motivation is more important than intrinsic motivation for research productivity are as
65

follows. Blackburn and Lawrence (1995) conducted a study about faculty motivation in
research, teaching, and service. The data they used for their study is from the 1987-88
National Center for Research to Improve Postsecondary Teaching and Learning National
Survey. They concluded in their findings that career age, demographics (e.g, rank), and
behavior (e.g. extrinsic motivation of obtaining external research funding) are the
strongest predictor of research productivity. Self-knowledge related to intrinsic rewards
such as personal interest, satisfaction, and psychological characteristics were not as
powerful predictors as they assumed at the beginning of the study.
Fairweather and Roads (1995) examined the combined influence of
administrative action, faculty socialization, and self-motivation on faculty effort devoted
to teaching. They used the data gathered in the 1987-1988 National Survey of
Postsecondary Faculty for the study. They concluded in their findings that external
rewards were the most important predictors of faculty research output as compared to
psychological characteristics and socialization.

Other Aspects Found in U.S. Research
There are several aspects under institutional and personal factors that the U.S.
research revealed that not found in Taiwanese research. They are gender, rank, age and
the length of time in a rank.

66

Gender
In Taiwan, there are very few scholars who study productivity by gender, but
those that did disaggregate productivity by gender found that promotion decisions
favored men over women and favored older over younger faculty (Lee, 2000).
Interestingly, while there are plenty of studies about the difference of research
productivity between men and women in the U.S. (Fulton, 1974; Blackburn, Behymer
and Hall, 1978; Cole & Zuckerman, 1984; Kyvik, 1990; Blackburn, et al, 1991;
Clemente, 1973; Teodorcscu, 2000; Xie and Shauman,1998; Sax, Hagedorn, and
Arredondo, 2002; Fox, 2005; Toutkoushian ,2004), the results are inconsistent. Many
studies reported that men publish more than women (Fulton, 1974; Blackburn, Behymer
and Hall, 1978; Cole & Zuckerman, 1984; Kyvik, 1990; Bentley and Adamson, 2003).
One found that women have higher research productivity than men do (Koplin and
Single, 1996). Still other studies showed that gender is not a predictor of publication
productivity (Blackburn, et al, 1991; Clemente, 1973; Teodorcscu, 2000; Baebezat,
2006).
Fulton (1974) found that academic men in general published 2.5 times as much as
academic women. The ratio differed among seven disciplines including physical science,
social sciences, education, humanities and others. Blackburn, Behymer, and Hall (1978)
found men are three times more likely than women to have published 11 or more articles
during their careers irrespective of their academic disciplines. According to the literature
of Bentley and Adamson (2003), Mathtech Inc., in 1999, found that women present about
67

1.2 fewer papers and publish about 1.4 fewer articles than men do, and Sonner and
Holton, in 1995, found a significant difference between women’s and men’s publication
rates. Women had about 0.5 fewer publications than men did even after controlling for
fields.
It is a trend that has been sustained overtime. Studies as early as 1974 and in
recent years find that men out publish women on a papers per person basis. However,
according to the literature of Gregorutti (2008) about gender productivity, several recent
studies (Xie& Shauman (1998); Sax, Hagedorn & Arredondo (2002), Fox (2005);
Toutkoushian (2004), found that the productivity gap between men and women has
narrowed over the last two decades.
The studies that show no relationships between gender and productivity are as
follows. Clemente (1973) examined publication records of 2205 holders of the Ph.D. and
found that gender is a weak predictor of publication output. Blackburn, Bieber,
Lawerence, and Trautvetter (1991) collected data from a 1988 national survey of faculty
across nine Carnegie Institutional Classification types among eight disciplines and they
found that gender is not a predictor of research productivity. In Teodorescu’s (2000)
cross-national study among 10 nations, he found individual attributes represented by age
and gender are not significantly related to publishing productivity. In Baebezat’s (2006)
study based on a 1996 survey of PhD economists from the top fifty PhD-granting
economics programs in the U.S., she also found that being male is not a significant
predictor of publishing productivity.
68

Koplin and Singell (1996) used a quality-weighted index of scholarly productivity
instead of a simple count of articles published for their research productivity study for
men and women. The quality index was calculated as the number of citations that the
journal received per article published times 1000. Koplin and Singell defined scholarly
output as the sum of quality-weighted articles published. They found that women’s
scholarly output was significantly higher than men’s after controlling for variables such
as experience, quality of graduate school attended and quality of the employing
institution.
While there is some disagreement about the relationship between gender and
publication rates, most US research concludes that women produce fewer articles per
person than men. There are several reasons for the lower productivity of women.
According to Clemente’s (1973) conclusions from various studies, women have different
interests, attitudes and values than men and women prefer teaching to research and,
hence, work in colleges instead of universities which tend to have higher productivity
than smaller institutions regardless of gender.
Kyvik (1990) assumed that childbirth and greater daily care giving
responsibilities interrupted women’s research careers. Nevertheless, various findings did
not show a significant relationship between child rearing and research output for women.
For example, Hamovitch and Morgenstern (1977) used data collected from the Carnegie
Council on Education and found that women published fewer articles than men
regardless of marital and parent status, and that there was no statistically significant
69

relationship between publications and responsibility for child rearing. Similarly
Zukerman’s and Cole’s (1987) case research of marriage, motherhood and research
performance in science with 120 scientists found single and married women have
identical publication rates.
Sax, Hagedorn, Arredondo and Dicrisi (2002) explored the role of marriage,
children, and aging parents in faculty research productivity and found those family
related variables exhibited little or no effect on research productivity. Also their results
showed that the factors that affected research productivity, academic rank, salary,
orientation toward research, and desire for recognition, were nearly the same for men and
women.
Fox’s (2005) research on gender, family characteristics, and publication
productivity among scientists found that the productivity of women with preschool
children was higher than that of women without children or those with school-aged
children. Her research discovered that, as compared to women without children and
women with older children, women with preschool children allocate more time in
research-related activity.
In contrast to the findings mentioned above, Kyvik’s (1990) study of all faculty
members in Norway’s four universities showed that care giving responsibilities for small
children under ten were very important in explaining women’s lower publishing
productivity. According to her, women with small children and unmarried women were
substantially less productivity than men.
70

In addition, Kyvik (1990) found that women with older children were more
productive than those without children or unmarried. The interpretation for Kyvik’s
findings is that married women faculty have more energy and stamina than childless
women; they get support from their husbands; they have a more stable social life and
being married neutralized the effect of gender among colleagues since married women
faculty collaborated more with male faculty than unmarried women.
Besides marriage and children, women’s lower productivity output may be related
to their access to research networks. Cole and Zukerman (1984) mentioned that women
publish less because they are more isolated and do not have ―the old boys‖ network.
Clemente (1973) also pointed out that women are generally excluded from the informal
male information network, which results in reducing their potential research ability.
Bentley and Adamson (2003) mentioned that the gender difference in productivity might
be explained by job selection and gender sorting by coauthors. Men and women tend to
collaborate with coauthors of the same sex, and, because there are relatively few women
faculty ties, women are at a disadvantage to find coauthors of their own sex (McDowell,
1980). Sax, Hagedorn, Arredondo and Dicrisi (2002) concluded from Creamer’s article
that, after reviewing more than 20 years of research on faculty productivity, Creamer
found that two articles showed a significant positive relationship between marriage and
productivity, five articles showed a non-significant relationship, and three showed a
positive relationship between marriage and publishing productivity. Creamer also
71

reported an inconsistent result for the relationship between caring for children and
publishing productivity.

Rank
The results are inconclusive about the relationship between rank and productivity
in U.S. literature. Blackburn, Behymer, and Hall (1978) found that there is a strong
relationship between rank and research output, such that over 28.6 percent of full
professors published five or more articles over a two-year period, compared with 20.9
percent of associate professors, 13.3 percent of assistant professors, and 2.2 percent of
instructors. They explained that full professors have more opportunity to conduct
research since they have a smaller teaching load, better professional networks, and a
better chance to obtain funding. They also found that while productivity increased with
rank, ―saddle-shaped‖ age and productivity curves developed. These curves go down and
then up again after promotion to associate professor and before attaining full
professorship.
The saddle-shaped curve of a faculty’s productivity output can be related to
behavioral reinforcement theory. According to Tien and Blackburn (1996), the faculty
rank system can be treated as a schedule of behavior reinforcement, in which one’s
productivity rate rises when the time of promotion is near but after receiving the
promotion, the productivity rate declines. However in Tien’s and Blackburn’s findings,
only the productivity curve of the group of associate professorship best fit the behavior
reinforcement theory. ―A post-reinforcement pause occurs after promotion to the
72

associate professorship, followed by low productivity in the early years of promotion but
gradually rise again as the time approaches for promotion to full professorship‖ (p17).
They also found that, though full professors published more than assistant and associate
professors, assistant professors produce more than associate professors. This finding is
different from Blackburn’s, Behymer’s and Hall’s (1978) results mentioned above in
which the higher the rank, the more productivity the faculty member.
Kyvic (1990) found that, as compared to other variables in the study, such as age,
being previously married, and being childless, rank had the largest effect on productivity
for both men and women. Wanner, Lewis, and Gregorio (1981) also found that academic
rank strongly affects article count among the disciplines of natural sciences and social
sciences, but not in the humanities. Instead of article output, for the humanities, academic
rank was strongly related to book productivity, which supports the contention from the
Taiwanese research that there is a stronger relationship between book productivity for
humanities than for sciences (Tien, 2000).
In contrast, Over (1982) found that rank did not exert significant influence on
research output. He used multiple regression analysis to examine the relative influence
of age, sex, academic rank, previous publication output, and research standing of the
university to publication rate among psychologists. He found that only the factors of past
productivity of the individual and the research standing of the university (university
affiliation) explained 30.4 percent of variance in the criterion measure.

73

Age
Age is an important determinant that influences faculty research productivity.
Nevertheless, there is inconsistency in the findings about the relationship between age
and productivity in U.S. studies. The inconsistency may be due to complex measurement,
sample difference, and methodological problems. Also, different scholars have studied
the relationship of age and research productivity from different theoretical perspectives
such as developmental (biological) perspectives, socialization perspectives, and life
course (interaction of psychological and socialization ie. interaction between the person
and the environment) perspectives. These differences are explained below.
From a biological perspective, aging causes mental capacity to decline and,
therefore, intellectual powers peak at an early age and deteriorate thereafter (Black &
Lawrence, 1995). Horner, Rushton, and Vernon (1986) pointed out that young scientists
are motivated to achieve future goals. However, beginning in the middle years and
increasing thereafter, as scientists age, they become more past-oriented, especially when
major goals have already been achieved.
Faculty can develop different interests during different career stages. For
example, in Fulton’s and Trow’s (1974) study, they found that many professors change
their interest from research to teaching as they get older. Soldofsky (1984) found that
productivity reached its peak of 0.92 articles per person per year for the 36 to 40 age
group but decline to 0.55 per year for the oldest group of 55 to 60 years old. The study
by Blackburn, Bieber, Lawerence, and Trautvetter (1991), described earlier, found that
74

career-age is a strong negative predictor of productivity, indicating that younger faculty
publish more.
Other research confirms this finding. Levin and Stephan (1989) conducted a study
across four fields of science and discovered that older faculty members published less
than younger ones. They also found the saddle-shaped curve of productivity as a function
of career stage, in which productivity of many faculty peaks at age thirty, drops off, and
then peaks again in their fifties. Contrary to the finding above, in Teodorcscu’s (2000)
cross-national study among 10 nations, he found that individual attributes represented by
age and gender are not significant to publishing productivity. According to Teodorcscu,
a highly related variable to age, academic rank, is an even better factor in predicting
faculty publishing productivity.
In contrast with the biological and developmental perspectives, sociological
approaches to aging focus on the impact of the environment, demographic compositions,
cohorts, norms, and other external forces that determine human behavior (Blackburn and
Lawerence, 1986). Socialization theory purports that faculty have been socialized to
value certain activities early in their career and the attractiveness of these activities
continues over the course of their career (Blackburn, Lawerence, Bieber, and Trautvetter,
1991). According to the study conducted by Carnegie (1987), the Ph.D. graduates of
research I universities will be less interested in teaching than those who graduated from
other types of higher institutions.
75

Many scholars found no relationship between age and productivity. Fulton and
Trow (1974) approached their study from the socialization perspective, which assumes
that behavior, value, and beliefs are shaped by environmental conditions. They found
that, in the leading institutions, the research norm was so strong that older professors
continued to conduct their research even as they participated in administrative work.
They found that there were no substantial differences in publishing productivity after the
faculty reached the age of 30 and only a slight decline in publishing rate over the age of
60.
Examples of scholars who also support the socialization approach include
Blackburn, Behymer, and Hall (1978); Allison and Stewart (1974), and Rushton and
Vernon (1986). Their studies demonstrated that high producers remained highly
productive while low producers continued to produce less over the course of their career.
Blackburn, Behymer, and Hall (1978) conducted a study on a national sample of both
four-year colleges and universities with over 7000 faculty, and they concluded that
productive individuals started their career early, received their degree young, and
developed a habit of publishing regularly regardless of status change (promotion and
tenure). Allison and Steward (1974) found extreme differences in scientists’ research
performance. Based on the assumption of accumulative advantage, they found highly
productive scientists are likely to be even more productive in the future while low
productivity scientists produced even less. In addition, as Allison and Steward indicated,
the implication of accumulative advantage is that productivity, recognition, resources and
76

esteem increase as career age increases. Similarly, Rushton and Vernon (1986) showed
that there is an accumulative advantage for publication. They conducted a study
involving four birth cohorts and five measurement periods and found that productivity
started at a low rate while in one’s 20s, reached the peak in the 40s, and then decreased in
the later years. They found that those who began as high productivity researchers
remained more productive than the medium and the lower groups at each age level
studied. Over (1982), discussed above, compared publication rates in 1968-1970 and
1978-1980. Though he found that psychologists above 45 years of age published less
frequently than younger ones, he also discovered that a person’s previous publication rate
was a better predictor of their later publication rate than their age.
Sax, Hagedorn, Arredondo, and Dicrisi III (2002), described above, found that
age is a relatively negative predictor, showing that younger faculty tend to be more
productive. According to their explanation ―high levels of productivity among younger
faculty reflect the fact that these faculty have been socialized at a time in graduate school
and in their present career when a premium is placed on the quantity of publication‖
(p.430)
The life course perspective is a multidisciplinary approach which considers the
interaction of the person and his/her environment (Lawerence and Blackburn, 1986). This
social and psychological approach to the study of aging examines how properties of the
person interact with the properties of the environment and prior role performance to
affect productivity during several periods over the course of a faculty career (Lawerence
77

and Blackburn, 1986). Lawerence and Blackburn (1986) conducted a study by applying
the life course model and interviewed 65 male faculty members at the University of
Michigan on a number of matters related to their career such as productivity and support
for promotion criteria. The outcome of the data were analyzed from maturation (aging),
cohort (socialization impact), and historical effects (critical event impact). They found
that age was a poor predictor while the cohort explanation was the most effective in
explaining the data especially when historical events were also taken into consideration.
Overall, the combination of cohort and historical events were found to be the most
powerful in explaining the results of the study.
Relationship between Duration of Stay in one Rank and Desire for Promotion
The number of years a faculty member stays in a rank can also show how much
he or she desires to be promoted to a higher rank. Tien and Blackburn (1996) conducted a
study surveying 2,568 fulltime faculty members selected from the 1989 Carnegie national
survey. In the study, they asserted that the reward system served a selection function -
the fewer publications one produces, the longer one stays in a specific rank. They found
that assistant and associate professors who stayed in that rank longer than the average six
years were less productive than other colleagues in the same rank. They also explained
their findings from the perspective of behavioral reinforcement theory. On the basis of
this theory, ―years since promotion‖ can be treated as a proxy measure of ―the desire for
promotion‖. They argue that the longer a faculty member stays in a rank, the less desire
he or she has for promotion. Consequently, the faculty member would not follow the
78

promotion norm to publish as a faculty member’s lower desire for promotion leads him
or her to publish less.

Summary
The review of literature on the Taiwanese reward system provided important
background information for examining the institutional factors, disciplinary factors, and
personal factors influencing a lecturer’s intentions to conduct research, and pursue a
doctoral degree.
In the U.S. and Taiwan reward systems, research is the major determinant of
faculty’s promotion in higher institutions. The Taiwanese studies demonstrate that many
institutions have support policies and strategies to facilitate faculty’s conducting research
and pursuing further studies. Like the Taiwanese studies, the U.S. studies found that
institutional support is important for higher faculty research productivity. Since we still
do not know if the promoted vocational institutions provide sufficient support for the
lecturers to conduct research and pursue further studies, it is worthwhile to explore the
perception of un-promoted lecturers about how institutional policy supports or
discourages their promotion. One U.S. study also pointed out that, in order to establish a
supportive climate, there must be a clear message from above that research is being
rewarded. Therefore, it is important to know how an institution communicates the
expectation of work change to lecturers due to institutional promoting to higher status.
Wood (1990) also concluded that, among faculty in smaller departments, it was difficult
79

to find faculty members who shared similar areas of expertise. It may be valuable to
explore whether the presence of colleagues who share similar areas of expertise in one’s
department is related to faculty member’s promotion.
Also like the Taiwanese research, most research in the U.S. found that research
and teaching are not mutually reinforcing. Lee (2000) mentioned that, after vocational
junior college’s promotion to a higher status, faculty’s work expanded to include both
teaching and service. We do not know if the lecturers in the promoted vocational
institutions have difficulties adjusting their work from teaching to teaching and research.
Therefore, this study explored whether work expansion contributes to lecturers’
perceptions of barriers to promotion to a higher rank. \
In the U.S. and Taiwan, various studies also showed that there is a wide
difference in the patterns of interests, activities, attributes, and publishing norms of
faculty doing research in different academic disciplines. For example, research in natural
science is usually conducted by teams, requiring much funding for equipment and
support personnel, while, in the humanities, scholars commonly work alone, requiring
little capital investment. We do not know whether lecturers’ experiences in seeking
promotion to a higher rank vary by discipline.
One study in Taiwan found that both intrinsic and extrinsic motivations are
important to research productivity. Studies in the U.S. are inconclusive about the
importance of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation in influencing faculty research
performance. Since it is unknown if lecturers’ difficulties in conducting research and
80

promoting to higher rank are related to lack of extrinsic or intrinsic motivation, this study
explored these factors.
Other studies not found in Taiwan but in the U.S. indicate that the results are
inconclusive about the impact of gender, marital status, having children, and the
availability or lack of research networks on research productivity. Since it is not clear if
gender differences and family responsibilities affect faculty’s conducting research and
promoting to higher rank among the lecturers in Taiwan, this problem will be examined
through the perceptions of lecturers and administrators.
Also, there is inconsistency in the findings about the relationship between age and
productivity in U.S. studies. Biologically, aging causes mental capacity to decline, and,
therefore, intellectual powers peak at an early age and deteriorate thereafter. It is
unknown if the lecturer’s difficulty in promotion to a higher rank is related to the aging
of faculty in Taiwanese vocational institution. I will explore this factor through the
perception of the lecturers and administrators in my study.
Other U.S. studies showed inconclusive results about rank and research
productivity for faculty members. Though this is an important factor related to faculty
productivity, it is not explored in this study since all interviewees in each population
sample have the same rank. One study concluded that, the longer one stays in a rank, the
less desire one has to be promoted to higher rank. It is still unknown if this is a factor
contributing to lecturers’ remaining in the same rank after many years of institutional
promotion to higher status.
81

In conclusion, the literature suggests many factors that influence research
productivity and promotion of faculty members in both the U.S. and Taiwan.
Nevertheless, we do not know if these factors are relevant to the experiences of lecturers
seeking promotion to a higher rank in vocational higher institutions in Taiwan since there
is no study found in Taiwan related to the problem of lecturers’ promotion. Also, the
studies found in both Taiwan and the U.S focus on research universities and higher level
faculty members. Therefore, this study will explore whether those factors found in both
countries at research universities and among higher level faculty also apply to lecturers in
the vocational higher institutions in Taiwan. The factors explored in this study include:
(1) institutional support; (2) institution’s communication of work expectations; (3)
support of colleagues; (4) adjustment from teaching to teaching and research; (5)
disciplinary differences; (6) intrinsic and extrinsic motivation; (7) gender; (8) age; and
(9) the duration of staying in one rank relating to promotion difficulty.

82

CHAPTER FOUR: Methodology
Introduction

The purpose of this study is to explore the perceptions of both lecturers and
administrators concerning the difficulties that lecturers encounter in seeking promotion.
Understanding perceptions of barriers, and noting any differences in those perceptions,
may generate recommendations for both lecturers and administrators to improve the
present situation. This chapter will discuss the research question; research strategy;
strengths and weakness of qualitative research; sample population; sample selection;
selection of lecturers and administrators; accessing the sample; instrumentation; data
collection; triangulation of data; document review; and data analysis.

Research Questions
The primary question this study addressed in this study is
What can we learn from un-promoted faculty and their administrators about the
faculty experience of changing work expectations (across teaching, research, and
service) and lecturers’ difficulties of promotion that would help TU, SU and other
institutions planning a transition?
This study specifically looked for how the factors of (1) institutional support; (2)
institution’s communication of work expectations; (3) support of colleagues; (4)
adjustment from teaching to teaching and research; (5) disciplinary characteristics; (6)
83

intrinsic and extrinsic motivation; (7) gender; (8) age; and (9) the duration of staying in
one rank relating to promotion difficulty affect lecture’s promotion and work adjustment.

Research Strategy
For this research, in-depth qualitative interviewing, rather than quantitative
methods, was selected because the researcher was interested in acquiring a wealth of
detailed data for the phenomenon under study. Interviews are useful tools for inquiring
about feelings, experiences, attitudes, perceptions and meaning about the phenomenon
under study while quantitative methods standardize questions and responses with little
room for individual voices. According to Denzin and Lincoln (1994), the qualitative
study brings a phenomenon to life for readers and helps them to understand meaning and
perception. They write, ―Qualitative research is multi-method in its focus, involving an
interpretive, naturalistic approach to its subject matter‖ (p2). This means that qualitative
researchers study things in their natural settings, attempting to interpret phenomena in
terms of the meanings people bring to them.
This study of the perceptions of both lecturers and administrators revealed points
of agreement and divergence concerning difficulties in promotion and changing work
expectations encountered by the faculty. This study used participants’ viewpoints to
explain and describe lecturers’ difficulties in seeking promotion and adapting to changing
work expectations. These perspectives are most readily accessed through interviews.

84

Strengths of Qualitative Interviewing
The advantages of applying qualitative interviewing to this study are that
qualitative interviewing follows the tradition of interpreting human perception and
meaning and enables the researcher to study the phenomenon of difficulties in promotion
and work adjustments in depth and in detail from the perspective of selected key
informants without constraints by predetermined categories of analysis, as in quantitative
research, such as a survey. Through direct quotation and careful description of the case
situations, people, interactions, and observed behavior, a wealth of detailed and thorough
information can be collected (Patton, 1987). Also, interviews allow the researcher to
develop a rapport and trust with the respondents and, as a result, the interviewer can
possibly obtain data not revealed through other data collection methods such as a
questionnaire.
The use of a qualitative study can bring the case or phenomenon to life through a
process of detailed description and, thus, better explain the difficulties in promotion and
work adjustment that might not be as accessible when using the statistical method of
quantitative research. Moreover, compared to reading only quantitative research reports,
the high level administrator or reader of this study may gain a better basis for designing
interventions to either help the faculty in their work, or take action to adjust the incentive
system (Gall et al., 1996, 585). Lastly, since the case study was done in the researcher’s
own country --Taiwan-- the researcher was familiar with the language, culture, and
85

circumstances and was able to establish good rapport and trust with the participants
during the interview.

Weaknesses of Qualitative Research
Quantitative methods use statistics from standardized items, making summaries,
comparisons, and generalizations quite easy and precise (Patton, 1984). Quantitative
methodology is historically viewed as being less vulnerable to researcher bias than
qualitative methods (Creswell, 2003). Unlike the quantitative approach, the qualitative
method narrowly focuses on a few units and does not measure the reactions of a great
many people to a limited set of questions, and, thus, is not able to facilitate comparison,
statistical aggregation of the data and generalizing of the finding to other situations. Case
studies, in particular, are vulnerable to subjective biases (Isaac & Michael, 1997). The
subjective judgments and interpretation of the researcher may influence the direction of
the findings and conclusions in the process of data collection. In order to reduce
subjective biases, the researcher used triangulation in the collection process. More detail
on the triangulation process is provided later in this chapter (Gall et al., 1996).
In addition, qualitative case studies are highly labor intensive, time consuming,
and require highly developed language skills in order to capture themes and patterns in
verbal data and write a report that brings the case to life (Gall et al, 1996). In this case,
while the researcher had the advantage of being a native Chinese speaker, the researcher
86

had to fly back to Taiwan to conduct the interviews and translated the transcripts back
into English.

Sample and Population
The institutions chosen for the study are T University (TU) and S University
(SU).

T University
T Junior College of Technology was privately founded in 1970. It was promoted
to T Institute of Technology in 2000. In 2007, it met the criteria of MOE’s evaluation and
upgraded to T University (TU). TU has three Colleges and one Education Center for
General Knowledge. The three Colleges are the College of Engineering, the College of
Management, and the College of Electrical and Information. In the academic year 2006-
2007, TU enrolled approximately seven thousand students in 206 classes. In 2006-2007,
the campus had a total of 292 full-time instructional faculty, of whom 18 were professors,
76 were associate professors, 47 were assistant professors, 138 were lecturers, and 13
were technical lecturers. The lecturers accounted for about 49% of the instructional staff.

S University
S Junior College of Technology was privately founded in 1967. It was promoted
to S Institute of Technology in 1999. In 2005, it was further upgraded to a technological
87

university. Like T University, S University is also an engineering-oriented institution. It
consists of three Colleges of specialization and one College of Humanities and Science.
The three colleges of specialization are the College of Engineering, the College of
Electrical-Electronic and Computer Engineering, and the College of Business and
Management. In the school year 2006 to 2007, S University had a total of 270 full-time
faculty, of whom 18 were professors, 86 were associate professors, 42 were assistant
professors, 111 were lecturers, and 13 were technical lecturers. The lecturers accounted
for about 43% of the instructional staff.

Sample selection
Out of 65 promoted vocational colleges, these two were selected purposefully.
The researcher chose TU for the study because the researcher worked in the institution in
the past and was familiar with the background and the faculty in the institution. The
researcher was able to collect detailed information from TU. The researcher chose SU for
the study because SU has a similar background and history of institutional development
as TU. For example, both institutions were established around 1970; both have three
colleges that are engineering-oriented; both institutions were promoted from technical
junior colleges to four-year technological institutes and to technological universities
within the past 10 years; both institutions are located in Taipei County and both
institutions have about seven thousand students.
88

Due to the similar characteristics of SU and TU, the researcher was able to make
better comparisons between the two institutions. Moreover, SU and TU represent two
typical private vocational institutions that experienced organizational transitions from a
technical junior college to a four-year technological institute, and then to a technological
university. The problems encountered by lecturers in these two institutions may serve as
a good representation of other lecturers in other vocational institutions that also
experienced institutional transition in the past years.
The data used to select the sample for this study was obtained from the university
web site and the personnel office of the two interview sites. The website provided a list
of tenured faculty at each institution. The general population for this study includes all
tenured faculty at the three specialized colleges and the Center for General Education at
TU and the College of Humanities and Sciences at SU. The target sample for the study
consisted of 32 full-time lecturers selected from the three of specialized colleges and the
Center for General Education or College of humanities and science at both Universities
(each University provided 16 participants). More specifically, for both institutions, the
researcher selected four full-time lecturers from each of the three Colleges and the Center
for General Education or the College for Humanities and Science (n=16).
The criteria for selecting lecturers was that they worked at the institution for at
least two years before the institution first changed its status from junior college to
institute of technology. The rationale for this criterion is that these lecturers experienced
the complete institutional change of status from Junior College to Institute of Technology
89

and to University. Since they have not been promoted to a higher rank according to
institutional expectations in the years since the institutional change of status, it is
assumed that they encountered difficulties in their promotion and work adjustment.
Therefore, they would be able to provide detailed information on the topic of study.

Selection of Lecturers
The first step in selecting the sample was to select the three departments from
which the lecturers would be chosen—ideally, the same departments from both
Universities. The proposed departments appear in Table 4.1.
At T University, the researcher selected four lecturers from the Department of
Industrial Engineering and Management in the College of Management, four from the
Department of Mechanical Engineering in the College of Engineering, and four from the
Department of Electrical Engineering in the College of Electrical and Information.
At S University, the researcher chose four respondents from the Department of
Industrial Engineering and Management in the College of Business and Management,
four from the Department of Mechanical and Computer Aided Engineering in the College
of Engineering, and four from the Department of Electrical Engineering in the College of
Electrical-Electronic and Computer Engineering.

90

Table 4.1. Proposed Departments from which lecturers will be selected
Institute College Sample Number/ Department

TU
(16)
College of Management 4 (Department of Industrial Engineering &
Management)
College of Engineering 4 (Department of Mechanical Engineering
College of Electrical & Information 4 (Department Of Electrical Engineering)
Center for General Knowledge 4 (Humanities & Social Science)

SU
(16)
College of Business Management 4 (Dep. of Industrial Engineering & Management)
College of Engineering 4 (Department of Mechanical & Computer Aided
Engineering)
College of Electrical-Electronic Computer
Engineering
4 ( Department of Electrical Engineering)
College of Humanities and Science 4 (Humanities & Social Science)

Accessing the Sample
After selecting the sample departments, the researcher visited the presidents of
SU and TU to ask for their help and permission in allowing their institutions to
participate in the study. After getting the permission from the president, the researcher
contacted the head of the selected departments to ask for their assistance in selecting four
lecturers from each department. The researcher also contacted the head of the Center for
General Knowledge or College of Humanities and Science to ask for help in selecting
four lecturers teaching general subjects from each institution. Since the heads of the
departments and the Center for General Knowledge know the background of the faculty
well, they were able to help the researcher find the appropriate participants. The criteria
for identifying participants were that they worked in the institution for at least two years
91

before the institution first changed its status from junior college to institute of
technology. The rationale for this criterion was that these lecturers experienced the
complete institutional change of status from Junior College to Institute of Technology
and to University. Since they had not promoted to a higher rank according to institutional
expectations in the years since the institutional change of status, it was assumed that they
encountered difficulties in their promotion and work adjustment. Therefore they would
be able to provide detailed information on the topic of study. Once potential participants
were identified by the department heads, the researcher contacted the lecturers by letter
and invited them to participate in the study.

Selection of Administrators
Additionally, the researcher selected ten administrators (five from each
institution) to interview for the study (Table 4.2). Like the selected lecturers, the selected
administrators started work in the institution at least two years before institutional change
of status, so they were able to provide details about their perceptions of the difficulties
these lecturers encountered in their promotion and work adjustment. The selected
administrators included the head of department from the selected departments and the
dean of academic affairs. If the head of the department or the dean of the academic
affairs did not start work at the institution two years before it changed status, the
researcher selected the previous head of department to interview. Also, if the dean of the
academic affairs did not start work at the institution two years before the status change,
92

the researcher selected the previous dean of academic affairs to interview. This strategy
ensured that the heads of the selected departments or academic affairs experienced
institutional transitions for different stages, so they were able to supply accurate and
detailed data for the study. The researcher compared the similarity and the differences in
perceptions between the lecturers and administrators about the difficulties in work
adjustment and promotion.

Table 4.2: Distribution of Sample for Administrators (10)
Institutes College Sample Number

TU
(5)
Dean of Academic Affairs 1
College of Management 1(Department of Industrial Engineering &
Management)
College of Engineering 1 (Department Of Mechanical Engineering)
College of Electrical & Information 1 (Department of Electrical Engineering)
Center for General Knowledge 1

SU
(5)
Dean of Academic Affairs 1
College of Business Management 1 (Department. of Industrial Engineering
&Management)
College of Engineering 1(Department of Mechanical & Computer Aided
Eng.)
College of Electrical-Electronic
Computer Eng.
1(Department of Electrical Engineering)
College of Humanities and Science 1

93

Instrumentation
An interview protocol was used to solicit the lecturers’ and administrators’
perceptions about their experience with changing work expectations and the process of
promotion to a higher rank (Appendix A).
There were two interview protocols. The first was designed for the lecturers; the
second for the administrators. The interview questions were separated into five parts:
general information of the participants about age and number of years working at the
institutions; change in work expectations before and after institution’s change of status;
promotion status - the ways and the number of years they spend preparing for promotion;
difficulties in promotion to a higher rank - the transition of preparing for promotion; and
support and help from institutions or other resources. The interview questions in the
lecturers’ and administrator’s sections were developed in a parallel style, so the answers
of the two sections would be easily compared and analyzed. For example, in the ―change
of work‖ section, the researcher asked both the lecturers and the administrators to
describe the information the lecturer received and how the changes were communicated
in different stages of the institution’s promotion. For the section ―difficulties in
promotion to a higher rank,‖ the researcher asked both lecturers and administrators about
the difficulties of lecturers’ transition in their work adjustment and promotion to a higher
rank. (Appendix A).
The literature protocols were developed from the review of the literature. The
literature from Taiwan and the U.S. suggested that there are four categories of factors
94

(governmental, disciplinary, institutional, and personal) that are related to faculty
promotion and research productivity (Lee, 2000; Fann, Liang & Wu, 2006; Tien, 1994;
Fairweather, 1999; Perry et al, 2003; Sax, Hagedorn, Arredondo, & Dicrisi 2002; Fox,
2005). For example, in both Taiwanese and U.S. research, institutional support is
important in affecting faculty productivity in research and in their successful promotion
to a higher rank (Dundar & Lewis, 1998; Lee, 2000; Fann, Liang & Wu, 2006;
Tien,1994; Fairweather, 1999; Perry et al, 2003) Therefore, the interview protocol asks
about participants’ perceptions of institutional support for lecturers and administrators in
conducting research and seeking promotion.
The literature focusing on faculty productivity in the US also indicated that there
could be differences in perception between the lecturers and the administrators, between
the two sample institutions, and between genders and disciplines (Clark, 2001;
Fairweather, 1996; Toutkoushian, 2004; Fox, 2000). In particular, many U.S. studies
found a gender difference in research productivity among U.S. faculty (Fulton, 1974;
Cole & Zuckerman, 1984; Bentley & Adamson, 2003; Teodorcscu, 2000; Fox, 2005). As
noted in the previous chapters, some U.S. studies found that family responsibility,
especially for female faculty with children, is correlated with lower research productivity
(Fox, 2005; Kyvic, 1990). We do not know if these are issues for Taiwanese lecturers,
therefore, the interview protocol explored them.

95

Data Collection
Data collection for the study included interviews and review of institutional
documents which will be discussed later in this section.

Interviews
Forty two interviews were conducted in the study, consisting of 32 interviews
with lecturers and 10 interviews with administrators. Once access was granted, the
researcher informed participants that they have been purposely selected to participate in
the study, assured them that their individual responses would be kept confidential, and
explained the potential benefit of the research for faculty as well as institutional
administrators. A one hour interview was conducted with each of the 10 administrators.
These interviews were followed by one hour interviews with the faculty.
The researcher began the data collection in the winter of 2008 and finished in
summer of 2009. The researcher first called the participants and coordinated a meeting
date, place, and time for the interview. Also the participant selected either to meet in
person or talk by phone to ensure that the respondents felt as comfortable as possible. If
the selected lecturer or administrator was not willing to participate, the researcher moved
to the next person on the list. The researcher asked the participant if the session could be
tape-recorded. If the participant did not wish to have the interview tape-recorded, the
researcher took notes during the interview as the primary means of data collection. For
those interviews that are tape recorded, the researcher transcribed the data. As the
96

researcher was interested in exploring faculty perceptions regarding their difficulties in
promotion and work changes, the interview was based on semi-structured, open-ended
questions. The questions were asked in a systematic order, moving from basic fact-
seeking to more personal reflection or difficult questions towards the end, so there was a
greater chance of people disclosing true perceptions as they built trust in the researcher.
However, the researcher allowed the respondents sufficient freedom to jump from one
idea to another if they desired. The participants were encouraged to fully respond to the
prepared questions. However, prompt questions were included in the interview protocol
to allow the researcher to guide the general direction of the dialogue. The researcher
encouraged the respondents to talk about how their work adjusted or changed before and
after the institution changed status from a junior college to an institute of technology and
to a University. Also, the researcher encouraged the respondents to discuss the reasons
for their difficulties in seeking promotion to higher rank. At the same time, the
participants were told that, if any idea generated during the conversation was
uncomfortable for them, they were free to stop the tape, the interview, or both, at any
time. In addition to the interviews, written notes were taken to guide the researcher in the
data analysis process.
Although there are concerns about validity and reliability in case studies
(Creswell, 2003), the researcher used the process of triangulation to validate the data.
This process involves using multiple data-collection methods and data sources to check
the validity of the findings (Gall et al., 1996).
97

Document Review
To better understand the perceptions of both the lecturers and the administrators
concerning the difficulties that lecturers encounter in seeking promotion, the researcher
conducted a review of relevant documents such as the institutional personnel policies of
both institutions. These were obtained through the internet web site of both institutions.
The researcher reviewed the policies that support faculty conducting research and
promotion. The advantage of documents is that documents can be accessed at a time
convenient to the researcher (Creswell, 2003). The disadvantage of using the documents
is the material may be incomplete and may be protected information unavailable to
public or private access (Creswell, 2003). The researcher compared the collected
interview data with the written institutional support policy to see if there was any
similarity or difference between what lecturers and administrator perceived about
institutional support and what the institution asserts in its documents about faculty
promotion.

Triangulation
In this study, triangulation was achieved through participants’ reviewing their
responses to the protocol and through pattern matching correlation. Triangulation reduces
subjective biases of the researcher in the collection process. The researcher sent the
participant the transcript through e-mail for review and confirmation. The participant was
98

allowed to change anything in their responses within a week’s time period. Then, the
researcher used the data confirmed by the participants in the analysis. The pattern-
matching involved comparing the findings to current theory related to Taiwan’s reward
system and factors of faculty’s difficulties in conducting research and getting promoted
to higher rank.

Data Analysis
The data was analyzed by making comparisons in the emerging themes between
the two institutions, the different disciplines, more specifically between specialization
and general knowledge disciplines, and between lecturers by gender and age. The
rationale for looking for differences between lecturers’ and administrators’ experiences
by institutions comes from Clark’s work (1983) with US colleges, from which he asserts
that the culture of each university or college varies widely in strength and in content. The
researcher sought to know if there were differences in perceptions among faculty
working under different institutional policies and cultures. The researcher also wanted to
compare the difference between different disciplines because, according to Clark (1983),
each discipline shares beliefs about theory, methodology, techniques, and problems.
Discipline is also the major factor differentiating the political views of the faculty (Clark,
1987). The issue of institutional culture has not been widely applied to the study of
institutions in Taiwan, so this study sought to learn whether Clark’s observations
extended to the experiences of the faculty in this study.
99

This study explored the difference between specialization and general knowledge
disciplines because, in Tien’s (2000) study, compared to engineering disciplines,
humanities and social sciences received less attention and funding from both government
and industry. Since general knowledge disciplines include many humanities and social
science subjects and specialization disciplines include many engineering disciplines, in
this study looked at whether lecturers’ perceptions about difficulties in work adjustment
varied between the two groups of disciplines.
Further, this study compared the differences between the experiences of male and
female lecturers because, according to U.S. research (Fulton, 1974; Blackburn, et al,
1991), men and women demonstrate different levels of research productivity and family
responsibility, and a lack of a research network can lower women’s research productivity.
This study analyzed whether the same situation in the U.S. applies to Taiwan’s case.
Finally, this study explored the difference between different age groups because,
according to U.S. studies (Black and Lawerence, 1995; Horner, Rushton, and Vernon,
1986), aging faculty produce less, and, according to Fulton & Trow (1974), higher
research productivity is more related to the socialized value the person developed for
research early in his/her career. This study aimed to decipher whether aging had a
negative impact on lecturers in conducting research and seeking promotion. It also sought
to learn whether the lecturers’ difficulty in conducting research was due to not having
conducted research often in their early careers.
100

The data gathered from the interviews was be analyzed to give the researcher a
sense of how the change of institutional status affected the work adjustment of lecturers
and their problems in getting promoted to a higher rank. After transcription, the data were
organized by different categories using a matrix (Appendix B) and looking for common
themes. As shown in Appendix B, the upper part of the matrix shows perceptions of
lecturers and the lower part shows perceptions of the administrators. There are small
theme headings shown at the top of the chart. They are work change, promotion status,
difficulties in promotion to a higher rank, and support and help. The researcher sorted the
transcribed data into the appropriate categories and compared for common themes.

Summary
This chapter described the methods to be utilized for this study. The interview
protocol explored the perception of the lecturers’ experience with changing work
expectations (across teaching, research, and service) and difficulties in getting promoted
to a higher rank. The perceptions of forty-two un-promoted faculty and administrators
among TU and SU were compared so administrators may able to understand the gap
between their expectations and the lecturers’ perceptions of the changing work
expectations. This study may also help administrators understand the lecturers’ level of
willingness and attitude toward getting promoted to a higher rank. Finally, this study
aimed to provide a reference for other private technological colleges and universities to
deal with similar issues.

101

102

CHAPTER FIVE: Findings
Introduction
According to Fairweather (2005), research productivity traditionally is a universal
expectation for promotion and tenure. Studies in the U.S. and Taiwan emphasize that
research productivity is influenced by research equipment and facilities; by the reward
system; and by institutional type. Studies in both countries also demonstrate that research
productivity can relate to the faculty member’s gender, rank and age (Sax, Hagedorn,
Arredondo & Dicrisi, 2002; Tien, 1994; Blackwin & Blackburn, 1981; Teodorescu,
2000; Fox, 2005).
In 1996, the Ministry of Education (MOE) in Taiwan adopted a new policy to
allow technical and vocational junior colleges to become four-year colleges (The
Legislative Yuan Gazette, 1995). In order to become four-year colleges, the MOE
required technical and vocational junior colleges to improve their faculty structure by
increasing the percentage of instructors at the rank of assistant professor and above
(MOE, 2006). Since lecturers were the majority of the faculty for technical and
vocational junior colleges, the institutions expected lecturers to seek and earn promotion
to assistant professor or above in a timely manner (Lin, 2003). The focus of this study
was to explore the perceptions of both lecturers and administrators about lecturers’
difficulties in seeking promotion and adjusting to changing work expectations.
This section, first, briefly describes the promotion rate of three selected
departments (engineering and management disciplines), including a description of the
participants for each university, who were five administrators and sixteen faculty
103

members. Next, the findings of the study are presented by sub research question,
beginning with sub research questions 1 and 3 which inquire about lecturers’ and
administrators’ perceptions of challenges/barriers of un-promoted lecturers when seeking
promotion. The first part of Q4 is here related to Q1 and 3 because the first part of Q4
addresses the similarities and differences in perceptions of barriers between the
administrators and lecturers across different institutions, across key disciplines, by gender
and by age group. Next, this chapter presents the findings for sub research question 2
about institutional strategies the lecturers identify as helpful in seeking promotion and the
extent to which lecturers place the responsibility for promotion on external factors
outside their control. Sub research question 2 is related to the second part of question 4,
which is about similarities and differences in administrators’ and lecturers’ perceptions of
support strategies in lecturers’ seeking promotion.

The Selected Departments for T University
The Department of Industrial Engineering and Management consisted of 20 full
time instructional faculty members, and ten of them were senior lecturers. Three of the
ten senior lecturers had been promoted to a higher rank, and four were studying towards a
doctoral degree. This department had only one female full-time instructional faculty
member who was promoted to a higher rank.
The Department of Electrical Engineering consisted of 20 full-time instructional
faculty and 11 out of 20 were senior lecturers. Out of the senior lecturers, three had been
104

promoted to a higher rank, and four were studying towards a doctoral degree. This
department also had only one female full-time instructional faculty who was promoted to
a higher rank.
The Department of Mechanical Engineering consisted of 23 full-time
instructional faculty and 21were senior lecturers. Of the senior lecturers, nine had been
promoted to a higher rank, and none were working towards a doctoral degree. This
department had only one female full-time instructional faculty who is also a senior
lecturer and does not plan to seek promotion to a higher rank.

Table 5.1: T University Selected Departments

Department No. of Faculty
Members
Senior
Lecturers
Promoted Senior
Lecturers
Un-
promoted
Senior
Lecturers
Senior
Lecturers
Study a
Degree
Study a
Degree
Publish
Paper
Industrial
Engineering &
Management
20 (1 female) 10
(1 female)
3(1 female) 7 4
2
(1 female)
1
Electrical
Engineering
20(0 female) 11 3 8 4
3 0
Mechanical
Engineering
23 (1 female) 21
(1 female)
9 12(1
female)
0
6 3

105

Administrators
Five administrators were interviewed at T University, including the former dean
of academic affairs, four administrators from the three departments and the general
education center. The administrators were one woman and four men. They have been in
the institution for an average of 20 years, except for the head for general education
center, Mr. Yin, who has been in the institution for seven years. The five administrators
who participated were Mrs. Tie, Mr. Yu, Mr. Bin, Mr. Kun and Mr. Yin.
The former dean of academic affairs, Mrs. Tie, had worked in the institution for
twenty four years. Mrs. Tie, at the time of this study, was a regular faculty member in the
Department of Business Administration and her work included teaching and mentoring
students, conducting research, getting more research projects from both the government
and the private sector such as National Science Council projects, and promoting
cooperation between the institution and the private sectors.
The three department heads, Mr. Yu, Mr. Bin, and Mr. Kun had worked for the
institution for 30 years, 17 years, and 7 years, respectively. Their job was to supervise
and help faculty members fulfill the work expectations of the institution in teaching,
research, and service. The head of the department and general education center also
represented his or her unit in various institutional meetings and communicated important
messages from the meeting to the people in his/her department or center.
Mr. Yin is the previous head of the Center for General Knowledge and worked in
the social science discipline. Although he had worked in the institution for only seven
106

years, he was familiar with the difficulties of lecturers’ adjustment to change in work
expectations and in seeking promotion to higher rank and was willing to participate in
this study. His key responsibility was to coordinate the teaching, research and service of
the faculty members in the Center for General Knowledge. He also represented the
faculty members of the Center for General Knowledge in various institutional meetings
and brought back important messages or expectations from the higher level
administrators to the faculty members.
Lecturers
The lecturers in this study consisted of five women and eleven men. In the
Department of Industrial Engineering and Management, one woman and three men
participated in the interview. From the Department of Electrical Engineering, no women
and four men agreed to take part. Within the department of Mechanical Engineering, one
woman and three men were interviewed. From the Center for General Education, three
female and one male lecturer agreed to participate. The average age for the sixteen
participants was 47. Of the sixteen participants, 12 (75%) wanted to use a doctoral degree
for promotion to a higher rank.

The Selected Departments for S University
The Department of Electrical Engineering consisted of 29 full time instructional
faculty members; 21 were senior lecturers, and 10 of these have been promoted to a
107

higher rank. One was studying for a doctoral degree. This department consisted of all
men.
The Department of Industrial Engineering and Management is made up of 20 full
time instructional faculty and 15 of these were senior lecturers. Eight of the senior
lecturers have been promoted to a higher rank, and three are studying towards a doctoral
degree. This department also consisted entirely of men.
The Department of Mechanical and Computer Aided Engineering consisted of six
full time instructional faculty; six were senior lecturers, and one of these had been
promoted to a higher rank. Three were studying toward a doctoral degree.

Table 5.2: S University Selected Departments

Department No. of Faculty
Members
Senior
Lecturers
Promoted Senior
Lecturers
Un-
promoted
Senior
Lecturers
Senior
Lecturers
Study a
Degree Study a
Degree
Publish
Paper
Industrial
Engineering
&
Management
20 15(1
female)
8 7(1 female) 3(1 female)
5 3
Electrical
Engineering
29 21 10 11 1
7 3
Mechanical
Engineering
6 6 1 5 3
0 1
108

Administrators
Five administrators were interviewed at S University, including the former dean
of academic affairs, and four administrators from the four colleges. The administrators
included five men who had been at the institution for an average of 15years. The five
administrators who participated were Mr. Lin, Mr. Shu, Mr. Liu, Mr. Chang and Mr. Yu.
Mr. Lin was the previous dean of academic affairs for three years and had worked
in the institution for 10 years. Mr. Lin was, at the time of this study, the vice president of
the institution. His job was to help the president to ensure that each college operates
smoothly.
The three department heads, Mr. Shu, Mr. Liu, and Mr. Chang had worked for the
institution for 19 years, 10 years, and 20 years respectively. As at T University, their job
was to supervise and assist faculty members fulfill the work expectations of the
institution in teaching, research, and service. The heads of the department and general
education center also represented their units in various institutional meetings and
communicated important messages from the meetings to the people in their departments
or center.
Mr. Yu worked as the head of the College of Humanities and Science. At the
time of this study, he had worked at the institution for 19 years teaching math. Similar to
the situation at university T, as the head the College of Humanities and Science, Mr. Yu’s
key responsibility was to coordinate the work of the faculty members in the college. He
109

also represented the College of Humanities and Science at institutional meetings and
brought back important information to the faculty members.

Lecturers
The lecturers consisted of two female participants and 14 male participants in this
study. From the Department of Industrial Engineering and Management, one woman and
three men participated in the interview. The Department of Mechanical and Computer
Aided Engineering provided four male interview participants. From the Department of
Industrial Engineering and Management, four men agreed to take part. Four men from
the Department of Electrical Engineering were interviewed, and from the Center for
General Knowledge, one woman and three men participated. The average age for the
sixteen participants was 46. Of the sixteen participants, 12 wanted to use a doctoral
degree for promotion to associate professor.

Findings for Sub-Questions One, Three and Four
The overarching research question is: What can we learn from un-promoted
lecturers and their administrators about the lecturers’ experiences with changing work
expectations (across teaching, research, and service) and lecturers’ difficulties with
promotion that would help S University, T University and other institutions planning a
transition? There were seven themes which emerged in this area: inadequate research
support; work adjustment from teaching and service to teaching, research and service;
110

barriers to publishing papers in prestigious international journals; unclear expectations in
the evaluation of the MOE for authoring specialized papers and technical reports to get
promotion to higher rank; the length of time needed to get a doctorate in human resources
and social science disciplines; age; and competing family responsibilities.

Inadequate Research Support
According to the literature review, institutional support for research includes
factors such as library resources or databases; release time for mid-career faculty and
opportunity for growth and advancement; support strategies for doctoral degree study;
having a research assistant; and research funding to buy research equipment. Institutional
expenditures for libraries were significantly related to productivity, as the provision of
better resources in the infrastructure helps to improve research productivity (Baldwin and
Blackburn, 1981; Wood, 1990; Fairweather; Gustavo, 2008). Inadequate research
funding led to undertaking less challenging, short term projects and caused
demoralization because of the need to use outdated equipment (Wood, 1990). Private
vocational institutions were viewed as inferior in their research equipment, library
resources or data, less selective of students and as providing fewer opportunities to
receive research funding as compared to public vocational institutions.
Three factors related to university support were found to be important in relation
to lecturers’ difficulties in conducting research within both institutions. These were
library resources or database access, funding for research equipment, and the inability to
111

have student assistance in conducting research. Of the 16 lecturers per university, 10
(63%) in T University and 9 (56%) in S University mentioned a shortage of institutional
library resources, funding to buy equipment and inability to have students help
instructors conduct research.
Interviewees emphasized a lack of institutional library data resources for
conducting research, especially in comparison to public institutions. Also, interviewees
from both institutions mentioned the inadequacy of library databases for management or
business disciplines as compared to engineering disciplines.
Mr. Fu from T University mentioned that he belongs to the management
discipline and uses the database of the institution offering his doctoral degree to conduct
research. He said, ―I do not depend on our institution’s database to conduct research for
my doctoral degree. I usually go to the public institution where I am seeking my doctoral
degree for research. I do not blame our institution because we are a private institution and
buying a database is very expensive. Our institutions have two databases right now, and
that is a great improvement compared to before we became a university. However since
our institution is focused on engineering disciplines, there are fewer databases for social
science disciplines.‖ Mrs. May also belongs to the management discipline at T
University and noted her data were obtained through the help of her friend who worked
in a public institution. She stated, ―Because our institution is technological and
engineering oriented, there is a lack of journals or access to databases on social sciences.
I ask for help from my friend who works at National Taiwan University to download data
112

or journal articles for me because National Taiwan University has many resources for
business disciplines.‖
Like Mrs. May and Mr. Fu of T university, Mr. Shu from S University also used
the resources of a public institution to collect data. He mentioned, ―I always go to the
public institution I am studying at now to do research because I think the database in our
institution would not be as much help compared to those at the public institution.‖ Mr.
Chen, also from S University, mentioned the inadequacy of the library database for his
management discipline as compared to that for the engineering discipline, and he said,
―For downloading data, I think the institution has more databases for engineering
disciplines, but I am not sure the management disciplines have enough databases. Every
semester, the library will ask each department what journal articles they want to order.
Then, the library will make a priority list and buy the most requested ones. Since our
institution is oriented toward the engineering disciplines, the engineering discipline has
the most votes, so we have fewer journals related to disciplines of business or
management.‖
The major concern of the lecturers was that lack of equipment made it difficult to
conduct research, and the impact was that faculty members who wanted to get promoted
to a higher rank had to use the equipment of other institutions, such as the one the ones
where they were studying for their doctoral degree or use equipment supported by the
private business sector.
113

Mr. Jin from and Mr. Shun from mechanical engineering at T University obtained
their research equipment outside of their institutions. Mr. Jin used research equipment
from the private sector but was afraid that the slow economy would affect the private
sector’s continuing to support him. He stated, ―I got my research equipment from the
private sector. We have helped them to do some industrial design, and they support my
research by providing funding for research facilities. Unlike other disciplines such as
computer science, which needs only one computer, my study needs more expensive
equipment. The government’s subsidy is not enough for us to buy expensive research
facilities, especially after our institution became a university; each department received
fewer subsidies than before. I am kind of worried about my research now because the
economy is not good and the factory owner who used to provide funding for my research
does not have enough money to continue to support me.‖ Mr. Shun mentioned that he
used the equipment of the institution where he was studying to conduct research. He
noted, ―Our institution is private and does not have adequate equipment for conducting
research. Unlike some lecturers in certain disciplines who only use computers to conduct
research, I need more advanced and expensive equipment to conduct research for my
study. So, I need to go to the public institution where I am studying now to carry out my
research for my doctorate degree.‖
Also from T University, Mr. Jia noted that the institution’s lack of status was part
of the problem as he said, ―Since we are not a famous public university focusing on
humanities, social science and law such as the National Chengchi University, the
114

humanities and social science disciplines in technological institutions like ours have very
few opportunities to obtain funding for special projects subsidized by the government or
private organizations.‖
Mr. Chen from S university noted that both the institution’s and the lecturer’s
status are a problem as he said, ―Both the common universities and the technological
university compete for projects involving cooperation between the industry and the
institution, and National Science Council Grants. But it is very difficult for private
institutions to get funding because our professors are not as many as at the public ones
and our students are not as selective as the public ones. It is also impossible for lecturers
of any discipline to get National Science Council grants for research due to our lower
status (lecturer).‖
Mr. Lin from S University got his experiment facilities from his professor. He
mentioned, ―Our institution is unlike the public vocational higher institution which has
adequate research facilities and equipment to conduct experiment. I am studying in a
public institution and my professor provides me with experiment facilities to carry out
my research.‖
Mr. Wong from S University noted more cooperation between industry and the
institution can help increase research facilities. He stated, ―Our research facilities and
equipment cannot compare to those public institutions. Though we have alumni
donations of equipment, it is still not enough. So we need to have more cooperation
115

between industry and the institution or get more projects from the National Science
Council in order to increase our research facilities.‖
In general, specialized disciplines (market oriented) receive funding more easily
than less-market oriented disciplines such as general knowledge. Among the specialized
disciplines, the engineering discipline is more market oriented than the business and
management disciplines and has more opportunities to obtain funding from both the
government and the private sector.
Mrs. Lin from the Chinese language discipline at T University noted humanities
and social science disciplines had more difficulty getting research funding. She
mentioned, ―Compared to science and engineering disciplines, humanities and social
science disciplines (general knowledge disciplines) have a more difficult time obtaining
research funding or project case in the process of applying. This difference is due to the
fact that the work of the electrical and mechanical engineering departments is related to
economic productivity. They provide the industry with many ideas related to innovation
and research. On the other hand, it is difficult to have many new ideas for research and
innovation come from general knowledge disciplines.‖
Mr. Chiou from S university agreed. ―We are a private institution and inadequate
research facilities are a common problem,‖ he said. ―So in order to get funding to buy
research equipment, you need to get projects through collaborations between the industry
and the institution or support from the private sector and government projects. The
116

general knowledge disciplines are not market related and it is more difficult for them to
get funding support than it is for the specialized disciplines.
Adding to the difficulties, unlike public institutions, many private higher
education institutions have limited budgets to hire research assistants to help instructors
conduct research. In addition, the private institutions are less selective in their admissions,
resulting in a student body whom the faculty believes lacks the skills necessary to assist
them.
Mr. Jin from T University mentioned this perceived lack of skills when he stated,
―We are not like public institutions. Their students meet very high standards and are
capable of helping teachers conduct research.‖ Similarly, Mr. Yi from T University said,
―It is very hard to conduct research in private institutions because we do not have any
research assistants and our students’ abilities are not as good as those of students at
public ones. They cannot use them to help you to conduct research. You have to depend
on yourself.‖ Mr. Wong from the Department of Mechanical and Computer Aided
Engineering at S University agreed that students could not help him to conduct research.
According to him, ―I got a project of cooperation between the industry and the institution.
I wanted students to help, but no matter how many times I explained to them the
procedure, the students just could not understand. So I needed to do it all by myself. It
was tiring.‖ Mr. Chia also from the Department of Mechanical and Computer Aided
Engineering at S University concurred with Mr. Wong. He mentioned, ―Our students are
117

not like the students in the public university. Their students are of higher quality and they
can help you to conduct research. Our research equipment is also not enough.‖
Two out of five (40%) administrators from T University and four out of five
(80%) administrators from S university raised the same issues as the lecturers. Mr.
Chang from the Department of Mechanical and Computer Aided Engineering at S
University noted the problem of fewer research resources when he said, ―compared to
many universities, especially the public ones, we have fewer research resources including
research equipment, facilities and library databases. Our students are not as selective as
those at the public institutions. They cannot help you to conduct research experiment.‖
Mr. Kun, the administrator from the College of Engineering at T University,
noted that reduced government funding affected the development of his department when
he stated, ―When the institution was a vocational junior college, the funding from the
Ministry of Education for our department was about six million. But now since we have
more departments to share the money from the government, after upgrading to become a
university and also due to government’s cutting budget on higher education, our
department (Mechanical Engineering) receives only two million each year right now.‖
Mr. Yu, the head of the Department of Industrial Engineering and Management at
T University stated that, compared to engineering, the management discipline had more
difficulty in getting project or funding. He mentioned, ―We, as a private institution, have
limited resources to support faculty members to conduct research. Most lecturers who are
studying for their degree will go to their institution of study to do research. Also,
118

compared to the engineering disciplines, management disciplines such as industrial
engineering and management and business administration do not get as much funding or
as many projects of cooperation between industry and institution because the industrial
company has demands to innovate new products and electronic, electrical and mechanical
engineering departments can provide the industry many ideas related to innovation and
research. On the other hand, it is difficult to have many new ideas of research and
innovation about management.‖
Mr. Yin, the previous head of the Center of the General Knowledge at T
University mentioned that, compared to specialized disciplines which have higher market
value, general knowledge disciplines had more difficulty in getting research grants or
projects. ―Our institution is technological oriented and specialization disciplines seem to
be more important and have more market value than general knowledge discipline which
mostly are humanities and social science disciplines,‖ he offered. ―The specialization
disciplines always receive more National Science Council research grants than general
knowledge disciplines.‖ Mr. Shu, the head of the Department of Electrical Engineering
at S University, noted the other side of this dilemma in that his discipline received
projects and funding more easily than non-market-oriented discipline. He stated, ―Our
discipline easily gets the projects involving cooperation between the institution and
industry and projects from the government because many industries are closely related to
our discipline. Also, we have fourteen associate professors and seven of them will get
projects from the national science committee every year. On the other hand, business and
119

general knowledge disciplines have a difficult time getting funding from both the private
and public sectors.‖
Mr. Lin, the vice principal from S University, who is also the previous dean of
academic affairs, noted lecturers can use the facilities at their degree granting institution
to conduct research. He stated, ―Though the lack of research equipment and databases
causes some difficulties for faculty members in conducting research at the institution, it
does not decide whether a lecturer can or cannot get promoted to a higher rank. This is
because everyone understands that a private vocational institution under rapid transition
needs time to expand its resources in research and many lecturers who want to get
promoted to a higher rank would prefer to study for a doctoral degree in a mature
research higher institution with adequate facilities in research, so the lecturer can use the
resources of their doctoral degree institution to conduct experiments or download data
from their library.‖ Mr. Shu, the head of electrical engineering at S University, agreed
with Mr. Lin in that lecturers can use other resources to conduct research. ―Though
private vocational higher institutions are lacking research equipment, the lecturers who
wanted to do research or study for a doctoral degree, can borrow the equipment from
many resources,‖ he stated. ―Whether a lecturer can be promoted to a higher rank or not
depends on their determination, not on issues such as inadequate institutional research
equipment.‖

120

Comparing Administrators and Lecturers’ Perspectives
Both populations raised the same issues of lack of research funding to buy
equipment, fewer library databases and lower quality of students to help in conducting
research, especially at private vocational institutions, which have lower status and
budgets as compared to public institutions. Both sides also perceived that market oriented
disciplines like engineering are related to economic productivity and, therefore, receive
research funding more easily than less market oriented disciplines like general
knowledge. Compared to engineering disciplines, both sides perceived the management
discipline as less market oriented. The lecturers of both institutions also noted that, since
the institution is engineering oriented, there are fewer library databases for management
and business disciplines as compared to those for the engineering discipline.
Administrators at T University were also concerned about the impact of reducing
government funds distributed to higher education that would further worsen the problem
of inadequate funding to buy research facilities. Regardless of the perception of
inadequate research resources, the administrators at S university noted that lecturers
could still use the resources of the institution of their doctoral degree study to conduct
research.

Work Adjustment from Teaching and Service to Teaching, Research and Service
When an institution is a vocational junior college, teaching is the primary
function of the faculty. After the vocational junior college upgrades to university status,
faculty’s work expands to include teaching, research and service. The added
121

responsibility proves problematic for the lecturers as they are expected not only to teach,
but also to conduct more research and pursue a doctoral degree in order to be promoted to
a higher rank. Since they lacked research skills and are not accustomed to conducting
research, the combination of requirements (teaching, research, and service) was
problematic for them. They also perceived a lack of time for the range of work,
especially if they had administrative duties.
Work adjustment was a significant issue in creating difficulty for faculty in
conducting research and earning promotion to higher rank at both institutions, as nine out
of sixteen participants (56%) in T University and eight out of sixteen participants (50%)
in S University mentioned work adjustment as a barrier to conducting research and being
promoted to higher rank.
Mr. Jian from the Department of Industrial Engineering and Management at T
University felt there was problem about time management in the three areas of work, and
he said, ―Now, we have teacher evaluation and all the faculty members are divided into
two types. You can choose to be more teaching oriented or more research oriented.
However, regardless which type you choose, the institution expects you to do some
research or service in cooperation between the institution and industry. I know it is
difficult for some teachers who are used to teaching and are not used to or specialized in
research. Before our institution upgraded to become a university, our main job was to
teach; now, everyone has to do research and perform more service in cooperation
between the institution and industry. It is a challenge to handle well all three areas of
122

work.‖ Mr. Jin and Mrs. Lin from T University also noted a time management problem
due to competing demands from superiors. Mr. Jin stated, ―Administrative work really
has taken me a lot of time. Two years ago, I was asked by a high level administrator to
help with the administrative work for night classes because I have many years’
experience in lower level administrative work in academic affairs. It is very difficult for
me to reject his request.‖ Mrs. Lin mentioned, ―After the institution upgraded to a
university, the faculty members are expected to do more research and the workload for
service also increases. Due to the implementation of evaluation for faculty members, I
felt pressured that we need to do well in all the aspects work. In order to do more
research, I have participated in a special project studying the local community. I need to
do field study and it really has taken a lot of time. I also need to teach and be the student
counselor, which I really enjoy. Overall, I always felt I am running out of time to settle
down and study for my doctoral degree even though the institution has a supportive
policy that allows us to have three half-days off out of five working days to study for our
degrees.‖
Mrs. Hue from the social science discipline at T University agreed that time
management is a problem due to the demands of dual positions (teacher/ administrators).
―When the institution was a junior college, our job is to focus on teaching,‖ she
mentioned. ―The lecturers of the general knowledge disciplines were also expected to be
class mentors for students in the first three years and we needed to correct and comment
on the students’ weekly diaries. After the institution became a university, it is an
123

institutional expectation that lecturers go for doctorate degree study, conduct more
research, do more administrative service in one’s own department, and help to manage
the laboratory and audio–visual classroom. Nevertheless, teaching is still important, and
the project I am doing now is also related to enhancement of teaching. I really have little
time to settle down and concentrate on writing my major specialized publication for
promotion to higher rank. Also, I have been doing administrative work for four years and
during those four years, I did not have any time to conduct research.‖
Mr. Wong from the Department of Mechanical and Computer Aided Engineering
at S University noted he is tired from twice being promoted to higher rank. ―I was
assistant lecturer when I first came to the institution,‖ he said. ―Then, I studied for a
masters degree and was promoted to lecturers because the institution upgraded its status
from vocational junior college to institute of technology and all the assistant lecturers
were asked to get promoted to higher rank as soon as they could. After I got the status of
lecturer, the institution upgraded to become a university and we were told to seek to
promote to higher rank again. I was very tired because I did not stop studying and
seeking promotion to a higher rank in these years.‖ His colleague, Mr. Lin, perceived
time management problem of not able to teach and do research well when he said, ―We
belong to the vocational education stream and, instead of research, teaching should be the
most important job for us. Now we have to do both. Though the MOE emphasizes
teaching as a main focus on the vocational stream, its evaluation emphasized research for
vocational universities, too. Unfortunately, our research standard and productivity cannot
124

compete with a common university (research oriented). So, in the end, we are good at
neither teaching nor research.‖
Mr. Chan from the Department of Electrical Engineering S University also noted
that when he was in charge of administrative work, he experienced the problem of time
management. He stated, ―My problem of work adjustment is due to the fact that I was in
charge of administrative work, and I could not concentrate on my study, but after I quit
the administrative work, I felt much relief.‖
Among administrators, work adjustment is a significant issue for T University as
three out of five (60%) administrators in T University said that the adjustment of the
lecturers to the addition of research to teaching and service contributed to the difficulty of
faculty’s conducting research and earning promotion to higher rank. At S university, 2
out of 5 (40%) administrators discussed the difficulty of lecturers work adjustment.
At T University, Mrs. Tie noted the problem of lacking research skills and time
management among the lecturers. She said that ―change in the vocational higher
institution is too fast and, if the lecturers do not change themselves fast enough, they will
not survive. The lecturers have been focusing on teaching for a long time. They are not
familiar to the research process, including finding a research topic, literature review,
developing a method, writing a research proposal, obtaining funding, obtaining trust
approval, data collection, data analysis, reporting and dissemination. Also, after the
institution upgraded to become a technical university, research is largely emphasized and
teaching is, of course, affected. You felt you were always running out of time to do
125

everything well. Also, as for service, the cooperation between the institution and industry
became important, too. So you have to do more research and service. Your teaching is
affected and the time to mentor the students also becomes less.‖ In addition, Mr. Yin and
Mr. Yu also pointed out there is a problem of lack of research skill among lecturers. Mr.
Yin stated that ―in order to be capable enough to do research, the lecturer needs to write
very often and needs to read a lot of different kinds of reference books and journal
articles. Our lecturers came to our institutions with masters degrees. If those lecturers did
not devote much time and effort in research when they studied for their masters degree, it
will be difficult for them to pick up later, especially considering that lecturers have been
concentrating on teaching for such a long time. But they really need to adapt to change
and keep learning new things such as a second specialization. Otherwise they will not be
able to survive.‖ Similarly, Mr. Yu offered,―the lecturers have left the circle of research
for a long period of time since they have been concentrating on teaching. They lack
motivation for research, and it is difficult to ask them to restart doing it.‖
At S University, administrators agreed. Mr. Liu mentioned, ―Yes there is more
work that faculty members need to do now than before. For research, we need to get
projects from the national science council and get cases of cooperation between the
industry and the institution. For teaching, now the teachers need to assist the students to
get licensed depending on your discipline. Also, you still have to do service. The
teacher really has more pressure than before.‖
126

Lecturers at both institutions (56% at TU, 50% at SU) and the administrators at T
(60%) University perceived difficulty in work adjustment as an important issue while the
administrators at S university (20%) perceived work adjustment as a less significant issue
than the other interviewees. The administrators and lecturers at both institutions raised
issues about lacking time to do well in all areas of work and being out of practice for
research due to the fact that lecturers have been concentrating on teaching since they
came to the institution. Lecturers who were also in administrative posts noted that they
could concentrate on their doctoral degree study due to time management issues
stemming from to taking care to perform each aspect of work equally well. The lecturers
at T University also mentioned that, after the implementation of faculty members’
evaluation, they felt more pressure to do well in teaching, research, and service. The
administrators at T University expressed concerns about lecturers’ research skills being
out of practice and they understood that, even though the lecturers had more pressure
than before, they still needed to make adjustments in order to survive. A participant at S
university who was initially an assistant lecturer mentioned being tired due to pursuing
both a masters and a doctoral degree in order to accommodate the two status changes at
his institution.

Barriers to Publishing Papers in Prestigious International Journals/Periodicals
One of the problems of lecturers’ work adjustment mentioned before is that
lecturers are not research oriented and lack training to conduct research. Nevertheless, it
127

is a requirement for lecturers in specialized disciplines to publish their articles in
prestigious international journals or periodicals if the lecturers want to use authoring a
specialized publication to get a promotion to higher rank. The lecturers who study
towards a doctoral degree also need to publish papers in either local or international
journals according to the requirements of their degree granting institutions. This study
found three barriers to publishing: different publishing requirement for different
disciplines and institutions; more difficulty in having a paper in the management
disciplines accepted by an international journal as compared to one in the engineering
disciplines; and difficulty in using English to write papers.
Both Universities had ten out of sixteen (63%) lecturers mention feeling that
getting their paper accepted by prestigious international journal (EI, SCI, SSCI) was
difficult as they seek promotion to higher rank.
Mr. Shu from S University noted different international journal publication
requirements for papers in different disciplines. He stated, ―In the public institution I am
studying now, they have different rules regarding how many international journal articles
a student should publish in order to fulfill the requirement of graduation for doctoral
degree. For example, at the time of this study, Mechanical Engineering required
publishing at least two articles on SCI. Industrial Engineering and Management also
asked the student to publish two articles on SSCI. Other disciplines need one or four. It
was not easy to your articles published in famous international journals and the different
requirement for each discipline more or less influenced the faculty’s process of
128

promotion to higher rank. Mrs. May from T University noted different requirements as to
the type of journal for paper publishing. She mentioned, ―Every institution has different
requirements about paper publishing, as some institutions require their doctorate students
to have their papers published in international journals while other intuitions accept their
student’s papers be published in specific Taiwanese journals such as TSCI.‖
Mrs. May from T University presented her view of a higher degree of difficulty in
publication of specialized papers in management disciplines as compared to those in
engineering disciplines when she mentioned, ―compared to engineering disciplines, it is
much more difficult for specialized articles in management disciplines to be published in
international journals. Engineering disciplines emphasize numbers and calculation while
management emphasizes concepts and require more English skill. I think it is at least five
times easier to get your paper accepted by SCI (science disciplines) than SSCI (Social
science disciplines).‖ Mr. Chiou from S University held the same opinion regarding SCI
versus SSCI. ―There are many ways to get promoted to higher rank. For example, there
is promotion through publication of specialized paper. Some disciplines request
publishing paper on SCI while other disciplines, such as English, require writing a book.
For engineering, mostly lecturers need to publish on SCI while business and management
discipline need to publish on SSCI. If we compare SCI and SSCI, you have 7000 journal
articles in SCI while SSCI has only about 3000 journal articles. So, there is a greater
chance of having your paper be published on SCI. However, it does not mean it is easier
to get promoted in the engineering disciplines because some lecturers prefer doctoral
129

degree study or use technical reports and patent invention to get promoted. They also
encounter some other problems.‖
Mrs. May from T University stated, ―Before I can my present my dissertation
proposal, I need to write a paper in English and successfully publish it in an international
journal. Anyway, the institution I am studying at now is a public vocational institution
which requires students to have papers published in international journals, but it is hard
since English is not our first language. After finishing the paper in Chinese, I will
translate it into English and show it to my professor to check my English and content, but
I still need to hire a professional translator to help me edit my English before I send the
paper out to the international journal. It is very difficult because not only does the content
of your paper have to be up to standard to be accepted by SSCI, SCI or EI, but you also
need to use English to write it. This is the most challenging task for me.‖
Four out of five (80%) administrators in T university and three out of five (60%)
in S University perceived the same barriers as lecturers in publishing papers in
prestigious international journals and periodicals.
Mrs. Tie from T University noted the difficulty of having a lecturer’s specialized
publication be accepted by prestigious international journals. He mentioned as an
example, ―a lecturer who studied for his doctoral degree in the Department of Mechanical
Engineering for nine years but finally failed because he did not have any articles
published in international journals such as EI and nine years is the maximum number of
years of study at his institution.‖
130

Mr. Shu, from S University was aware of the differences in rules regarding
publication in institutions and disciplines. ―If you study for a doctoral degree, you need to
publish your paper. However, every institution, every discipline has different rules. For
example, at X national university which is one of the top three national universities, you
need four points to graduate and one paper on SCI is one point. This is so tough. If you
study at Y national vocational higher institution, you need not publish your paper on SCI
or other international journal for disciplines such as mechanical engineering and
information management.‖
Mr. Shu, noted that,‖ writing papers for business or management disciplines and
being able to publish in SSCI is harder than writing papers and publishing on SCI or EI
for engineering disciplines. Mr. Lin from S University agreed, ―compared to management
and business disciplines, it is easier for engineering disciplines to publish on SCI for
Taiwanese because the engineering discipline has a standardized way of evaluating a
paper globally and their focus point or topic of discussion is more similar international-
wise. For business and management, it is not easy to have a paper published on SSCI
because many topics discussed in those papers are local problems. Though those
problems are very important in Taiwan, they are not recognized as important issues
internationally.
Both the lecturers and the administrators perceived similar issues regarding
barriers to publishing papers in prestigious international journal and periodicals. Besides
studying for a doctor degree, authoring specialized publications and writing technical
131

reports were two other ways for lecturers to earn promotion to associate professors.
However, it was not only difficult for lecturers to publish papers in international journals
as illustrated above, unclear expectations from the Ministry of Education in its evaluation
of lecturers using the authoring of specialized publications and technical reports also
made promotion more difficult.
All the participants of both institutions perceived it was difficult to use the
authoring of specialized papers and technical reports towards promotion. Mr. Yi from T
University stated, ―I have spent four years trying to use my authoring of specialized
publications to get promoted to higher rank (associate professor), but I did not succeed
and two other lecturers in our departments also failed. Each of us have authored three
specialized publications in international journal recognized by the M.O.E. such as SCI
and SSCI, but none of us passed the evaluation by the Ministry of Education for
promotion to associate professor. But I know lecturers from the Department of
Environmental Engineering get promoted to higher rank by authoring only one
specialized publication. But if you ask them, they will tell you it is not as easy as we
thought. Maybe that one specialized publication is of very good quality. Since it is so
hard to pass the evaluation of MOE, I gave up using specialized publication to get
promoted and now I have been working toward a doctoral degree for a year because that
is the most secure way to get promoted from lecturer to associate professor.‖ Mr. Jian T
University fared similarly. ―Initially, I wanted to use authoring a specialized publication
to get promoted to associate professor, but I failed,‖ he lamented. ―So, I study for a
132

doctoral degree. I know a lecturer in our department who wanted to promote from
assistant professor to associate professor. He has five articles published on SCI but failed
to pass MOE’s evaluation. The MOE’s standard is getting more stringent in their
evaluation of using a specialized publication to get promoted.‖

Difficulty Using Technical Reports to Earn a Promotion to Associate Professor
Mr. Chou from S university first reported the difficulty in using technical reports
toward promotion. ―So far, there is only one lecturer who has successfully used a
technical report to get promoted to higher rank in our institution. I think he is the lucky
one because, at the time he used the technical report to get promoted, the policy of using
technical reports had just come out and I think the MOE was more lenient in the
beginning of policy application.‖ Mr. Shen from T University found the same issue. ―I
think it is impossible to use technical reports to get promoted to associate professor
because no one in our institution has succeeded even if they have many product
inventions widely used in the industry. I do not understand how the MOE evaluates the
report.‖ One lecturer was promoted to higher rank with 11 patent inventions but without
writing any reports. The rest of the applicants from various disciplines from both
intuitions also had written reports with many invented products, even more inventions
than the one successfully promoted, and their products had been successfully applied in
the industry. Unfortunately, none of the rest applicants had successfully been promoted to
a higher rank. One lecturer tried to use 5 technical reports combined into one big report
133

but was rejected by the Ministry of Education. Nevertheless, one of his reports was
accepted by SCI and other reports were accepted by domestic journal later, so he used the
publishing of specialized papers to get a promotion to assistant professor.
All the administrative participants at T University and 4 out of five (80%)
administrators at S university held the same view as the lecturers. Mr. Kun from T
University mentioned that obtaining a National Science Council project was helpful to
pass the MOE evaluation if using the authoring of specialized publications. ―If the
lecturer wanted to use specialized publications to get a promotion, besides evaluating the
publications on SCI, SSCI or EI, the amount of National Science Council research
project a lecturer is involved in is also important for MOE to consider.‖ Mrs. Tie from T
University agreed that the MOE is strict in its evaluation when she said, ―If you wanted
to use specialized publication to get promoted, you will have a better chance if you got a
research project from National Science Council or other government funding. Usually, it
is very hard for lecturers to get these government projects which are always given to
higher rank faculty members.‖ Mr. Shu, from S University added, ―Technical report is
one way of promoting to higher rank, but it is not easy and it depends on your luck.
Normally, if you want to use technical reports, you need patent invention and at least one
of your inventions must have been a successful technique transfer and be used or
produced in the industry. However, I know one teacher in the Department of Mechanical
and Computer Aided Engineering who has 11 patent inventions and I think he was in the
process of transferring one or two patents to the industry but he did not write any papers.
134

He passed the evaluation and got promoted to associate professor while another lecturer
has 70 patent inventions, but did not pass the evaluation of the MOE… I do not know if
the evaluation of our discipline (electrical engineering) is stricter than the other discipline
such as mechanical engineering.‖
Mr. Kun from T university also noted it is most difficult to use technical reports
to get promoted when he mentioned, ―In our university, two lecturers tried to use
technical reports to get promotions, and both of them failed. The first lecturer’s invented
product has been used in the industry popularly with great success and his reports have
five small reports. We all thought he would pass. However, his reports were rejected by
the Ministry of Education. Later he e-mailed his reports to SCI and a domestic journal.
One of the reports was accepted by SCI and the others were accepted by the domestic
journal. So, instead of technical reports, he used published specialized papers to get a
promotion. The second lecturer from the Department of Mechanical Technology also
wanted to use technical reports. He has many inventions and his product has been used in
many countries. However, the comments of the Ministry of Education were that the
technical reports did not meet the required standard of a doctoral dissertation. I think
earning a doctoral degree to get a promotion is more realistic because it guarantees your
promotion if you are able to graduate.‖
Both sides perceived it was difficult to use specialized publications as a means to
promotion to higher rank and that it was even more difficult to use technical reports
because the MOE’s evaluation expectations were not clear. Nevertheless, the
135

administrators noted that lecturers wanting to specialize would have a better chance if
they were able to get a National Science Council research project or other government
funding. However, it was very hard for lecturers to get these government projects, which
were always given to higher rank faculty members.

Timeframe to a Doctorate in Humanities and Social Sciences versus other Disciplines
Lecturers from both specialized disciplines and general education disciplines
perceived that it took longer to earn a doctorate in the humanities and social disciplines
as compared to engineering and natural science disciplines. Mrs. Lin from T University
said, ―In order to graduate, those in humanities disciplines need to meet more stringent
requirements and the number of years of study are more compared to engineering
disciplines, which take about six years. Normally, it takes about eight years to complete a
doctorate in the humanities. Also, initially, I was teaching Chinese, but, due to my
interest and the requirements of my work, I transferred to the psychological discipline for
my doctorate degree study. I felt it was hard for me to study a discipline totally different
from my original discipline.‖ Mr. Bin from S University followed suit when he said, ―I
teach Chinese language. I was studying for a doctorate degree part-time and, normally, it
takes more years to complete a doctoral degree in the language, history, and philosophy
disciplines than in the specialized disciplines. Studying part-time, it takes about nine
years at a public university and twelve years at private university to complete a doctoral
degree in Chinese language discipline.‖ Mr. Yin from S University added, ―as compared
136

to applied science disciplines, I think it took longer for lecturers in the language arts and
history disciplines to complete their doctoral degree. Seven or eight years are considered
normal.‖
The administrators perceived that it took longer years to study a doctorate for
humanities and social science disciplines because there were different expectation in
coursework, language and length of thesis for these disciplines. Mrs. Tie from T
University found ―disciplines that focus more on pure theories and pure literature instead
of disciplines of application usually need more years of study. I think the doctorate in
humanities or social science disciplines has different expectation regarding coursework,
language, and length of thesis as compared to more application oriented disciplines such
as engineering and computer science.‖ Mr. Lin from S University stated, ―general
knowledge disciplines need more years to complete a doctoral degree such as Chinese
which needs about 8 or 9 years. Though there were differences among universities,
departments, or individuals, humanities and social science disciplines, which fall also
under general knowledge disciplines, on average need more years to complete a doctorate
compared to natural science and specialized disciplines.‖ At S University, Mr. Shu noted,
―I think as compared to specialized disciplines, it should be easier for general knowledge
discipline to complete a doctorate degree because they do not have to publish papers on
international journal as the lecturers of specialized discipline.‖
One administrator at S university felt that it was easier to get a doctoral degree for
lecturers in the humanities whiles two other administrators and lecturers from both
137

institutions perceived more years of study in the humanities and social science disciplines
such as Chinese language, and history.

Age
According to Black & Lawrence (1995), from the biological perspective, aging
causes mental capacity to decline and, therefore, intellectual powers peak at an early age
and deteriorate thereafter. Also, according to Blackburn, Lawerence, Bieber, and
Trautvetter (1991), aging is not the only cause of low research productivity. Rather, the
environment, norms, demographic composition and other external forces determine
human behavior.
Among all sixteen lecturer participants from each institution, eight (50% percent)
participants in T University and 9 (75%) participants in S University mentioned that age
was a factor in their difficulties to conducting research and promoting to higher rank.
Mrs. Hue from T University, who, at the time of this study was 51 years old, noted the
negative impact of studying a doctoral degree. ―I am getting old and I do not want to
spend my time pursuing doctoral degree,‖ she mentioned. ―I saw people around me
spending five to eight years studying for their doctorate. Their health and life quality are
getting worse. Their relationship with their family members is growing distant. I do not
want to have this kind of life. Life is short, and studying for a doctorate is not the only
purpose of life. I have found my topic of interest for research, and I wanted to use
specialized publications to get promoted to higher rank instead of earning a doctorate
138

degree.‖ Mr. Pae from T University, who was 53 years old, mentioned he does not have
energy for a doctoral degree. ―During the time our institution was preparing to upgrade to
a university, I had a lot administrative duties with our department, so I did not have the
time to study for doctoral degree like other colleagues. Now, I am 53, and I do not have
the stamina to study a doctoral degree. Moreover, I am retiring in a few years.
Mrs. Ray from T University, who was fifty years old said, ―Age is one of the
reasons that I do not plan earning a doctorate. Teaching is always my interest and I like to
spend time on the students, to have a lot of interaction with them. Moreover, I am
reaching the age of retirement, and I really do not have the motivation to be promoted to
higher rank.‖ Mr. Wong noted the difference of his body condition between the pursuit
of his master’s and doctorate. ―When the institution was a junior college, I was an
assistant lecturer. I was 30-something and was asked by the institution to get a master’s
degree because the institution was going to upgrade to higher status. Now, I am over 45
and need to get a doctoral degree because the institution continued to upgrade to a
university. I can feel my body and my brain do not work as sound as when I was studying
for my master’s degree. Now, I get tired easily and my eyes always feel sour.‖Mr. Shu
from S University said, ―I turned fifty years old this year, and I have been studying for
my doctorate for six years. I really felt as I get older, I have less stamina to study.‖
Age was a significant factor for administrators at both universities as three out of
five (60%) of them at T University and 4 out of 5 (80%) at S University mentioned that
age was a barrier for lecturers conducting research and promote to higher rank. Mrs. Tie
139

from T University noted the problem of aging when she mentioned, ―Age is really a
problem. Some lecturers are getting old and their body and mental condition are getting
worse. I know some older lecturers wanted to get promoted to higher rank but they were
not used to teaching and, because of age, they gave up. Also, I know some of them had
the intention of studying for a doctoral degree and have taken the entrance examination
for it several times without success.‖ Mr. Yin from T University agreed. ―Compared to
lecturers of a younger age, lecturers over 50 have less motivation and confidence to take
the entrance examination for doctor degree especially.‖ Mr. Chan, from S University
mentioned the same issues. ―Many lecturers wanted to get promoted to higher rank, but
age is really a problem for some of them. Older lecturers do not have the energy to study
for a doctoral degree, and they are used to teaching. Also, it is very hard for them to do
research after so many years of teaching.‖
Lecturers from both universities had the same perception as the administrators
that age was a factor in the difficult time lecturers had conducting research and
promoting to higher rank. The lecturers and the administrators perceived that participants
who were over 50 complained the most about their age. Compared to younger faculty
members, they had less stamina and energy to conduct research or study towards a degree
for promotion to higher rank. The majority of the administrators also perceived that
lecturers older than 50 were less motivated to conduct research and seek promotion to
higher rank since they were used to the norms of teaching and did not have the physical
energy and mental ability to do so.
140

Family Responsibility
Family responsibility in the literature review focused on issues of female faculty
members and their ability to care for children, the family, aging parents, and job
selection. However, in the interviews, the lecturers from both institutions and the
administrators from S University perceived that both male and female lecturers
encountered the same issues of family responsibility as they seek promotion to higher
rank.
Family responsibility was found to be significant at both institutions. Twelve of
16 (75%) lecturer participants at T University and 9 out of 16 (56%) at S University felt
family responsibilities affected their conducting research and earning promotion to higher
rank. At T University, Mr. Fu mentioned, ―Both my wife and I worked full time, so we
took turns taking care of the kid when my kid was in preschool. Now, he is older so I
have more time to do my study.‖ Mrs. May said, ―I have two kids and one is now twelve
and the other is ten. I felt much relieved because they are older and now my mother-in
law can help me to take care of them. The after school program driver will take my kids
to grandma’s house and they can eat dinner with grandma.‖ Mr. Jin expressed the same
feelings. ―I have two kids and both of them are in college,‖ he said. ―A few years ago, I
had to help my wife to take care of them. I especially needed to help them with their
homework every day. During that time, I was not able to concentrate on my research. But
now they are very independent so I can pursue higher study.‖ Mr. Wen from T University
lived through the same experience, ―I remember during the time my twins went to
141

preschool, my mom got paralyzed and I had the responsibility of taking care of my
mother. Now, my mother passed away and my twins are going to junior high school. I
can have more time to study towards the doctorate.‖
The lecturers at S University expressed the same concerns as those at T
University. Ms. Hue said, ―Family responsibility is a reason that I did not study further.
I have three kids and now instead of conducting research and getting promoted, I
concentrate on teaching.‖ Mr. Bin added, ―I think whether you are a man or a woman,
you have to take care of your family. I have to take care of my parents and my kids. I also
need to look after my brothers and sisters since I am the eldest.‖ Mr. Chia observed, ―I
have two kids, and I am the only one who can teach them school work. I need to spend
time with them.‖ Ms. Lin added, ―I did not study for a doctoral degree before because
my kids were still young, but now they grew up. One is 18 and the other one is 20, so I
can study for a doctorate.‖ Mr. Chen mentioned that ―studying for a doctoral degree is a
very difficult thing for people who have a family. If the institution allowed full-time
study with monthly pay, it would release a lot of the burden for the lecturers.‖
Family responsibility was not perceived as a significant factor for T University
administrators because only two out of five (40%) administrators mentioned it as an issue
for lecturers’ difficulties in conducting research and being promoted. In contrast, at S
University, family responsibility was a significant factor presented by three out of five
(60%) administrators. The administrators felt that family responsibilities such as taking
care of children could be a burden for both men and women. At T University, Ms. Tie
142

said, ―I think family responsibilities do affect a lecturer’s promotion. I know Mr. X (in
the Department of Industrial Engineering) who passed an entrance examination to study
for a doctoral degree many years ago, but gave up his study because his mother was very
sick and he had twin babies, so he needed to take care of his mother and twin babies.‖ At
S University, Mr. Chang and Mr. Liu voiced similar thoughts. Mr. Chang said,‖ I think
family responsibility can be a factor that affects the lecturer’s promotion to higher rank
for both genders,‖ and Mr. Liu added, ―Family responsibility such as taking care of
children and sick parents are issues for lecturers’ promotion to higher rank.‖
Both the lecturers and the administrators noted two issues about family
responsibility related to taking care of children and taking care of parents. Compared to
the lecturers, family responsibility did not appear as significant for administrators. It was
also found that both male and female lecturer participants for all disciplines said that
family responsibility was an important reason that affects the conduct of research and
promotion to a higher rank. Also, most of the participants at both institutions noted that
they did not pursue a doctoral degree when their children were young. At the time of this
study, their children were older and able to take care of themselves, so the lecturers were
able pursue higher study.

Findings for Sub-Question Two and Four
Sub-Question 2 explored the strategies of the institution that lecturers identified
as helpful in seeking promotion and the extent to which the lecturers placed
143

responsibility on factors outside of their control. An analysis of the findings on the
second part of sub-Question 4 is presented together with sub-question 2, as it is about the
similarities or differences in perceptions of the support strategies between lecturers and
administrators.

Institutional Support Strategies Identified as Helpful
There are three ways for lecturers to obtain a doctoral degree. The first is full-
time study with monthly compensation. The second is full-time study without monthly
compensation. The third is part-time study with monthly compensation (Rules governing
pursuing further education for faculty members, 2007). The amount of subsidy and
support provided by each institution for faculty pursuing further study varies depending
on the rewards and subsidies guidelines of each institution. The third type, part-time
degree study with monthly pay is a popular strategy among the faculty because faculty
can continue to work while getting their monthly compensation. The subsidy varies by
institution.
In order for faculty members to concentrate on their studies, many institutions
have a support policy. For example, Chang Gung Institute of Technology allows their
faculty to teach only the basic course load without participating in any administrative
work or serving as a student mentor (Chang Gung Institute of Technology, 2007).
Faculty members can also choose other schedules for pursuing their degree, such as
weekend classes and summer or winter breaks. The allotted time for degree study varies
by institution from about two to five years.
144

Both institutions studied here had support policies allowing flexible teaching
hours for lecturers pursuing part-time doctoral degree study. Out of 16 participants at
each institution, 14 (88%) participants at T University and 8 (50%) participants in S
University mentioned these support policies.
Both institutions provided subsidies to lecturers studying toward a doctoral degree.
Three lecturers at T University said that the institution provided subsidies of NT$ 30,000
for tuition fees every semester for three years while 10 lecturers from S University
mentioned that institution provided NT$ 20,000 for the first four years doctoral studies.
Most of the participants from both institutions were satisfied with this policy, but one
person from S university hoped that the institution could subsidize tuition longer.
At T University, Mr. Jin was satisfied regarding being able to choose teaching
hours and the stipend for tuition. He mentioned ―time is precious for me going into
further study and the policy of allowing three half-days for lecturers to study towards a
doctoral degree and letting me choose convenient teaching hours is very helpful for me to
earn my degree faster. Also, we receive NT$30,000 every semester to subsidize our
tuition. I think we can receive the subsidies for three years.‖
At S University, Mr. Chen and Mr. Wong had a more critical take on their time
off. Mr. Chen stated, ―We can have two half-days off to study toward our doctorate and
we receive a maximum of NT$ 20,000 every semester for four years. I felt two half-days
is not enough because I come to school four days a week, which is the same as the other
faculty members.‖ Mr. Wong stated he lacked concentrated time for his study and also
145

hoped for more years of tuition stipend. ―Though we can have two days off to study, my
off days are arranged into two different days, so I still have to come to school the same
days as others who are not studying,‖ he said. ―Also, the institution subsidizes our tuition
only for four years. But many lecturers cannot complete their doctoral degree within four
years. I think the institution should subsidize the lecturers longer.‖
Additionally, 3 out of 16 (< 50%) participants from S University mentioned that
the institution provided various other rewards encouraging research such as publishing a
paper on SCI, or publishing a paper at an international conference. S University’s
participants found the reward amount attractive in motivating faculty members to
conduct more research, while no participants at T University mentioned that the
institution’s research rewards were attractive in motivating lecturers to conduct more
research.
Mr. Kun from S University was satisfied with various policies in conducting
research. He stated, ―We get subsidized for attending conferences, presenting papers in
conferences, publishing papers, getting cases of cooperation between the institution and
the private sector and others…I think the institution has attractive policies to motivate the
faculty to conduct more research.‖ Furthermore, 9 out of 16 (56%) participants from
both Universities mentioned that the institutions did not stop the lecturers from
promoting to higher rank. Nevertheless, 5 out of 16 (31%) participants from T University
were afraid that, once the institution reached a high ratio of associate or higher level
professors, the institution would limit the number of lecturers who could promote to
146

higher rank. At S University, Mrs. May noted that ―the institution’s policy is to
encourage more lecturers to promote to higher rank, and I am trying to promote to higher
rank by studying towards a doctoral degree.‖ Mr. Zan from T University feared
restrictions on lecturers’ promoting. He stated, ―So far, the institution does not stop us
from promoting to higher rank, but I am afraid the institution will restrict the lecturers
from promoting if we have too many professors.‖
All the administrators at both Universities mentioned that the institutions have
provided various supportive strategies to help lecturers studying towards a degree.
Examples of supporting policy include allowing lecturers who were studying to have
three half-day leaves at T University and two half-day leaves at S University every five
working days, allowing the lecturers to study and conduct research. Also, the lecturers
received subsidies for registration every semester for three years at T University and four
years at S University as they worked towards a doctoral degree.
Mrs. Tie from T University mentioned the institution provided skill-building
classes for faculty members. She stated that ―for on-the-job faculty members who study
part-time, the institution provides tuition subsidies every semester. The institution also
allows the lecturers to choose convenient teaching hours as a way to accommodate their
studying. The institution also holds skill-building classes to teach faculty members how
to write research papers and how to use SPSS, a statistics method to conduct research.
The institution’s library database has improved a lot and enables the faculty members to
find research data.‖ At S University, Mr. Shu spoke of the way ―our institution always
147

uses rewards to encourage faculty members to conduct research. For example, if you
have the opportunity to participate in an international academic forum to publish your
paper, you get paid for academic presentations (subsidized for air ticket), registration fees
of NT$ 35,000 maximum a year.‖
All the administrators and lecturers at both institutions perceived that the
institutions had provided supportive strategies to help faculty conduct research and
promote to higher rank. Nevertheless, there were different perceptions about the
usefulness of these policies. For example, on the policy of flexible teaching hours, the
lecturers at T University received three half-days off while the lecturers at S University
received two half-days off. Therefore, the lecturers at T University were more satisfied
with their flexible teaching hours than lecturers at S University. Also, both the
administrators and the lecturers at S University emphasized that the institution used
attractive rewards to encourage research among the faculty members. On the other hand,
the administrators and the lecturers from T University did not mention rewards for
conducting research as attractive or motivational. In addition, the administrators from T
University mentioned that the institution held seminars to improve lecturer’s research
skill such as research methodology and application of statistic software to conduct
research. Further, though the lecturers of both institutions perceived the institution did
not prevent them from promoting to higher rank, lecturers at T University were afraid the
institution would limit lectures’ promotion if the institution’s professors grew high in
number.
148

Extent of Lecturers/Administrator Placing Responsibility on External Factors
Though the majority of the participants at T (63%) and S (56%) Universities
perceived a lack of institutional support in terms of library data resources, research
funding to buy research equipment and hire research assistants, all the participants felt
that the lecturers themselves should be most responsible for not promoting to higher rank.
All the lecturers placed more responsibility on personal problems (>50%) than on the
institution in their promotion to higher rank. They felt that their difficulty in conducting
research and promoting to higher rank were more related to family responsibility,
difficulty of work adjustment, barriers of publishing papers in prestigious international
journals and age.
Mr. Jian from the Department of Industrial Engineering and Management at T
University said, ―I think many lecturers have children to take care of. Nevertheless, these
are personal matters and cannot mix with our work. The lecturers themselves should be
responsible for not being able to promote to higher rank.‖ Mr. Chen from S University
added, ―I think the institution is 40% responsible and the lecturer is 60% responsible for
not being able to promote to higher rank. I am over 55 and I have being teaching since I
came to the institution. I felt I do not have a lot of energy to earn a doctoral degree at my
age.‖
Administrators from both institutions felt that lecturers should be mainly
responsible for their success in promoting to higher rank. At T University, one
149

administrator said the lecturers should be 100% responsible, the second one assigned
70% responsibility to the lecturer while the other allotted 90% responsibility to the
lecturer in not promoting to higher rank. Though two administrators from T university
did not assign an exact percentage of responsibility to the lecturer, they also felt that the
lecturers themselves should be mainly responsible (>50%) for their promotion to higher
rank. At S University, the administrator allocated an average of 16% to external factors
such as inadequate research facilities and 84% to the lecturers for the lecturers not being
able to promote to higher rank.
Mr. Yu, from T University said, ―Lecturers’ not promoting to higher rank is
mostly due to either the lecturer having no intention to promote to higher rank or the
lecturer not graduating from the institution where he or she studied toward a doctorate. I
think the lecturers should be about 70% responsible for not being able to promote to
higher rank. Though the reward for conducting research is a small amount, it does not
really affect the intention of promoting to higher rank of a lecturer. Normally, the lecturer
wanting to get promoted to higher rank is more positive and enthusiastic in their attitude
towards preparing for a doctoral degree or writing specialized publications for promoting
to higher rank. They have a career plan for their life. Also, the institution does not restrict
the lecturer from being promoted at present.‖ Mrs. Tie from T University added, ―If the
lecturer is not able to get promoted to higher rank, I think the lecturer has 90%
responsibility. It is the reality that times change rapidly and we have to change fast, too.
Otherwise, we will be eliminated through competition.‖ At S University, Mr. Lin said,
150

―Technology universities are upgraded from a teaching focus to vocational junior
colleges and, though their research facilities has enhanced, they are still not very
adequate especially when compared to public universities. However, I do not think lack
of research equipment is related to a lecturer’s promotion to higher rank. Because the
lecturers who wanted to promote mostly choose to earn a doctoral degree at another
institution which is a mature vocational university with better research equipment and
facilities to carry out research.‖ He felt that it is not necessary to promote all lecturers
because an institution exists for students, not for lecturers’ promotion. He felt that
teaching and research should be mutually inclusive and helping each other. Every student
should benefit from a faculty member’s research because the results can be applied to
teaching and students’ learning processes. If a faculty member’s research or promotion to
higher rank does not connect with their teaching, the student would benefit from the
research.
The administrators from both institutions perceived a higher percentage of
lecturers’ responsibility in their promotion to higher rank as compared to the lecturers.
The administrators at both institutions felt that the success of lecturers’ promotion was
mostly determined by whether the lecturer has the intent and a plan to get promoted to
higher rank regardless of inferior research facilities or equipment. Administrators at both
institutions pointed out that the institutions had various supporting policies and did not
prevent any lecturer from promoting to higher rank. Moreover, the administrators
perceived that lecturers who wanted to promote to higher rank could use the equipment
151

of the institution where they studied towards their doctoral degree to conduct research.
The lecturers at both institutions felt that their difficulty in conducting research and
promoting to higher rank was less related to inadequate research equipment and funding
and more related to personal problems such as family responsibility, barriers in
publishing papers in international journals, age, and difficulty in work adjustment.

152

CHAPTER SIX: Summary of Findings
Introduction
In 1996, the Ministry of Education in Taiwan adopted a new policy to allow
independent technical and vocational junior colleges to become four-year colleges.
Lecturers were the majority in the faculty structure for institutions with vocational junior
college status. In order to strengthen the faculty’s structure and enhance their research
ability, the institution intended to promote lecturers to a higher rank as soon as they
qualified.
According to the MOE’s regulations, the faculty could be promoted to a higher
status by authoring specialized publications; pursuing further study and earning a
doctoral degree; other proof of achievement, or publication in technical reports. Lecturers
were required to adjust their duties, and they also needed to publish papers or pursue a
doctorate to get a promotion to higher rank. Therefore the research question for the study
was: what can we learn from un-promoted lecturers and their administrators about the
lecturers’ experiences with changing work expectations (across teaching, research, and
service) and lecturers’ difficulties with promotion that would help S university, T
University and other institution planning transitions? Table 6.1 demonstrates greater
agreement than disagreement of perceived difficulties between the administrators and
lecturers.

153

Table 6.1: Barriers
Barriers Administrators Lecturers
TU SU TU SU
Inadequate Research
Support
× × ×
Work Adjustment × × ×
Barriers of Publishing on
Prestigious Journal
× × × ×
Difficulty of Using
Authoring Specialized
Publication & Technical
Report to Get a Promotion
× × × ×
Longer Years of Studying a
Doctoral Degree for
Humanities and Social
Science Disciplines
× × × ×
Age × × × ×
Family Responsibility × × ×

The lecturers at both institutions perceived seven significant barriers to promotion
to a higher rank which include: inadequate research support (library databases, research
funding, research assistants); work adjustment issues; barriers to publishing papers in
prestigious journals; difficulty using the authoring of specialized publications and
technical reports to earn promotion; the length of time to doctoral degree completion in
the humanities and social sciences; age; and family responsibility. All administrators
154

interviewed at S University identified all of the same barriers as the lecturers. At T
University, the interviewed administrators mentioned all but inadequate research support
and family responsibility.
While there is much agreement, there is not perfect alignment in the categories
mentioned by lecturers and administrators. The overlap and gaps provide an opportunity
for communication between administrators and lecturers concerning difficulties in
conducting research and promoting to higher rank. The seven perceived barriers and
their resulting challenges are discussed in this section in relation to key points mentioned
in the literature review, such as productivity (Wood, 1990; Gustavo, 2008; Tien, 1994),
marketability (Baldwin & Blackburn, 1981; Wood, 1990; Fairweather, 1993, 1996, &
2002), environment (Blackburn & Lawerence, 1986; Blackburn, Lawerence, Bieber, &
Trautvetter, 1991; Alison & Steward, 1974), intellect (Horner, Rushton, and
Vernon,1986), and family-related variables Kyvik (1990).
The first barrier perceived by both administrators and lecturers is inadequate
research resources. According to Dundar and Lewis (1998), institutional expenditure for
libraries is significantly related to productivity. The findings of Wood (1990) and
Gustavo (2008) also indicate that the availability of funding, equipment, and support of
staff is critical in promoting research performance. Tien’s (1994) study further indicates
that productivity in public institutions in Taiwan is higher than in private institutions due
to better research facilities, funding and availability of research assistants.
155

This study found that, with limited budgets in private vocational higher institutions,
there was a shortage of research resources for lecturers conducting research. As a result,
lecturers use the resources of other institutions. Some respondents conducted research at
the institutions where they pursued higher study. Other respondents stated outside
benefactors provided them with research facilities. There were also perceived differences
in research resources by discipline. Lecturers within management or business disciplines
perceived higher levels of inadequacy in library databases than those in the engineering
disciplines. It was further found that lecturers in the engineering disciplines complained
the most about inadequate research equipment. This is attributable to the fact that, as
compared to management disciplines and non-specialized disciplines (general education
disciplines), the research of engineering disciplines involves larger and more expensive
equipment. With limited budgets, there were difficulties for those in engineering to
purchase more advanced equipment.
Nevertheless, despite the perception of inadequate research equipment for the
engineering disciplines, that discipline was still perceived as being the most market-
oriented compared to the other disciplines (management and general knowledge) and as
having the most opportunity to get funding support from both public and private sources.
This finding supports Chen’s study in 2004, which found that university research that is
related to the latest trends, such as biotechnology, is supported by the government and
industry and receives more grants and funding. On the other hand, studies in the
humanities and social sciences are not directly related to economic productivity and are
156

considered to have less market value, so are at a disadvantage in obtaining monetary
support.
The second barrier related to work adjustment. The lecturers at both institutions and
the administrators at T University mentioned this issue, especially for lecturers who had
administrative responsibilities. The respondents felt they had limited time and energy,
which made it difficult for them to be effective in teaching, research and service. This
result is similar to findings by Baldwin and Blackburn (1981), Wood (1990), and
Fairweather (1993, 1996, & 2002). All found that sustaining balanced productivity
among teaching, research and service is difficult. On the other hand the findings of this
study contradict what Marsh and Hattie (2002) and Teodorescu (2000) found – that
devoting time to teaching did not hinder faculty from becoming research productive.
Results from this study indicated that lecturers felt administrative responsibilities
occupied much of their time and made it difficult for them to concentrate on their studies
or research. Wood (1990) also found that, due to immediacy of teaching and
administration, faculty members can conduct research only during the time left.
The difficulty surrounding lecturers’ work adjustment appears due to lack of
research training or research skills. They reported difficulty in publishing papers in
prestigious international journals, authoring specialized publications or completing their
degrees to get promoted to a higher rank. From the sociological approach, various
scholars (Blackburn & Lawerence, 1986; Blackburn, Lawerence, Bieber, & Trautvetter,
1991; Alison & Steward, 1974) conclude that the impact of the environment (i.e., cohort,
157

norms, and other external forces) determine human behavior. When lecturers entered
their institutions, these were vocational junior colleges and their job consisted of teaching
and service. The faculty were socialized to value activities related only to teaching early
in their career and the attractiveness of these activities continued over the course of their
career.
The third and fourth barriers presented encompass the difficulty of publishing. Both
lecturers and administrators perceived that it was more difficult to have specialized
papers in the management disciplines accepted by SSCI than it was for those in the
engineering disciplines to be accepted by EI or SCI. This difficulty was compounded by
the fact that they had trouble writing in English. Along similar lines, lecturers and
administrators noted the sixth barrier as difficulty in using the authoring of specialized
publications and technical reports to earn promotion. This difficulty was attributed to the
unclear expectations of MOE.
The fifth obstacle discussed was the length of time involved in earning a
doctorate. Both the lecturers and the administrators perceived that doctorates offered in
the humanities and social sciences required a higher number of years of study than those
in specialized disciplines.
The sixth barrier discussed by respondents was age. Lecturers over 50 from both
institutions complained most about their age. They felt their brains could not remember
as many things as before and their physical condition did not allow them to tolerate long
hours of research or study. Also, because they were close to retirement age, they felt they
158

had less motivation to pursue higher study. This finding matches those of Horner,
Rushton, and Vernon (1986) which found that intellectual power peaks at an early age
and deteriorates thereafter.
For the seventh barrier of family responsibility, this study found that female and
male lecturers at both institutions perceived that family responsibility such as taking care
of children (especially younger children in primary education) and sick parents are the
difficulties they encountered in their seeking of promotion to higher rank. Due to the
small number of female participants, this study does not offer enough evidence to draw
conclusions regarding women’s views in relation to those of men. The results of this
study in this area matched the findings of Kyvik (1990) in Norway who found women
with small children under ten have lower research productivity than men. These findings
contradict those of Sax, Hagedorn, Arredondo and Dicrisi (2002) who found little or no
effect of family related variables, such as marriage, children and aging parents, on
research productivity. The results of the study were also different from Hamovitch’s and
Morgenstern’s (1977) and Zukerman’s and Cole’s (1987) studies, which did not show a
significant relationship between child rearing and research output for women.

Recommendations for Policy
Policy recommendations will address the barriers which can be more readily
addressed by the institutions; difficulties in conducting and publishing research and the
length of time and effort involved in seeking a doctoral degree.
159

There are three recommendations to improve the problem of inadequate research
resources and help provide lecturers more opportunity to conduct research. First, the
institution with limited resources must develop major research goals to focus on. Then,
the institution can form a research team headed by professors who are experienced in
conducting research, skillful in writing research proposals and in obtaining research
grants from the public or private sectors. The head of the team can be in charge of
integrating human and funding resources from various disciplines and leading the
interdisciplinary team to conduct research according to the development goals of the
institution. The professors’ graduate students can serve as be research assistants, so the
lecturers do not have to worry about lacking assistance during research. The results of
this research can then be used by lecturers to write specialized papers and earn a
promotion to higher rank.
Secondly, for disciplines where funding is not readily available, the institution can
provide funding to faculty members whose research proposals may not qualify for grants
from other external sectors but do match the research development goals of institution.
Third, the institution can partner with the private sector or with other institutions to
borrow or rent research equipment. Lecturers can also join the research projects of other
institutions if s/he finds common interests and suitable research facilities outside of
her/his home institution. The benefit to private enterprises which provide the institutions
with research equipment is that the institution can help them to develop new products or
technology. Moreover, since the institution is vocational based, the institution can
160

encourage faculty to conduct more practical application-based research, which is less
expensive that theory-oriented research.
In terms of the issues involved in publishing and the differing time periods involved
in earning a doctorate, one recommendation is to invite professors and promoted lecturers
of various disciplines (inside and outside of the institution) to hold a conference each
semester. At this event the invited professors and the promoted lecturers can provide
their successful experience in promoting to higher rank. They can give useful advice and
information to un-promoted lecturers. After the event, lecturers can be invited to keep in
touch with these professors and promoted lecturers for further consultation.
For those seeking a doctorate degree, time management was a major problem,
especially for lecturers who held administrative jobs. It is recommended that the
institution consider not arranging administrative jobs for lecturers pursuing doctoral
degrees or seeking promotion to higher rank through other means until their pursuit is
complete.
Recommendations for Research
In this study, although family responsibility was perceived by both male and female
lecturers as a significant factor in their difficulty seeking promotion to higher rank, this
study found that, compared to men, women had a lower promotion rate at both
institutions. The result of the lower promotion rate of women was consistent with many
US studies (Fulton, 1974; Black, Behymer & Hall, 1978; Kyvik, 1990, Blentley &
Adamson, 2003) that found men publish more than women. This study’s statistics further
161

showed the majority of female lecturers belong to general education disciplines
(humanities and social sciences). It remains unclear whether the lower promotion rates of
women at both institution was due to interests, attitudes and values which differ from
those of men, to increased family responsibilities, or to the possibility that women in the
general knowledge, humanities and social science disciplines have less pressure or less
motivation to earn promotion to higher rank as compared to women or men in other
disciplines. It is worth further investigation to explore the reasons for lower promotion
rates among women at these two institutions and other vocational higher institutions.

Conclusion
In this study, seven issues were perceived as hindering lecturer promotion to a
higher rank. In addition, all lectures and administrators at both institutions felt that
lecturers should be responsible for the success of their own promotion to higher rank
because their institutions have policies in place to encourage lecturers to promote and do
not prevent lecturers from promoting to higher rank. The lecturers at both institutions felt
that their difficulties in promoting to higher rank were less related to external problems
such as lack of research equipment or funding and more related to personal problems
such as family responsibility and age. Though both the administrators and the lecturers
perceived lecturer’s barrier to promotion as more related to personal problems, there are
still some improvements the institutions can make to increase the promotion rates of all
lecturers. The recommendations provided in this study can not only be helpful in
162

improving lecturers’ promotion rates but can also enhance mutual understanding between
institutions and lecturers.

163

References
Amey, M.J. (1992) Faculty Rewards and Incentives in Higher Education. In Burton R.
Clark and Guy R. Neave (Ed.s) The Encyclopedia of Higher Education. Vol.3 p.
1623-1634. New York: Pergamon Press.
Allison, P.D. and Stewart, J.A. (August 1974). Productivity differences among
scientists: Evidence for accumulative advantages. America Sociological Review
39(4):596-606.
Altbach, P.G. & Finkelstein, M.J. (1997) The Academic Profession: The professoriate in
Crisis Garland Publishing, Inc. New York & London
Antoney, James Soto & Raveling, Joyce S. (1998, July). A comparative Analysis of
Tenure and Faculty productivity: Moving Beyond Traditional Approaches. ASHE
Annual Meeting Paper p.6-10.
Baldwin, R.G., and Blackburn R.T. (1981). The academic career as a developmental
process: Implications for higher education. Journal of Higher Education 52:598-
614.
Barbezat,D.A. (2006). Gender Differences in Research Patterns Among PhD
Economists. The Journal of Economic Education. 37(3): 359-75.
Bentley, J.T., Adamson, R. (2003). Gender difference in the careers of academic
scientists and engineers: A literature review. Special Report. National Science
Foundation.
Biglan, A. (1973). Relationships between subject matter characteristics and the structure
and output of university departments. Journal of Applied Psychology. 57: 204-
213.
Black, R. T., Bieber, J. P., Lawrence, J.H., & Trautvetter, L.C. (1991). Faculty at work:
Focus on research, scholastic, and service. Research in Higher Education, 32(4),
385-413.
Blackburn, R.T. & Lawrence, J.H. (1995). Faculty at Work: Motivation, Expectation,
Satisfaction. Maryland: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
Blackburn, R.T. and Lawerence, J.H. (Fall 1986). Aging and the quality of faculty job
performance. Review of Educational Research. 23(3):265-290.
Blackburn, R.T., Behymer, C.E. and Hall, D.E. (April 1978). Research note: Correlates
of faculty publications. Sociology of Education 51(2):132-141.
164

Boyer, Ernest (1990). Scholarship Reconsidered: Priorities of the Professorate.
Princeton, NY: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.
Brubacher, J.S. & Rudy, W. (1997). Higher Education in Transition: A History of
American Colleges and University. (4
th
Ed.). New Jersey: Transaction Publishers.
Carnegie Foundation. (1987). A Classification of institutions of higher education: with a
foreword by Earnest L. Boyer. Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of
Teaching.
Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching (Mar,1990). Are liberal arts
colleges really different? Change 22(2): 41-44.
Clark, Burton R. (1983). The higher education system: academic organization in cross-
national perspective. University of California Press. Berkely and Los Angeles,
California.
Clark, Burton R. (1987). The academic life: small worlds, different worlds. The
Carnegie foundation for the advancement of teaching. New Jersey: Princeton.
Clark, Burton R. (2001). Small worlds, different worlds: the Uniquenesses and troubles
of American academic professions. In Stephen R. Graubard Ed. The American
Academic Profession. New Jersey: Transaction Publishers.
Clark, M. J. & Centra (1985). Influence on the career accomplishments of Ph.D.s
Research in Higher Education, 23(3), 256-269.
Clemente, Frank. 1973. Early Career Determinants of Research Productivity. American
Journal of Sociology vol.79 no.2: 409-419.
Colbeck, C. (April, 1997). The main reciprocal of teaching load: Faculty use of
research time. Paper presented at the annual meeting of American Educational
Research Association, Chicago.
Colbeck, L. Carol (1998) Merging in a Seamless Blend: How faculty integrate teaching
and research. The journal of Higher education, vol.69, No.6
(November/December 1998), 647-671.
Colbeck, L. Carol (2002). State Policies to Improve Undergraduate Teaching:
Administrator and Faculty Responses. The Journal of higher Education,
vol:73(1), 3-25.
Cole, J. R. and Zuckerman, H. (1987). Marriage, motherhood, and research performance
in science. Scientific American, 256(2):119-125.
165

Creswell, J. W. (2003).Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods
Approaches. (2

nd Eds.) Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Dundar, H., and Lewis, D. R. (1998). Determinants of research productivity in higher
education. Research in Higher Education 39(6): 607-629.
Fairtweather, James Steven (2005) trends in the Relative Value of Teaching and
Research in Faculty salaries. The journal of higher education, vol. 76, no. 4. (Jul-
Aug., 2005), pp. 401-422
Fairweather, J.S. (1993). Faculty reward structures: Toward institutional professional
homogenization. Research in Higher Education, 34(5), 603-623.
Fairweather, J.S. (1996). Public Work and Public Trust: Restoring the Value of
Teaching and Public Service in American Academic Life. Massachusetts: Allyn
and Bacon.
Fairweather, J.S. (1999). The highly productive faculty member. In W.G. Tierney (Ed.),
Faculty Productivity: Facts, Fictions, and Issues. pp 55- 98. New York: Falmer
Press.
Fairweather, J.S. & Rhoads, R.A. (1995). Teaching and the Faculty Role: Enhancing the
Commitment to Instruction in American Colleges and Universities. Educational
Evaluation and Policy Analysis. 17:179-194.
Fairweather,J.S.(2002). Faculty Productivity. In James JF Forest and Kevin Kinser
(Ed.s) Higher Education in the United States: An Encyclopedia. Vol.1. p. 214-
225. California: ABC-CLIO, Inc.
Fairweather, J.S. (2002a). The mythologies of faculty productivity: Implication for
institutional policy and decision making. The Journal of Higher Education
73(1):26-48.
Fairweather, J.S. (2005). Beyond the rhetoric: Trends in the relative value of teaching
and research in faculty salaries. The Journal of Higher Education 76(4):401-422.
Finkelstein, M.J. (1984). The American Academic Profession: A Synthesis of the Social
scientific Inquiry Since World War II. Columbus: Ohio State University Press.
Fox, M.F. (2005). Gender, Family, Characteristics, and Publication Productivity among
Scientifics. Social Studies of Sciences 35(1):131-150.
Fulton, O., and Trow, M. ―Research Activity in American Higher Education.‖ Sociology
of Education, 47 (winter 1974), 29-73.
166

Gilmore, J. & To, D. (1992). Evaluating academic productivity and quality. In C.
Hollins (Ed.), Containing Costs and Improving Productivity in Higher Education.
New Directions for Institutional Research Report No. 75, pp. 35-47. SF: Jossey-
Bass.
Glassick, C.E., Huber, M.T., and Maeroff, A.G. (1997). Scholarship Assessed:
Evaluation of The Professoriate. An Ernest Boyer Project of The Carnegie
Foundation for The Advancement of Teaching. SF: Jossey-Bass
Gregorutti, G. (2008). A Mixed-Method Study of the Environmental and Personal
Factors That Influence Faculty research Productivity at Small-Medium, Private,
Doctorate-Granting Universities. Unpublished Dissertation. Andrews University.
Hamovitch, W. and Morgenstern, R.D. ( 1977). Children and productivity of academic
women. The Journal of Higher education. 48(6):633-645.
Hattie, J. & Marsh, H. W. (1996). The relationship between research and teaching: a
meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 66, pp. 507-542.
Hopkins, David. (1990). The higher education production function: Theoretical
foundations and empirical findings. In S. Hoenack and E. Collins (Eds.), The
Economics of American Universities, (pp. 11-32). Albany, NY: State University
of New York Press.
Horner, K.L., Rusthton, J.P., and Vernon, P.A. (1986). Relationship between aging and
research productivity of academic psychologists. Psychology and Aging 1(4):319-
324.
Jencks, C., & Riseman, D. (1968). The academic revolution. Garden City, NY:
Katz, D. & Kahn R. L. (1966). The Social Psychology of Organization. Wiley: New
York.
Kezar, A. (2000). Eric trends 1999-2000: Faculty. Eric Clearinghouse on Higher
Education. The George Washington University.
Kolpin, V.W. and Singell, Jr. L.D. ( April 1996). The gender composition and scholarly
performance of economics departments: A test for employment discrimination.
Industrial and Labor Relations Review. 49(3): 408-423.
Kyvik, S. (1990) Motherhood and scientific productivity. Social Studies of Science.
20(1):149-160.
167

Lawrence, J.H. & Blackburn, R.T. (1985). Faculty careers: maturation, demographic,
and historical effects. Research in Higher Education, 22(2), pp. 135-154.
Lawrence, J.H. & Blackburn, R.T. (1988). Age as a predictor of faculty productivity:
Three conceptual approaches. Journal of Higher Education, 59 (1), pp. 22-38.
Layzell, D.T. (1999). Higher education’s changing environment: faculty productivity
and the reward structure. In W.G. Tierney (Ed.), Faculty Productivity: Facts,
Fictions, and Issues (pp ?-?). New York: Falmer Press.
Leslie, D. (2002). Resolving the dispute: Teaching is academic’s core value. The journal
of Higher Education, 73 (1): 29-73.
Levin, S.G. and Stephan, P.E. (1989). Age and research productivity of academic
scientists. Research in Higher Education 30(5): 531-547.
Lin, Teng Jiao (2004). Development of Distinguishing Features of Higher Technological
and Vocational Education. Technological and Vocational Education. ( 83): 40-46.
Liu, H. F. (2000). A Study of the Faculty Qualification Assessment in Taiwan.
Dissertation. National Political University. Taiwan.
Lodahl, J.B. & Gordon, G. (1972). The structure of scientific fields and the functioning
of Unversity graduate department. American Sociological Review, 37, 57-72.
Long, J.S. (1978, December). Productivity and academic position in the scientific
career. American Sociological Review, 43, 889-908.
Long, J.S., & McGinnis, R. (1981). Organizational context and scientific productivity.
American Sociological Review, 46, 422-442.
Lucas, C. (1994). America Higher Education: A History. New York: St Martin’s Press.
Maslow, Abraham H. (1954). Motivation and Personality. (1
st
Ed.) New York: Harper.
Mc Keachie, W. J. (1979). What motivates faculty behavior? In D.L. Lewis & W.E.
Becker (Eds.) Academic Rewards in Higher Education. Pp. 1-20. Cambridge,
MA: Ballinger.
Oromaner, M.J. (1981). The quality of scientific Scholarship and the ―graying‖ of the
academic profession: A skeptical view. Research in Higher Education,15, 231-
239.
168

Over, R. (September, 1982). Does research productivity decline with age? Higher
education. 11(5):511-520.
Reskin, B. (1977). Scientific productivity and the reward structure of science. American
Sociological Review. 42(3): 491-504
Reynold, A. (1992). Charting the changes in junior faculty: Relationships among
socialization, acculturation, and gender. Journal of Higher Education. 63: 637-
652.
Rodgers, Robert & Podgers Nanette. (1999). The Sacred Spark of Academic Research.
Journal of Publication Administration Research and Theory. Vol.9(3):473-492.
Sax, L. J., Hagedorn, L. S., Arredondo, M. & Dicrisi, F. A. (2002). Faculty research
productivity: Exploring the role of gender and family-related factors. Research in
Higher Education, 43(4), 423-445.
Smart, J.C., & Elton, C. F. (1975). Goal orientations of academic departments: A test of
Biglan’s model. Journal of Applied Psychology. 60, 580-588.
Soldofsky, R.M. (1984). Age and study of university faculties: a case study. Economic
of education review, 3 (4):289-298.
Sutton, T. P. and Bergerson, P.J. (2001). Faculty Compensation Systems: Impact on The
Quality of Higher Education. Eric Digest. ERIC Development Team. Source: Eric
Clearinghouse on Higher Education Washington DC.
Teodorescu, D. (2000). Correlates of faculty publication productivity: A cross-national
analysis. Higher Education, 39 (2), 201-222.
Tien, F.F. (1994). Promotion, Motivation, and Faculty Research Productivity: Theory
Testing and Model Construction for a Taiwan Setting. Unpublished Dissertation.
University of Michigan.
Tien, F.F. and Blackburn, R.T. (1996). Faculty rank system, research motivation, and
Faculty research productivity: Measure refinement and theory testing. The
Journal of Higher Education. 67 (1): 2-22.
Tien, F.F., and Blackburn, R. T. (1996). Faculty rank system, research motivation, and
faculty research productivity. Journal of Higher education, 67 (1): 2-22.
Tien, F.F. (2000). To what degree does the desire for promotion motivate faulty to
perform research? Testing the expectancy theory. Research in Higher Education,
41(6), 723-752.
169

Tuckmam, H.P. (1976). Publication, Teaching, and The Academic Reward Structure.
Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
Wanner, R.A., Lewis, L.S., and Gregorio, D.I. (October 1981). Research productivity in
Academia: A comparative study of the sciences, social sciences and humanities.
Sociology of Education. 54 (4): 238-253.
Wood, F. (1990). Factors influencing research performance of university academic staff.
Higher Education, 19(1):81-100.

170

References (Chinese Bibliography)
Chang Gung Institute of Technology (2007). Rules Governing Pursuing Further
Education for Full Time Faculty Members of Chang Gung Institute of
Technology. Taiwan. Retrieved from: http://www.cgit.edu.tw/law/documents/
PF013.pdf
Chen, B. Z. (2004). Reflection on academic evaluation system for academic disciplines
of higher education under the influence of globalized academic capitalism in
Taiwan. Paper presented at Conference: Self-Examination of Academic
Evaluation in Higher Education for Humanities and Social Sciences in Taiwan.
Retrieved on May, 2007, from:http://www.cul-studies.com/Article/education/
200607/4158.html
Chen, S.C. (2002). The Perceptions of faculty member of vocational higher institutions-
A case study of upgraded vocational higher institution. Public Educational
Informational Quarterly. 6 (4): 8-15.
Du, Z. S. (2007). Practical and useful-cultivating human resources for industries.
Technological and Vocational Educational Newsletter (MOE). December, 176: 1-
4.
Fann, H.F., Liang, C. S., and Wu, M.C. (2006). The study of Taiwan Ministry of
Education holistic development Subsidies to private technology and vocational
colleges and universities. Education Policy Forum. 9(2): 78-100.
Fu, B. Z. (2003). Study of the Distribution of academic research funding- A case study
on National Science Council (NSC) research funding. Paper presented at
International Conference: The Development of Higher Education in the 21th
Century In Celebrating of the 75th Anniversary of National Taiwan University.
Hone (2005). The study of factors affecting industry- academy cooperation between
vocational higher institutions and enterprises. Unpublished Thesis. National
Chengchi University. Taiwan.
Hou,Y. Q. (2005). Comparison of tenure and promotion system between the United
States and Taiwan. Journal of Education Research. 137: 56-79.
Legislative Yuan Gazette (1995). 85 (54):473. Taiwan.
Lee, Y.Y. (2000). In-service training and professional development of the technical
college teachers in Taiwan. National Chengchi University. Unpublished
Dissertation. Taiwan.
171

Lin, D. S. (2003). Analysis of the Transformation of Vocational Higher Institutions from
the Sociological Perspective. Chiayi: Institute Of Sociology of Education &
Institution of Sociology. Nan-Hua University.
Liu, X. F. (2000). A Study of the faculty qualification assessment in Taiwan.
Unpublished Dissertation. National Chengchi University. Taiwan.
Lyua, N. M. (2002). The exploring of professional development of teaching in
vocational higher institution. Technological and Vocational Education Bimonthly.
68: 38-45. March.
Minghsin Unversity of Science and Technology (2007).
Ministry of Education (2001). White Paper on Higher Education. Taipei, Taiwan.
Ministry of Education (2007). Regulations Governing the Screening of Qualification on
Teachers of Junior Colleges and Higher level. Council of Academic Review and
Evaluation. Taiwan.
Ministry of Education ( 2007a) Distribution of Academic Level of Full- Time Faculty
Members in Higher Education Institutions for School Year-2006-2007.
Department of Statistics. Department of Statistics. Taiwan.
Ministry of Education (2002). White Paper on Vocational Higher Education.
Ministry of Education (2005). Education in The Republic of China. 3
rd
Ed. Department
of Statistic. Taipei: Ministry of Education.
Ministry of Education (2006a). Operational Manual for The Plan of 2006-2007
Academic Year: Plan for Teaching Excellence Award.Taipei: Ministry of
Education. Taiwan.
Ministry of Education (2008). Application Criteria of Holistic Development Subsidies
for Private Vocational Higher Institutions. Taiwan
Ministry of Education (2008). Distribution of Academic Level of Full- Time Faculty
Members in Higher Education Institutions for School Year-2007-2008.
Department of Statistics. Taiwan. Retrieved from: http://www.edu.tw/statistics/
content.aspx?site_content_sn=11519
Ministry of Education (2006). Implementation Principals for guiding vocational higher
institutions to improve faculty Member quality by the ministry of education.
Taiwan. Retrieved on: Dec. 22, 2007, from http://old.npf.org.tw/PUBLICATION
/EC/092/EC-R-092-008.htm
172

Southern Taiwan Technical University (2006).Rules Governing pursuing further
education for full time faculty members of Chang Gung Institute of Technology.
Taiwan.
Shu, M. Z.( 2003). The reform and innovation of higher education in the times of
globalization. National Policy Forum. April: 258-267.
Shu, M.Z. (2003). The reform and Innovation of Higher Education in Taiwan in the
Times of Globalization. NPF (National Policy Foundation Research Report).
May,5:140. Chengchi University. Taiwan.
Tseng, K.H. & Ho, R.L. (2003). To solve the difficulties of recruiting students in private
institutes of technology. Education Research Information Journal. 11(3): 87-109.
Zhen, M. H. (2007). Evaluation of Technical and Vocational Higher Institutions-The
Cooperation Between Industry and Institution should be More Important Than
Research Performance. 5: January, 2007, 52-54.

173

Appendices
Appendix A: Sub-Research Question and Interview Protocol Correlation Grid
Lecturers

General Information
1. How long have you been working here?
2. How have the expectations for how many courses
you teach in a week changed over time?
3. How old are you? How many children do you
have? How old are they? (if any)?
Sub Research Question: What challenges/barriers do un-promoted
lecturers identify to seeking promotion?

Change of Work:

1. When the institution was a junior college, what
type of work was expected from you?
2. After the institution was promoted to a
technological college and later to a technological
university, what changes or adjustments in the
type of work you were expected to do? How did
you learn about/hear about the new expectations?
3. Assuming the time given for a week is 100%, how
would you divide your time at work when the
institution was still a junior college?
4. How did you divide your time after the institution
was promoted to technological college? And now
as a technological university?

Promotion Status

1. What are the criteria for getting promoted to the
next rank (for you)?
2. Are you preparing for promotion at the present
time?
3. In what ways do you pursue promotion (E.g.:
conducting research and publishing papers)?
How many years have you spent preparing for
promotion? When do you expect to finish your
study for promotion?
4. How many years have you spent preparing for
promotion? When do you expect to finish your
study for promotion?
174

Difficulties in Promotion
1. How has the transition been for you? What are the
difficulties?
2. What is the best thing about it? What is the
hardest thing about it?

Sub Research Question: What strategies of the institutions do they
identify as helpful? To what extent do lecturers place the responsibility
on external factors outside of their control?

Support and Help
1. How did you handle challenges in seeking
promotion?
2. What resources or strategies have been most
helpful to you so far in your experience of
preparing for promotion?
3. What institutional strategy/ support (if any) have
you found helpful or discouraging in seeking
promotion?
4. What would you have liked for the institution to
do that would have helped you?

Administrators
Sub Research Question: What do administrators perceive as the reasons
for the barriers of un-promoted lecturers seeking promotion?

General Information
1. How long have you been working here?
2. How long have you been with the department?
3. How long have you been the head of the
department?

Change of Work
1. When the institution was a junior college, what
type of work was expected from the institution?
2. After the institution was promoted to a
technological college and later to a technological
university, what changes or adjustment in the
type of work the lecturers were expected to do?
(if any among teaching, research, and service)?
How did the lecturers learn about/hear about the
new expectations ?
3. Assuming the time given for a week is 100%,
how would the institution expect the faculty to
divide their time at work when the institution was
still a junior college?
4. How did the institution expect the faculty to
175

divide their time at work after the institution was
promoted to a technological college? And now as
a technological university?

Difficulties in Promotion
1. How has the transition been for faculty in seeking
promotion to a higher rank? What are the
difficulties?

Support and Help
1. What institutional strategy /support has the
institution provided to help the faculty in seeking
promotion?
2. What institutional policies might discourage faculty
in seeking promotion?
3. What else might the institution do the help more
faculty become successfully promoted?
4. Given the number of faculty who are not yet
promoted, divide 100% of the responsibility for this
situation between the faculty member and the
institution. (are there other contributors that we
should consider that I have not mentioned?)

176

Appendix B: Lecturer Experienced Barriers in Promoting to a Higher Rank
Work
Change

Promotion
Status

Promotion to a
higher rank

Support and
Help

Perceptions of Lecturers

Perceptions of
Administrators

177

Appendix C: Interview Protocol and Literature Review Correlation

Interview Protocol - General Information

Expanding of Institutional Mission from teaching to both teaching and research
Lee( 2000), Tien (1994)

Age
Black & Lawerence (1995), Horner, Rushton, & Vernon (1986), Baldwin &
Blackburn (1981), Blackburn, Bieber, Lawerence, & Trautvetter (1991), Fulton
& Trow (1974), Levin and Stephan (1989), Teodorcscu (2000)

Low productivity of Women: No old boys’ network/job selection/ marriage/
children
Clemente (1973), Kyvik (1990), Hamovitch & Morgenstern (1977), Zukerman
& Cole (1987), Sax, Hagedorn, Arredondo, & Dicrisi (2002)

Interview Protocol – Change of Work

Expanding of Institutional Mission from teaching to both teaching and research
Lee( 2000), Tien (1994)

Institutional Communication of expectation
Blackburn and Lawerence (1995)

Interview Protocol – Promotion Status
Reward System Promotion Criteria
The Statue Governing the Appointment of Educators; The Regulation
Governing the Screening of Qualification on Teachers of Junior Colleges and
Higher Levels

Institutional Support
Dundar and Lewis (1998), Blackburn and Lawerence (1995), Baldwin and
Blackburn (1981),

Different Disciplinary Characteristics
178

Tien (2000) -Wanner, Lewis, & Gregorio (1981), Dundar &Lewis (1998),
Biglan (1973), Lodahl &Gorden (1972)

Intrinsic Vs extrinsic motivation
Finkelstein (1984), Allison & Stewart (1974), Horner, Rushton, & Veron
(1986), Blackburn & Lawerence (1995), Fairweather (1999)

Unproductive in both teaching and research
Baldwin and Blackburn (1981), Fairweather (1999), Wood (1990), Hopknis
(1990), Colbeck (1997), Teodorescu (2000)

Interview Protocol – Difficulties in Promotion
Gender
Fulton (1974), Blackburn, Behymer, & Hall (1978), Cole & Zuckerman (1984),
Kyvic (1990), Bentley & Adamson (2003), Blackburn, Bieber, Lawerence, &
Trautvetter (1991), Teodorescu (2000), Clemente (1973), Koplin & Singell
(1996)

Low productivity of Women: No old boys’ network/job selection/ marriage/
children
Clemente (1973), Kyvik (1990), Hamovitch & Morgenstern (1977), Zukerman
& Cole (1987), Sex, Hagedorn, Arredondo, & Dicrisi (2002)

Age
Black & Lawerence (1995), Horner, Rushton, & Vernon (1986), Baldwin &
Blackburn (1981), Blackburn, Bieber, Lawerence, & Trautvetter (1991), Fulton
& Trow (1974), Levin and Stephan (1989), Teodorcscu (2000); Over (1982),
Sax, Hagedorn, Arredondo, & Dicrisi (2002)

Relationship between duration of stay in one rank and desire to be promoted
Tien & Blackburn (1996)

Abstract (if available)

Abstract In 1996, the Ministry of Education in Taiwan adopted a policy to allow technical and vocational junior colleges to become four-year colleges. In order to strengthen the faculty’s structure, the institutions expected the lecturers to seek and earn promotion to higher rank as soon as possible. After a decade, there were still a great number of lecturers who remained at the same rank. This study aimed to learn from un-promoted lecturers and their administrators about the lecturer’s experiences with changing work expectation and the lecturer’s difficulties with promotion. In-depth qualitative interviews were conducted with 32 lecturers and 10 administrators at two private upgraded vocational higher institutions.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

The perceptions of faculty and administrators of remedial mathematics education in two higher education institutions

PDF

Comparing the effectiveness of online and face-to-face classes among California community college students

PDF

Presidential perceptions and responses to threats to the viability of private, non-profit, rural-serving institutions (RSIs)

PDF

The Relationship Between Institutional Marketing and Communications and Black Student Intent to Persist in Private Universities

Asset Metadata

Creator Chiang, Nan Nan (author)

Core Title Perception of barriers: the experiences of lecturers in adapting to changing institutional expectations in upgraded private technological university in Taiwan

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 02/15/2011

Defense Date 12/20/2010

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag adapting to changes,barriers of promotion to higher rank,OAI-PMH Harvest,research productivity,technological and vocational higher education in Taiwan

Place Name China (countries), Taiwan (states)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Sundt, Melora A. (committee chair), Baca, Reynaldo R. (committee member), Hentschke, Guilbert C. (committee member)

Creator Email nanchiang@ymail.com,nnc@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m3662

Unique identifier UC1385674

Identifier etd-Chiang-4283 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-434875 (legacy record id),usctheses-m3662 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-Chiang-4283.pdf

Dmrecord 434875

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Chiang, Nan Nan

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Repository Name Libraries, University of Southern California

Repository Location Los Angeles, California

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu